Blood brothers at war: Why a ceasefire still eludes Russia and Ukraine

The Russia-Ukraine war has continued unabated for the past three-and-a-half years, and despite causing massive death and destruction to both sides, there is no end in sight. Why is it that peace eludes Russia and Ukraine, whereas ceasefires came into effect after just four days in the recent conflict between India and Pakistan, and after 12 days between Israel and Iran?

In this regard, it may be recalled that initial efforts to bring about an end to the Russia-Ukraine war started within weeks of the commencement of the war on February 24, 2022. On that day, multi-directional advances were launched by Russian ground forces into eastern Ukraine, which made some initial gains, but were responded to by tenacious efforts by Ukrainian forces, to defend their territory against the attacks.

The first round of peace efforts by Turkey resulted in drafting of the Istanbul Communique on March 29, 2022. It set out a blueprint within which both parties, starting with a ceasefire, could work towards a negotiated settlement. But then, the UK, one of the primary backers of Ukraine's war effort, stepped in as a 'spoiler' - when prime minister Boris Johnson made a much publicised 'surprise' visit to Kiev on April 9, 2022, to meet President Zelenskyy – and through a combination of inducements, both financial and military – succeeded in destroying that peace effort.

So, what went wrong? Why was it so important for some among Ukraine's NATO backers that the war should continue?

Another little known fact is that, on March 29, 2022, the UN secretary general tasked Martin Griffiths, the UN under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs, to reach out to both parties and explore potential arrangements for a humanitarian ceasefire. However, this shuttle diplomacy produced only limited results, like the evacuations from Sumy, Mariupol and other frontline cities, and the Black Sea grain deal of July 2022. No permanent ceasefire or broad diplomatic breakthrough occurred, reportedly due to deep mistrust, Russian territorial ambitions, and Ukraine's insistence on full withdrawal and sovereignty.

Once initial peace talks failed, the next three years saw the war continuing along a perilous path of death and destruction, as Russian forces, despite repeated setbacks, continued to advance and capture territory, inflicting and incurring heavy casualties. Many Ukrainians sought the path of migration to western Europe and North America, rather than stay back and be killed or maimed in a war they seemed to not seriously believe in.

Peace efforts have received a fillip since the beginning of 2025, with the election of Donald Trump as president of the US, on his plank of assigning utmost priority to resolution of the war, among others. He initially named retired general Keith Kellogg as his special envoy for Russia-Ukraine negotiations, but subsequently nominated his business friend, Steve Witkcoff, originally his special envoy for the Middle East, to lead US-Russia direct talks on Ukraine.

Accordingly, a US-Ukraine agreement appeared to be in the offing and was due to be signed at a publicly televised meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on February 28, 2025. But the plan fell through, as evident from a public spat over its terms, reportedly over what percentage of Ukraine's minerals would be handed over to US commercial companies, and for how long, in exchange for the military support that had been provided by the US to Ukraine's war effort. This disruption of US peace efforts was immediately seized upon as an opportunity by European countries to jump into the fray once again - to prod Ukraine to continue the war, seemingly at their behest.

Notably, the setback to peace plans also resulted in President Putin smelling an opportunity to maximise Russia's territorial gains, and Russia has continued its war efforts vigorously thereafter, towards creation of a larger land buffer, extending across much of eastern Ukraine, even beyond Donbas. Russia has tried to consolidate its war gains and also extend his territorial control over four of Ukraine's southern and south-eastern provinces – Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk – as also Crimea, which Russia had occupied in 2014.

In response, Ukraine, with assistance from the US and its European allies, continues to fight back, mostly employing its drones, of which it has plenty. Drones are employed, independently or in swarms, to attack and cause damage to Russian interests, even deep within the latter's territory, the successful execution of Operation Spider Web being one such case in point.

To examine further the possibilities of restoring peace, there is a need to recall the causes of the war and the developments so far.

