The Russia-Ukraine Ceasefire Dilemma – The Geopolitics

Russian President Vladimir Putin remarked “he didn’t support an immediate cease-fire in Ukraine, calling for more discussion on a permanent end to the war and any pause in fighting at this point would be in Ukraine’s interest because Russia is gaining on the battlefield”

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been a focal point of international concern since its escalation in 2022. The most recent progress toward a potential ceasefire followed a disastrous meeting between Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and President Donald Trump at the White House. Trump’s unpredictable decision-making, including the suspension and subsequent resumption of intelligence and military aid, combined with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s conditions for a ceasefire, further complicates the situation.

Current Situation

On Friday, March 14, 2025, Russia announced that its forces recaptured another settlement in the Kursk region, previously held by Ukraine. In an official statement, the Russian Defense Ministry confirmed the reclamation of Goncharovka, along with 28 other settlements in western Kursk over the past week.

Russian state media also released drone footage from Sudzha on Friday, purportedly supporting their claims of recapturing the town. Sudzha, with a pre-war population of approximately 5,000, was the largest town seized by Ukrainian forces last year during their unexpected cross-border offensive. Russia’s military has made significant territorial advances, gaining control over an estimated 100 square kilometers in recent days. Over the course of 2024, Russian forces advanced by nearly 4,000 square kilometers (1,500 square miles) inside Ukraine—seven times more than in 2023.

In addition to territorial gains, Russia also escalated its missile and drone campaign against Ukraine. On the night of March 6–7, 2025, Russian forces launched one of the most extensive missile and drone strikes in the ongoing conflict. These attacks targeted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and military facilities, employing a strategic mix of Shahed drones and decoy UAVs designed to overwhelm Ukrainian air defenses. Russia’s military resurgence has been significantly bolstered by the Axis of Upheaval—coalition of China, Iran, and North Korea—a term coined in 2024 by Center for a New American Security. The military and economic support from these nations has played a crucial role in sustaining Russia’s war effort.

However, Russia’s advances have come at a tremendous cost. The prolonged conflict has strained its military resources, incurred heavy casualties, and deepened its international isolation.

The Cost of War

Despite its continued territorial gains, Russia’s current rate of advancement in Ukraine remains insufficient for a decisive victory. At this pace, it would take an estimated 118 years for Russia to gain full control over Ukraine. As of March 14, 2025, the prolonged conflict has inflicted devastating losses on Russian forces. Reports indicate that since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022, Russia has suffered over 890,000 casualties, including approximately 91,000 in 2025 alone. In 2024, Russian forces endured more than 434,000 casualties, with 150,000 killed in action. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has further estimated that total Russian losses since the start of the war range between 300,000 to 350,000 killed and 600,000 to 700,000 wounded.

In addition to its mounting human losses, Russia is facing severe depletion of military stockpiles, particularly Soviet-era equipment. Defense factories such as Uralvagonzavod (responsible for tank production) and Tula (ammunition manufacturing) are operating at maximum capacity, yet production remains insufficient to offset battlefield losses. Logistical shortages have grown so severe that Russian forces have reportedly resorted to using pack mules for transport, highlighting the extent of supply chain disruptions.

The deployment of North Korean forces in the Kursk region has also contributed to Moscow’s military strategy, but at a high cost. Reports suggest that North Korean casualties have surpassed 3,000, with South Korean intelligence assessments indicating that North Korean soldiers have high morale but lack an understanding of modern warfare and are being deployed in ways that lead to disproportionately high losses.

The war has also placed immense economic strain on Russia, with rising inflation and interest rates worsening the financial burden of its military campaign. To finance the war, Russia has increased its publicly declared defense budget while simultaneously relying on state-directed, off-budget loans. This approach has resulted in a 71% surge in corporate borrowing since mid-2022, reaching 41.5 trillion rubles ($415 billion), equivalent to 19.4% of GDP. The rapid expansion of government spending—through direct budgetary outlays and state-backed loans—has led to fiscal stimulus exceeding 10% of GDP, while preferential loan portfolios have surpassed 15 trillion rubles ($150 billion) from 2022 to 2024. The looming credit crisis, coupled with growing international sanctions, poses a significant threat to Russia’s economic stability.

