Over three years since Russia launched an offensive on Ukrainian territory on February 24 2022, the conflict has stagnated: the warzone stretches over a thousand kilometers of frontlines, with Russian offensives focusing on Eastern Ukraine and subordinate operations in Kharkiv and Luhansk, as well as in Donetsk, where the Russian forces recently advanced towards Siversk. In August 2024, Kyiv launched a counteroffensive and penetrated Russian territory in Kursk. When Russian troops seemed to regain lost territory, a second assault was ordered in January 2025.
In what has evolved into a war of attrition, both sides have harassed each other through attacks on their respective infrastructure and morale. Russian airstrikes have caused vast damage on Ukrainian infrastructure — notably energy facilities — but also civilian housing. In retaliation, Ukraine has made effective use of drones, managing to erode Moscow ’s air- defenses, even enjoying a rise in domestic weapons productions after efforts to decrease dependence on foreign aid. Kyiv remains intent on maintaining its offensive pressure against Russia to divert and fracture their resources.
However, the Ukrainian armament is still deeply reliant on foreign aid. Military assistance to Ukraine has become central to European and North American foreign policies. Ukraine is blind without Washington’s sharing of satellite images and information transmission, which came to a halt after tensions arose between Trump and Zelensky. Ukraine also does not have an infinite supply of soldiers. Zelensky has already lowered the conscription age to 25 for all men in the country, and reports of dubious enrollment methods have circulated. Russia is better equipped for a lengthy conflict, even though public opinion at home may impact this. Producing most of its armament domestically, it can still count on drones from Iran, as well as ammunition and, reportedly, soldiers from North Korea, estimated at about 12,000 by Ukraine in February of this year.
Trump’s entry into office on January 20 radically changed the diplomatic dynamics surrounding the conflict. During his campaign, he promised to put an end to the war; but, on February 12, he was on the phone with Putin. After Zelensky visited the White House on February 28, Trump attempted to pressure Kyiv into accepting a deal on critical minerals in Ukraine, valued at $500 billion, to “pay back” for US support during the conflict. Though tensions following the Oval Office meeting dissipated, with discussions of American and Ukrainian delegations in Jeddah on March 11, this episode demonstrates Trump’s pursuit of American interests first and foremost at the expense of Ukrainians.
Zelensky also expressed concerns over “exclusionary” peace talks between Russia and the US, claiming that the American President is locked in a misinformation bubble and adheres to the Kremlin’s rhetoric. In that same meeting, Trump proceeded to call the Ukrainian President a “dictator” and accused Zelensky of starting the conflict.
Yet, Trump is not the only reason Ukraine cannot rely on its foreign allies. Europe stands divided on military assistance. The UK, France, and Germany remain committed to the Ukrainian people. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has urged global leaders to “keep the pressure” on Russia, Macron asserted French support for Ukraine, Germany sent additional support with Gepard anti-aircraft systems, to name a few examples.. Nevertheless, the EU rejected the proposed 40 billion Euro assistance plan, only allocating 5 billion Euro to supporting Ukraine — focusing solely on ammunition, rather than humanitarian aid.
It is in this inauspicious context that ceasefire talks recirculated. US envoys met a Russian delegation in Riyadh on March 24, and representatives from Kyiv the next day. The talks focused on a limited ceasefire, ensuring strikes stopped, resuming traffic in the Black Sea, and restricting the targeting of energy infrastructures. Washington seemed rather hopeful in Riyadh, claiming a “positive announcement ” would be made in a few days.
While all three delegations agreed to the limited ceasefire, their understandings of ceasefire conditions seemed to contrast. Zelensky ’s announcement that a ceasefire would take place with immediate effect was followed by news of Russian strikes in Sumy, damaging a school and a hospital while also killing 88 Ukrainians. On Tuesday, the Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Minister, Andril Sybiha, stated that “Moscow speaks of peace while carrying out brutal strikes on densely populated
residential areas in major Ukrainian cities.” The Kremlin replied that they understood that a ceasefire would only be enacted once certain conditions were met. This, alongside the fact the Kremlin
already broke off 25 ceasefires, explains Ukraine’s deep mistrust in Russia’s respect for the agreement.
In the words of the Guardian, these ceasefire talks and agreements cannot lead to any durable peace in Ukraine. Per the Guardian, the Russian and Ukrainian visions of peace are simply too opposed: the Kremlin asserts authoritative claims to Ukrainian territory and refuses to relinquish what it has already gained territorially, while Ukraine maintains claims of sovereignty, refusing to surrender its territory to Russia.
Peace in Ukraine does not appear possible in any foreseeable future, to the despair of humanitarian activists. War is always ultimately a humanitarian crisis, and Ukraine is no exception. If we talk about world leaders, military strategies and ‘big decisions’, we must not forget that war affects peoples’ everyday lives, impacting millions of Ukrainians and forcing them to flee the country as homes and resources are destroyed.