Causes of the war

The Russia-Ukraine war can be attributed to a combination of historical, political and strategic factors. Also in play are concerns and actions of neo-conservative hardliners among Ukraine's NATO backers, especially in the US and the UK, who have always viewed potential Russian expansionism as the primary threat to Europe. Accordingly, they want to use Ukraine as their proxy or 'battering ram' - to achieve long term strategic interests against Russia.

The most provocative of these actions was NATO's eastward expansion plans, especially after 2008, supporting Ukraine's efforts at NATO membership, which was perceived by Russia to pose a direct threat to its borders.

On the other hand, Putin's approach has also been perceived as provocative, having been cited occasionally as questioning Ukraine's right to full independence. His speeches in 2021 sought political reunification, with dangerous portents not only for Ukraine but for other ex-Soviet republics of eastern Europe.

Ouster of pro-Russian Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovich by US-backed student protests in 2014 was viewed by Russia as a West-backed coup, and it responded immediately by annexing Crimea, which hosted Russia's Black Sea naval fleet. Russia also commenced extending political and military support to pro-Russian separatists in Donbas region, straddling Luhansk and Donetsk provinces in eastern Ukraine. This resulted in an unending civil war situation between proxy pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian elements in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, which caused some 14,000 casualties even before the Russia-Ukraine war started in 2022.

Attempted preventive diplomacy by EU countries at that time, in terms of the Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015, collapsed. The US, UK and EU increasingly supplied Ukraine with military aid and training during this period, which was perceived by Putin as hostile anti-Russia acts by NATO.

Developments and outcomes so far in the war

Starting late 2021, in a coercive move, Russia amassed troops on Ukraine's borders, and in the wake of failed diplomatic efforts to resolve issues, launched the attack against Kyiv on February 24, 2022 from the north, east and the south – calling it "a 'special military operation' to achieve 'de-nazification and de-militarisation' of Ukraine and to stop the 'genocide' of Russian-speaking populations of the Donbas." The multi-pronged attacks were expected to make swift progress and result in early capitulation by the Ukrainian military – but that did not happen. The Ukrainian military fought back valiantly, amply supported by intelligence information as well as rapid infusion of the latest technology, artillery, anti-tank and air-defence weaponry, as well as communications support from its Western backers, inflicting extensive casualties to attacking Russian troops and armoured vehicles.

Almost immediately, efforts at mediation, to end the war in the initial stages itself, were made by Israel, South Africa and Turkey, but they proved unsuccessful. It appeared though that Ukraine, on its own, appeared willing to withdraw its efforts for NATO membership, in exchange for guarantees of territorial sovereignty.

Soon, by April 2022, Russia realised that the Ukrainian military was not a cakewalk and that its own troops were overstretched on ground, and thus decided to curtail its initial plans drastically. Thus, it withdrew its offensive troops from Kiev and Chernihiv regions to the north as well as Sumy and Kharkiv regions to the northeast, consequently limiting its offensive plans only to the south and southeast.

Thereafter commenced a 'war of attrition', a series of 'meat-grinder battles', which continued for the next two years or so, till the middle of 2024, during which, Russia tried to achieve its capture of both Luhansk and Donetsk provinces in their entirety. Both sides tenaciously fought each other for every inch of territory - the battles of Mariupol, Bakhmut, Avdiivka, Severodonetsk, Vuhledar and Soledar were specially notable for the large numbers of bodybags they generated, including among mercenary units like the Russian Wagner Group and the Ukrainian Azov Brigade.

In between, Ukraine also launched a much anticipated – and NATO supported – 'counter-offensive' southwards, starting June 2023, to recapture lost territory towards Melitopol and Mariupol on the Azov coast, but the Russian army had prepared multi-layered defensive lines and were successful in defeating the Ukrainian efforts, at great cost to the attacker.

A subsequent counter-offensive by Ukraine into Russia's Kursk region in August 2024 made some progress initially and succeeded in diverting some Russian reserves from Donbas, but was blocked by Russian reinforcements, including a division worth of troops from North Korea, which finally evicted the Ukrainian intrusions, by April 2025.

