Comparatively recent hopes for a ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine war have been dashed by Russia's continuing anger management issues, and its belief that the Western coalition that has supplied Ukraine with assistance in excess of $350 billion to date is fracturing.
Moreover, President Trump's optimism about being able to bring about a quick ceasefire between the warring nations seems to have been wildly optimistic, particularly in view of his now-famous verbal sparring with President Zelensky at the White House on February 28th in which Ukrainian officials were asked to leave the premises.
The search for a temporary stoppage of the carnage has been made more difficult by the diametrically-opposed positions of Moscow and Kyiv: President Putin continues to condition any ceasefire on an agreement that would allow him to keep all of the land Russia currently occupies in the eastern provinces (about 20% of Ukraine) as well as be given those remaining lands he does not control in those very same provinces.
Moreover, Putin insists that Ukraine must give up any idea of joining NATO because, apparently, there would be nothing to fear from yet another Russian invasion in the future.
Zelensky, for his part, has sought a total withdrawal of Russian forces from all Ukrainian territories (including Crimea, which Russia occupied in 2014), the return of all prisoners of war as well as all Ukrainian children who have been kidnapped by Russian forces, membership in both NATO and the European Union, and ironclad security guarantees from the United States and other countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Liechtenstein.
One possible model for a ceasefire in which the antagonists have little common ground is the so-called "frozen peace," a term that has been applied to several conflicts such as the Korean War — in which the combatants stopped fighting in 1953 but never signed an actual peace treaty. In short, the border separating the two Koreas is a de facto boundary that was defined solely by the forward positions of the two armies when hostilities ceased.
The frozen model does not appeal to Putin very much, perhaps because it would not entail legal recognition of Russia's gains in Ukraine. Instead, it would leave Putin with unsanctioned control over a buffer zone that could be subject to demands by future Ukrainian governments that it be returned.
Putin's argument that Ukraine somehow started the war (perhaps by not raising the border gates for Russia's invading tank columns) is not taken seriously by anyone other than Putin himself and a few sycophants in the Kremlin.
Very few developing countries have much sympathy for Putin's plight, viewing his efforts to bludgeon Ukraine as little more than great power aggression against a smaller, weaker (albeit courageous) neighbor.
Putin's power, indeed his very survival, may depend on demonstrating that the 3-year excursion into Ukraine was worth the cost of what the BBC estimates may be nearly a quarter of a million Russian military deaths to date. The BBC estimate pales in comparison, however, to the numbers offered by the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine which puts Russian losses as of February 1, 2025 as 839,040 troops.
Fortunately for Putin, these troublesome facts are not reported by the Russian media and so he is able to continue throwing bodies into the Ukrainian meat grinder in a continuing bloody stalemate not seen since the trench warfare of World War I.
As Putin does not want his legacy to be "unfinished business in the Donbas" and a death resulting from an unfortunate fall out of a hotel window or perhaps accidentally shooting himself 17 times in his back, he probably does not see the "frozen peace" as a solution to the conflict.
As Ukraine has clearly shown itself to be a tenacious opponent, perhaps the only way the war gets resolved is Putin reins in his territorial demands, perhaps to the forward positions currently occupied by the Russian military and drops his objections to Ukraine joining the European Union.
Given the extraordinary economic damage suffered by Ukraine (which the United Nations estimates may be approaching $450 billion — more than twice the amount of Ukraine's $200 billion GDP) Ukraine itself may conclude that it has little choice but to cede the occupied areas of the eastern provinces and end the unrelenting carnage.
However, Ukraine would want to receive credible security guarantees from the United States and Europe — even though the United States has repeatedly declared that it will not station American troops in eastern Ukraine to serve as little more than a trip wire for the next conflict.
Geographical proximity would suggest that the EU — which has both a larger economy and population than the United States — should provide the on-the-ground military support to help ensure Ukraine's continued viability in the future.
This is not to say that Russia's barbaric actions against Ukraine should be rewarded. However, there seems to be little likelihood that Ukraine can expel the Russian invaders from its territory. As its population as less than a fourth the size of Russia's population and its economy is barely a tenth the size of Russia's $2 trillion economy, Ukraine will likely lose any continued war of attrition.
However, its heroic citizens have inflicted enormous damage on Russia's military forces that may have deterred Putin from any further attempts to rebuild the former Soviet Union. For this reason alone, both the United States and the European Union must continue to support Ukraine both economically and militarily while seeking to put an end to the bloodshed.
Jefferson Hane Weaver is a transactional lawyer residing in Florida. He received his undergraduate degree in Economics and Political Science from the University of North Carolina and his J.D. and Ph.D. in International Relations from Columbia University. Dr. Weaver is the author of numerous books on varied, compelling subjects. Read more of his reports — Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.