Amid these pressures, Russia has intensified its conscription efforts to compensate for significant manpower shortages. In 2024, conscription quotas were expanded by 50%, aiming to recruit an additional 100,000 soldiers. Draft exemptions have been reduced, penalties for evasion have increased, and new laws have made it more difficult for conscripts to leave the country, resulting in a 60% rise in border checks for draft-age men. Russia has also targeted migrant workers and ethnic minorities, with the number of foreign-born recruits rising by 25% in the past year.

Despite these mounting challenges, Russia remains committed to its war efforts. However, pressure from the G7, led by the United States, has intensified, with Western nations threatening expanded sanctions and the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine if Moscow refuses to negotiate a ceasefire.

Ceasefire Conditions

On March 13, President Putin stated that Russia was willing to accept the U.S.-backed 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine. However, he immediately followed this declaration by outlining a series of demands.

One of Russia’s key demands is that Ukraine abandon its NATO ambitions and accept a permanent nuclear-free status. This condition stems from Moscow’s deep-seated fear of NATO’s eastward expansion, which it perceives as a direct threat to its sphere of influence. Russia has repeatedly argued that NATO’s expansion—not its own military actions, including attacks on Ukraine’s ports, airfields, roads, railways, and cities—is the primary cause of the ongoing conflict. If Ukraine were to accept this condition, it would severely limit its security and military alliance options, leaving it vulnerable to future aggression. A similar fate befell Georgia, where 20% of its territory still remains under occupation by pro-Russian forces. Given this precedent, Ukraine views NATO membership as essential to safeguarding its sovereignty and deterring further Russian encroachment.

Russia is also demanding that Ukraine cede control over the territories it occupies, including Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, with Russian officials, claiming that Crimea, along with occupied areas of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, have become part of Russia “forever”. Moscow insists that Ukraine must revise its territorial borders as part of peace talks, surrendering areas still under Kyiv’s control. These demands extend beyond political and military control to Ukraine’s vast natural resources, as Russia now occupies significant portions of Ukraine’s hydrocarbon reserves, including coal, natural gas, and oil, with key offshore gas sites near Crimea and coal-rich mines in eastern Ukraine. Currently, more than half of Ukraine’s coal reserves and mines, along with 20% of its natural gas fields and wells, lie in Russian-occupied territory. Additionally, Ukraine holds some of the world’s largest recoverable reserves of coal, gas, iron, manganese, nickel, ore, titanium, and uranium, most of which are concentrated in Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsk, Kirovohrad, Poltava, and Kharkiv. By controlling approximately 20% of Ukraine’s land, Russia now holds around 40% of Ukraine’s metal resources, according to estimates by Ukrainian think tanks.The forced loss of such critical regions would severely impact Ukraine’s national identity and economic security, while also setting a dangerous precedent for territorial annexation in Europe.

Another key demand from Russia is for Ukraine to significantly reduce its military forces, including a ban on troop mobilization, training, and the halt of Western military aid to Kyiv. By imposing restrictions on Ukraine’s military size and capabilities, Russia aims to weaken Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against future aggression. A prolonged ceasefire under these terms would effectively disarm Ukraine over time, preventing it from rebuilding, training, and equipping its military, thereby forcing both Ukraine and the West to surrender significant leverage to Russia. Notably, Putin has not indicated that Russia would impose similar restrictions on its own military, as Moscow continues to recruit soldiers, expand weapons production, and receive military aid from its allies. In addition, Russia is likely to strengthen its military presence in Belarus, bolstering its force posture against NATO’s eastern flank. On March 13, 2025, Putin and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko ratified the Russian-Belarus Union State treaty on security guarantees, allowing Russia to establish permanent military bases and infrastructure in Belarus.

Russia is pressing the West to ease sanctions as part of any ceasefire agreement, aiming to restore access to international markets and bolster its economy. As Russia faces mounting economic pressure. Inflation surged, leading the central bank to raise interest rates to 21% in October 2024, heightening bankruptcy risks. Industrial production dropped, with factories at 80% capacity due to labor and material shortages.

