A negotiated armistice that results in a de facto freezing of the war would be the worst outcome for Ukraine and the best for Russia. To understand why, we just need to look at what the war reveals.
Moscow is on a negative trajectory, and a conflict freeze would allow Russia to avoid the political and economic costs of defeat, while denying Kiev the space it needs for victory and reconstruction.
The temptation to stop the fighting is understandable from a human perspective, but ending the fighting without a credible path to a sustainable solution would institutionalize aggression and condemn Ukraine to prolonged insecurity, writes Finnish analyst Joni Askola in an analysis published by Kiev Independent.
On the front lines, the situation has shifted in favor of Kiev. There are several important trends that the author highlights:
- In recent months, Ukrainian forces have regained their strategic initiative.
- The increasing use of medium-range attack drones and precision fires has allowed Kiev to target logistics centers, rear areas, and communication lines, complicating Russian supply chains and blurring the prospects for sustained advances.
- Russia's losses are mounting, and unit competence is eroding as recruits are sent to the front lines after just a few days of training.
- Moscow still does not control any of the regional capitals and special status cities it sought to subdue, and its proclaimed strategic objectives remain out of reach.
What Options Does Putin Have Now
Russia is now further from its strategic objectives than in March 2022, putting Vladimir Putin in a difficult strategic position.
In these circumstances, the Russian president has four general options.
- Negotiating an end to the war. This would equate to a political defeat for Russia. Although its forces retain the ability to fight, it is highly unlikely that the Russian leader would choose political defeat. He must be forced.
- Continuing the current strategy of attrition and hoping that time, exhaustion, and Western weariness produce a favorable outcome. Postponement or maintaining the status quo are plausible options, as Putin has repeatedly postponed decisive decisions. But the current trajectory is unsustainable.
- Freezing the conflict. This option would maintain Moscow's gains without formal annexation and, if associated with an armistice, would remove one of Kiev's most effective asymmetric leverage points. This seems by far to be Russia's best option.
- Escalating the conflict, which could involve additional mobilization, hybrid operations in Europe, or other measures. Escalation is dangerous and unpredictable, but remains plausible if Moscow concludes that postponement no longer serves its interests.
Freezing the Conflict Helps Moscow, Not Kiev
From Moscow's narrow perspective, freezing the conflict makes strategic sense. It reduces the fiscal and labor force costs of active campaigns, allows Russia to consolidate control over occupied areas without the political pain of demobilization, and provides a perpetual pretext for authoritarian governance domestically.
It also deprives Ukraine of a significant asymmetric advantage. Attacks on logistical and energy infrastructure have been essential to Kiev's strategy of imposing costs on Russia and degrading its ability to sustain operations. An armistice would blur this strategy and greatly hinder reconstruction and governance in Ukraine.
For Ukraine, the consequences would be catastrophic. Funding for reconstruction would be harder to mobilize, governance would be fractured by insecurity, and millions of displaced persons would be caught in a deadlock.
Politically, Kiev would be forced to manage a permanent emergency economy and precarious sovereignty. International support would be harder to sustain if the conflict is presented as frozen rather than as a war that can be won or decisively resolved.
Freezing would inherently be a precarious solution, as Moscow would still have the means to quickly reignite hostilities on a large scale if it deems the political moment favorable. Therefore, it is absolutely crucial for the long-term security of the continent that European political decision-makers recognize the danger posed by a frozen conflict.
Ukraine Does Not Need a Break
The temptation to accept a ceasefire for the sake of ending the fighting is understandable; the human cost of war has been immense. However, a pause that leaves the underlying political understanding unresolved would reward aggression and institutionalize Ukraine's subordination.
It would also signal to other revisionist powers that territorial conquest can be consolidated through coercion and then normalized through diplomacy.
If Europe is serious about long-term security, it must clarify that any ceasefire is just a first step on a credible and actionable path to a sustainable agreement, emphasizes the Finnish analyst.
This path should include restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity, accountability mechanisms, including war reparations, guarantees for the return of prisoners, and explicit recognition by Russia of Ukraine's sovereignty and the legitimacy of its government before any pause.
T.D.