Long-range artillery, drone warfare and precision guided munitions have been employed effectively by all sides in the war, but it was physical attacks by infantry which actually achieved results in terms of capturing ground, but these also incurred maximum casualties. At this point, the Russian military is making last ditch efforts at capturing Pokrovsk, an important city and logistics hub, after which it believes that the rest of Donetsk province will also be in the bag. Overnight attacks by drone-swarms are being used repeatedly by both sides, mostly for attacking civilian targets, especially energy infrastructure.

Overall, Ukraine has lost about 20 per cent of territory, which includes Crimea, Luhansk province, 70 per cent of Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia provinces, and 30-40 per cent of Kherson province. Russia claims to have annexed these four regions (provinces) politically, through referendum, but none of these annexations are recognised internationally.

Notably, over 50 per cent of Ukraine's power grid and facilities have been damaged or destroyed, including a major hydroelectric plant at Khakovka Dam, which was destroyed in 2023. Also, Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant is now under Russian control.

Why hasn't the war been brought to a close?

Normally, in such an intense war, with continuing occurrence of heavy casualties, the protagonists themselves show keenness to stop at some stage - due to war fatigue, high human casualties and the economic disruption suffered by the people. A timely nudge by the UN secretary general or other external players, who can mediate to bring about an early ceasefire, could also play an important role. However, in this case, both Russia and Ukraine have persisted in making unrealistic demands, as pre-requisites for a ceasefire.

Further, Ukraine's Western backers, who do not face the prospect of casualties to their own troops, appear not to be discouraged by the horrendous effects of prolonging the war.

In this regard, it would be an enlightening exercise for all parties to calculate the number of lives which would have been saved if the war had been stopped by March or April, 2022, by implementing a humanitarian ceasefire. But then, the interests of the warmongers and vested interests, on both sides, would not have been served.

To that extent, the large numbers of human casualties by themselves were more than enough reason for the European or the global community to have intervened at an early juncture and brought the war to a close. Instead, efforts were made throughout by interested Western countries to denounce efforts at peacemaking and to continue the war. As per western estimates, there have been about 4 lakh casualties (dead, wounded and missing) on the Ukrainian side, including about 80,000 dead. Also, about 800,000 casualties including 250,000 dead, on the Russian side.

Additionally, about 13,000 civilians died on the Ukrainian side and about 600 civilians on the Russian side. The UN estimates that about 6.7 million Ukrainians have been externally displaced and 3.7 million internally.

Economically too, both sides have suffered heavy losses. By mid-2024, Ukraine was estimated to have suffered over $150 billion in infrastructure damage, including 50 per cent of its energy infrastructure, bridges, airports, rail lines and 20,000km of roads. Its labour market has faced serious problems due to displacement of its population. Grain exports have fallen sharply due to problems of shipping through ports in the Black Sea. Overall, Ukraine's economic losses in infrastructure and lost output are estimated at $500 billion.

Russia's economy has been adversely affected by sanctions and capital flight. Over $300 billion in Russian Central Bank reserves stay frozen. Capital flight from Russia in the first year of war exceeded $250 billion. Military spending by Russia had to surge to 6 per cent of GDP in 2024. Overall Russian losses are estimated at $400 billion. The estimated losses to the global economy has been $2-3 trillion, to include inflation, trade disruptions, refugee costs and the energy crisis.

Are the parties in the conflict ready to end the war?

To bring any war to an end, especially where one party cannot impose a decisive victory over the other, it needs, first the willingness of all the parties to the conflict. To start with, this involves Russia, the so-called 'perpetrator', which started the war on account of its claims of 'existential fears' - real or imagined - due to NATO expansion into Ukraine. It appears Russia is ready for peace at its terms - of Ukraine providing a guarantee of not joining NATO - but it may not be ready to give up Crimea and the Donbas. Further, it appears to be using delays in imposing a ceasefire as an opportunity to enhance its territorial gains.