Russia has recently called for Ukraine to hold presidential elections under the current wartime conditions—a proposal met with widespread skepticism from Ukrainian leaders. Even opposition figures agree that the timing is inappropriate. Petro Poroshenko, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s main political rival, and Inna Sovsun, leader of the opposition Golos Party, have both dismissed the idea of wartime elections. Putin’s push for elections appears motivated by hopes of installing a pro-Russian government that would realign Ukraine’s political landscape and foreign policy closer to Moscow. Russia’s history of meddling in Ukrainian elections underscores this strategy. In the 2004 presidential election, Russia openly supported pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych, with President Vladimir Putin publicly endorsing him and making campaign visits to Ukraine, reflecting Russia’s vested interest in the outcome. The 2010 elections saw more covert interference, with Russian political strategists working openly for Yanukovych and reports of attempts to poison opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko. President Putin’s visit to Kyiv on the eve of the election further highlighted Russia’s influence. In 2014, Russia shifted tactics to cyber interference, with pro-Russian hackers launching cyberattacks aimed at disrupting the electoral process by releasing hacked emails, attempting to alter vote tallies, and delaying final results through distributed denial-of-service attacks.

Russia has called for a renewed focus on the full implementation of the Minsk agreements, which were originally designed to end the war in eastern Ukraine but have been widely regarded as flawed and ineffective.

Strategic Motives behind Russia’s Demands

Western security officials warn that Russian President Vladimir Putin remains unwavering in his demands for territorial concessions, the deployment of peacekeepers, and Ukraine’s neutrality, casting doubt on President Donald Trump’s efforts to broker a credible peace settlement. According to officials, Putin has deliberately adopted a “maximalist” stance ahead of negotiations—setting terms he knows are likely unacceptable to Ukraine and its European allies. Putin is reportedly prepared to continue the conflict rather than compromise on his objectives.

This hard-line position suggests that Putin sees little reason to abandon Russia’s long-standing demands, despite Trump’s pledge to end the conflict. The risk, pushing Ukraine to continue fighting with the backing of European partners. Such an outcome would further fracture the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), already strained by Trump’s overtures to Putin and calls for Europe to take on greater responsibility for regional security. Signs of European leaders publicly being divided in terms of support to Ukraine are very evident.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has accused Putin of deliberately delaying ceasefire talks to allow Russia to gain strategic advantages. The Ukrainian president argues that Russia’s stalling tactics aim to weaken Ukraine and pressure its allies into abandoning support. Zelenskyy has called on global leaders to intervene and prevent Russia from exploiting ceasefire negotiations for its own benefit, warning that continued conflict could result in further territorial and military gains for Moscow.

Even if Russia agrees to a ceasefire, analysts believe Moscow has several ways to undermine any peace agreement. Russia could use a ceasefire to replenish its military stockpiles with weapons from allies like Iran, strengthening its position before resuming combat. Alternatively, Russia might agree to ceasefire terms only to later fabricate a violation—staging a false-flag attack as a pretext to reignite hostilities. 

If Russia manages to manipulate a ceasefire in its favor, it could consolidate control over the four Ukrainian regions it currently holds and potentially push beyond these areas. As negotiations continue, it has already ramped up its propaganda efforts, attempting to cast Zelensky as the real obstacle to peace.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict is at a critical juncture, with ceasefire negotiations hinging on Russia’s territorial and political demands. While Moscow seeks to cement its gains, Ukraine and its allies remain resistant, recognizing the long-term risks of conceding to Russian pressure. Looking ahead, the war’s trajectory will depend on shifting geopolitical alliances, the resilience of Ukraine’s defenses, and the West’s ability to maintain support. If Russia uses a ceasefire to regroup and rearm, the conflict could reignite with even greater intensity. Conversely, a firm, unified Western response could deter further aggression and reshape the security order in Europe for decades to come.

[Photo by Oleksandr Ratushniak, via Wikimedia Commons]

Rishab Rathi is serving as a Research Associate at the Center for Policy Research and Governance (CPRG). The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.