Manish Tewari | The big ceasefire: Will this lead to Russia regrouping?

President Donald Trump had a long conversation with President Vladimir Putin to try and evolve a modus vivendi for a 30-day ceasefire in the three-year-long war between Ukraine and Russia.

All that Putin seems to have agreed to was not to attack energy and infrastructure targets in Ukraine during the said period. Hardly had the phone call ended both Russia and Ukraine attacked each other with drones and long-range missiles hitting civilian and military targets, respectively. Will there be a ceasefire and what would be the cost to Ukraine that has lost one-fifth of its territory as the war enters its fourth year are still open-ended questions. Ukraine’s territorial setbacks, Russia’s strategic objectives and the security commitments of Western allies will all shape the tenuous and taut negotiations.

The Economic Cost of War: The ongoing conflict has placed immense economic strain on both the warring nations and their international backers. Ukraine has been heavily reliant on foreign aid, with donor countries contributing approximately 267 billion euro in the last three years. Nearly half, 130 billion euro (49 per cent) has been allocated to military support, while 118 billion euro (44 per cent) has gone toward financial assistance, and 19 billion euro (seven per cent) toward humanitarian relief.

European nations have now surpassed the United States in overall contributions, signaling a shift in the global economic response. European nations have committed 70 billion euro for financial and humanitarian support alongside 62 billion euro in military assistance. In contrast, US contributions include 64 billion euro in military aid and 50 billion euro for financial and humanitarian efforts.

On the other hand, Russia has spent over 200 billion dollars on its military campaign, troop deployments, and logistical operations since launching its full-scale invasion in 2022, as per the statement of US defence secretary. In addition to direct war expenditures, Moscow has suffered economic losses from cancelled or delayed arms contracts, estimated at over 10 billion dollars.

The Human Toll: Beyond economic consequences, the war has inflicted a devastating human toll. Ukraine’s economy has contracted by nearly 20 per cent, widening its financial disparity with Russia, which, despite sanctions, maintains a GDP exceeding 2.18 trillion dollars. As per a report by the UN and World Bank, the cost of rebuilding Ukraine is projected at 524 billion dollars, almost three times its annual economic output with housing, transportation, and energy infrastructure suffering the most extensive damage.

Casualty figures paint a grim picture. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had reported over 46,000 military deaths, though independent estimates suggest a higher toll. Russian losses remain difficult to verify, but very conservative estimates place military casualties at over 95,000 while an exaggerated figure puts it at 4,27000. The truth could be even more horrendous.

Civilians have borne the brunt of the conflict. The United Nations has recorded more than 12,000 civilian deaths, though the actual figure is likely much higher, particularly in Russian-occupied areas where verification remains a challenge. In Mariupol alone, over 8,000 people lost their lives amid intense urban combat. The war has also triggered one of the largest refugee crises in modern history, displacing more than six million Ukrainians abroad and another four million within the country. Ukraine’s population has declined by nearly a quarter since the war began, with falling birth rates compounding its long-term demographic challenges.

The Evolving Battlefield: Three years into the conflict, territorial control remains fluid, with both Russian and Ukrainian forces making incremental gains. In eastern Ukraine, Russian troops have advanced in Donetsk, capturing towns like Kurakhove and pushing toward Pokrovsk. However, Ukrainian defenses in central and western regions have held firm, leveraging drone warfare and counter-offensive tactics to stall Russian progress.

In the north, Russian forces launched an incursion into the Kharkiv region in May 2024, briefly seizing several villages before being repelled by Ukrainian troops. While Kharkiv city remains under Ukrainian control, ongoing Russian air strikes and artillery shelling continue to pose significant threats.

The southern front remains fiercely contested. Ukraine continues to defend Mykolaiv and Odessa despite relentless missile and drone attacks. Meanwhile, the Black Sea remains a volatile battleground, with Ukrainian strikes on Russian naval assets disrupting Moscow’s logistical operations. Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, remains a crucial military hub for Russian forces.

One of the most striking developments occurred in August 2024 when Ukrainian forces launched an incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, temporarily securing over 1,200 square kilometres. By March 2025, Russian troops had regained full control, with President Vladimir Putin asserting that the situation was “fully under control”.

Ceasefire Talks: Hope or Stalemate? Efforts to broker a temporary ceasefire have gained momentum, with the United States proposing a 30-day pause in hostilities, contingent on Russian approval. The plan prioritises humanitarian measures, including prisoner exchanges and the return of Ukrainian children taken to Russia. However, it leaves critical issues such as long-term security guarantees for Ukraine and ongoing sanctions on Russia unresolved.

Russia’s response to the ceasefire has been cautious. While President Vladimir Putin has signalled conditional support, he has expressed concerns over Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region. Moscow has sought assurances that Ukraine will fully withdraw from the area, making this a potential sticking point in negotiations. Putin further wants all external military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine to halt forthwith.

Geopolitical dynamics further complicate the talks. US President Trump has urged Ukraine to accept the proposed terms, while his stance toward Russia has been notably less confrontational. Experts suggest Washington may be willing to accommodate some of Moscow’s demands, raising concerns that Kyiv could find itself in a weakened bargaining position.

A ceasefire under current conditions presents a complex set of implications for both sides. For Ukraine, a pause in hostilities would provide a crucial window to rebuild infrastructure and regroup its military. However, freezing the conflict along existing frontlines could effectively legitimise Russian territorial gains, potentially strengthening Moscow’s position in the long run.

For Russia, a ceasefire would ease immediate battlefield pressures, allowing for troop rotations and strategic reinforcement. Yet, it could also reinforce Western military and economic support for Ukraine, limiting Russia’s ability to shape post-war territorial settlements on its own terms.

Can Lasting Peace Be Achieved? Russia’s territorial ambitions suggest that any ceasefire could serve as a temporary pause rather than a genuine step toward peace. The Kremlin's insistence on maintaining control over occupied Ukrainian territories and its claims over additional regions underscores the challenges of reaching a comprehensive settlement.

For Ukraine and its allies, preventing a ceasefire from merely giving Russia time to regroup will be a key priority. Some, including US President Trump, have proposed a more strategic agreement requiring Russian forces to reposition to less advantageous locations, potentially reducing the risk of renewed conflict. However, whether Moscow would accept such conditions remains uncertain.