The Failure of the 28-Clause Peace Initiative for Ukraine: Why Peace Negotiations Continue to Stumble

Europe felt a moment of respite on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – momentarily – to have been defused. A American diplomat spoke of "substantial progress" after diplomatic discussions in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: another massive barrage of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Negotiation and Warfare

The chain of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, diplomatic battles are conducted: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Immense energy is devoted on managing specific proposals. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the key method for achieving "peace".

After-Dark Attacks

As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's defenselessness was revealed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from enemy soil, a ability afforded by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been deployed to engage hostile guided weapons flew past – sophisticated military planes delivered to Ukraine by NATO members.

Moments later, Kyiv's missile defense activated: multiple launches deployed against a hostile projectile. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, presumably supplied through partner states. Every deployment shakes the surroundings, shaking the windows. The instant of fear quickly transforms into grim resignation: perhaps the hostile projectile won't cause damage this time, sparing the city from ruin and further power outages.

Persistent Threats

Following this, a heavy machine gun fired at a drone somewhere nearby, part of a mobile-fire group – probably Western-made equipment. Sadly, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it pressed on overhead toward its destination.

Periodically, this continued until dawn. Kyiv faced the morning news: multiple fatalities, devastation and heating outages in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As customarily, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a need that regional partners are clearly incapable to replace in the near term.

Failed Diplomacy

The detailed framework from US administration provoked deep reactions, controversy and deep concern – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after previous diplomatic encounters and multilateral gatherings.

Every new proposal from US leadership follows the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, succeeds in resisting. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, undoubtedly, continue.

Strategic Calculations

It is easy to blame specific actors of repeatedly advocating Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington operates on a principle understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government believes that it is unfeasible to pressure the Kremlin to abandon the territory that it presently holds in Ukraine's southern or eastern regions.

The problem is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does nothing to discourage Russia, through words or deeds, from thinking that the situation will not shift further in its benefit in the months ahead.

Conflicting Perspectives

Therefore, Russian leadership is confident that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to sign a deal that does not give them the largest achievable advantage is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will persist as long as Russia's leadership remains supremely confident in the outcome.

On the contrary, Kyiv believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing lives and land but avoiding a complete military breakdown until conditions improve in its advantage.

Existing Situation

Objectively, there are no real preconditions for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to broker a ceasefire and obtain worldwide acknowledgment, and the government's double obstacles – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to unite the population around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their priority does not shift toward internal issues. And although their objective will now be significantly challenging after latest incidents, it remains highly unlikely that this will modify their basic position.

These opposing factors are influencing discussions.

Summary and Prospects

It took a just a single week to eliminate the suggested clauses of the current initiative. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by US administration, resistance by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with soothing efforts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all achieved their purpose.

While new initiatives based on previous concepts are imminent, Kyiv, London and other Western governments should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are based on Russian demands and reflect specific hesitation to change the course of events, if they stand together and improve their protective measures 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 counter nocturnal attacks will, for the foreseeable future, mainly require ongoing international assistance.