The Russia-Ukraine war: Why peace remains so elusive

Wars often begin with the illusion of swift victory. They end, more often than not, with exhaustion. The Russia-Ukraine war has now entered its fifth year since Russia launched its full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022. What many military analysts initially believed would be a matter of weeks has instead become one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in Europe since the Second World War. Cities have been reduced to rubble, hundreds of thousands have been killed or wounded, millions have been displaced, and entire generations of Ukrainians have grown up amidst the sound of air raid sirens. Yet the end remains elusive.

Ukraine continues to survive because of unprecedented military and financial support from the Western alliance, particularly the United States. Billions of dollars’ worth of sophisticated weapons, intelligence support, training, and economic assistance have flowed into Kyiv. Behind this lies not merely sympathy for Ukraine’s sovereignty but a broader geopolitical calculation: to ensure that Russia pays a heavy strategic price for its invasion.

More from Opinion

The United States also possesses the world’s most formidable military-industrial complex. Every prolonged conflict generates fresh demand for missiles, drones, ammunition, air defence systems and advanced weaponry. It would be naïve to pretend that such interests are irrelevant. Wars have always enriched some even as they devastate many.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy remains the indispensable face of Ukrainian resistance. To millions across the democratic world, he symbolises extraordinary courage and national resilience. Yet, his leadership has also become increasingly controversial. Critics point to allegations of corruption, restrictions on political opposition during wartime, and reports questioning the personal fortunes accumulated by individuals close to the political establishment. Allegations have periodically surfaced regarding offshore assets and overseas properties linked to Zelenskyy himself. Some of these claims are unverified or disputed, but in wartime, truth itself often becomes another casualty, buried beneath propaganda emanating from all sides.

Russia, for its part, has demonstrated greater resilience than many Western policymakers anticipated. Severe sanctions were expected to cripple its economy rapidly. Instead, Moscow adjusted by redirecting trade towards Asia, expanding economic links with China, India and several Global South countries, and restructuring supply chains. Nevertheless, resilience should not be mistaken for immunity. Inflationary pressures have risen, labour shortages have intensified, defence expenditure now consumes an ever-larger share of national resources, and ordinary Russians increasingly bear the hidden costs of a permanent war economy.

Nor is the suffering confined to the principal combatants. Wars possess an unfortunate talent for widening their circle of victims. India recently mourned the deaths of four of its citizens caught in a Russian aerial strike. The economic consequences, too, have travelled far beyond Eastern Europe. Although Europe has substantially diversified its energy supplies since 2022, the abrupt reduction in Russian gas imports forced governments to spend heavily on alternative energy sources, strained industries dependent on affordable fuel, and contributed to inflationary pressures that have affected households across the continent.

What is striking is the near-total absence of an effective mediator. The UN could have played such a role, but today the organisation appears structurally paralysed. The Security Council remains hostage to the veto powers of its permanent members, one of whom is itself a principal belligerent. Noble resolutions cannot substitute for enforceable diplomacy.

Nor do alternative mediators command universal confidence. China is viewed with suspicion by much of the West because of its strategic partnership with Moscow. The United States cannot be an impartial intermediary because it is the principal supplier of Ukraine’s military assistance. Türkiye has played useful facilitating roles, particularly in earlier grain export arrangements, but lacks the leverage to impose a comprehensive settlement. India enjoys credibility with both Moscow and Kyiv and has consistently advocated dialogue over escalation. Yet New Delhi has consciously refrained from assuming the mantle of formal mediator, preferring instead to preserve its strategic autonomy and maintain communication with all parties. This diplomatic vacuum is perhaps the greatest tragedy of all.

The central obstacle is that both sides still believe time may improve their bargaining position. Ukraine hopes that sustained Western assistance will eventually weaken Russia sufficiently to compel meaningful concessions. Russia calculates that Western unity will fray, electoral changes in Europe and America will reduce military assistance, and Ukraine’s capacity for prolonged resistance will steadily diminish. As long as both retain these expectations, compromise remains politically hazardous.

Eventually, the initiative for negotiations is likely to emerge not from idealism but from necessity. It may come after another inconclusive military season, mounting domestic economic pressures, donor fatigue in Western capitals, or growing public disillusionment within both Russia and Ukraine. The first step may not even involve grand peace conferences. More realistically, it could begin with limited humanitarian arrangements, prisoner exchanges, local ceasefires, protection of civilian infrastructure, and eventually exploratory political contacts.

India should quietly encourage precisely such incremental diplomacy. Its unique position — maintaining dialogue with Russia while deepening partnerships with the West — gives it a moral credibility that many others lack. Rather than seeking headlines, India can support discreet conversations, humanitarian initiatives, and forums where dialogue remains possible when public rhetoric makes compromise impossible.

The Russia-Ukraine war will not conclude through military triumph alone. It will end when both nations recognise that the arithmetic of death no longer serves the geometry of national interest. The wisdom of statesmanship lies not in winning every battle, but in knowing when the pursuit of absolute victory threatens to destroy the very peace for which wars are ostensibly fought.

(The writer is a former diplomat, an author, and a politician. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)