Ukraine, the victim of Russia's attacks and land-grab, too, appears willing for a ceasefire so that the continuing cycle of death, destruction and territorial losses can stop - and the process of reconstruction can start. Of course, it needs cast-iron guarantees about its future security and territorial sovereignty.

That brings us to the third party in this conflict - Ukraine's western backers, the hardliners in the US and Europe, whose actions appear to have precipitated this aggressive response by Russia. They do not appear willing to end this war, as it continues to serve their purpose of undermining Russia through a long drawn conflict, without having to suffer pain in terms of losing lives of their own soldiers. For them, the casualties are just an unfortunate 'cross for Ukraine to bear' - on Europe's behalf.

Who can be an honest broker to mediate peace?

The second prerequisite for mediating a ceasefire, followed by a comprehensive peace deal, would be an impartial mediator - an honest broker - a suitable organisation, country or individual, who prioritises peace and humanitarian concerns over strategic or political priorities or alliances. The mediator should also possess the requisite skills, credibility and power to work out a sensible deal, make the parties agree to it, and subsequently, supervise the implementation of the deal.

The UN Security Council, as always, appears powerless in this situation - all its veto holding members appear to have a stake in continuing the war for as long as it takes - and thus does not meet the requirement. The US government appears too deeply entrenched in the war efforts to don the mantle of a credible negotiator. However, for now, Trump - in his current avatar as a peacemaker - appears to provide the best possible option as a mediator, despite the Oval Office setback the last time round.

Can NATO expansionism justify Russian counter-expansionism?

Third, the basic issue which any peacemaker would need to deal with is whether NATO’s eastward expansion to checkmate Russia, by offering its membership to Ukraine after 2008, and the related "Euromaidan Coup" of 2014, hold out an "existential threat" to Russia. This threat was used by Russia to justify its aggressive actions after 2014 - the annexation of Crimea, the coercive deployment of forces in 2021 to highlight its 'red line' to NATO, followed by its attack on Ukraine in February 2022. Can Russia be allowed to retain any of the captured land, which undoubtedly, it has taken control of at great human and economic cost to itself? Wouldn't that justify military aggression by Russia, as also by other nations in the future? This primary issue is too complicated for any mediator to handle and thus, it may be better left for future adjudication by the competent global authority, under the aegis of the United Nations.

For a start, it may be wiser to negotiate just a ceasefire.

Once again, in June 2025, Istanbul has become the venue for peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, where both sides are making reference to the framework of the draft Istanbul Communique of March-April 2022 as a foundation for the blueprint of a new peace deal. Moscow and its delegation are demanding concessions while Ukraine presses for a ceasefire, sovereignty and stronger security guarantees.

Notwithstanding the outcome of these talks and the time it may take to arrive at a mutually acceptable deal, it needs to be borne in mind that, the Russia-Ukraine conflict is an outcome of complex political, strategic and military issues which cannot be resolved easily. It also needs to be recognised, in the interests of humanitarian concerns, that the more this war is allowed to linger, the more will be the damage, all of which will only harden positions further, and make 'peacemaking' even more complicated in the future. Thus, it may be prudent to work at making both parties agree to an immediate ceasefire, while the more complex issues affecting long-term security of Russia and Ukraine are worked out subsequently.

Overall, it may be concluded that it is high time a ceasefire is negotiated and implemented in the Russia-Ukraine conflict so that the colossal human and economic cost can be halted as early as possible. In fact, if a ceasefire had been brought about during the initial round of peace-making, around April 2022, it would have saved over a million casualties. It is indeed a shocking commentary for the rules-based global order of the 21st century that, a war between two major countries, which were seen as blood brothers till just a few decades ago, is being allowed to continue incessantly. If no one else, at least the United Nations and the members of the P5, especially the US, need to step up their efforts to implement an immediate ceasefire and bring the unending cycle of violence to a close.

The writer was Vice Chief of the Indian Army.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK.

World