The Failure of the 28-Point Peace Initiative for Ukraine: How Peace Negotiations Continue to Falter

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis caused by the introduction of a new 28-point plan for achieving ceasefire appeared – briefly – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its retaliation: another massive barrage of missile and drone strikes on Kyiv.

The Pattern of Peace Talks and Military Action

The sequence of conflicting incidents captured the harsh reality of the outgoing year. By day, political struggles are conducted: hopeful statements are released from multiple capitals. Immense energy is allocated on containing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership forcefully demonstrates the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "peace".

Nighttime Reality

As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the present situation of Ukraine's exposure was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from Russian territory, a capacity afforded by current data. From observation points, military aircraft that had been dispatched to intercept incoming aerial threats roared overhead – advanced fighter aircraft delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.

Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: several firings targeted at a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably supplied through partner states. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly transforms into resigned acknowledgment: possibly the hostile projectile won't strike its target this time, sparing the city from devastation and another blackout.

Ongoing Risks

Soon after, a large-caliber weapon engaged a drone somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – almost certainly imported technology. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the enemy aircraft – it maintained course toward its target.

Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the early updates: several casualties, devastation and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the night's assault. As always, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those full day demonstrated Ukraine's essential dependence on Western support – a dependence that neighboring countries are clearly incapable to fill in the immediate future.

Failed Diplomacy

The detailed framework from US administration provoked deep reactions, debate and serious worry – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's most significant graft case in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after earlier high-level meetings and international summits.

Every new initiative from Washington follows the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This pattern will, certainly, persist.

Political Considerations

It is convenient to criticize specific actors of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington functions according to a principle well known to international relations experts: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House assumes that it is unrealistic to compel Moscow to relinquish the land that it currently occupies in Ukraine's south or east.

The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, Washington does little to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from thinking that the status quo will not shift further in its advantage in the months ahead.

Divergent Views

Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their incentive to accept conditions that does not give them the maximum possible gain is virtually nonexistent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the result.

On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still endure, gradually sacrificing people and territory but avoiding a complete military breakdown until situations evolve in its benefit.

Current Realities

Objectively, there are no actual prerequisites for a armistice. Now, subjective factors are becoming relevant: political desires to mediate resolution and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and Kyiv's twin challenges – on one hand, not to estrange crucial supporters, and on the other, to unite the population around the national cause against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be much harder after recent developments, it remains highly unlikely that this will alter their fundamental strategy.

These opposing factors are driving the talks.

Assessment and Future

It took a only one week to terminate the 28 points of the latest plan. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.

While new proposals based on established approaches are imminent, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to counter political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and reflect specific hesitation to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to overcome them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to defend against evening bombardments will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on continued Western support.