Why Isn’t The War Ending?: Exploring What Fuels the Conflict Between Russia and Ukraine

It has been over 1,200 days, and yet, the war between Russia and Ukraine is still ongoing. The world watched the lines of battle shift, peace talks struggle, and hopes for a ceasefire fade, but the fundamental issues fueling the conflict remain unchanged. Both the guns and diplomacy persist in a costly deadlock despite the stakes and efforts of the global leaders, leaving the future of Europe uncertain.

Illustration by The Geostrata

One such effort unfolded on 15th August, at Anchorage, Alaska, where Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin convened for high-stakes peace talks. An event which many hoped would finally turn the tide in the long-stalemated war, concluded with Trump remarking that “the best way to end the horrific war is to go directly to a peace agreement, and not a mere ceasefire agreement.” 

BEHIND THE BROKEN LINE: WHY PEACE REMAINS ELUSIVE?

The question remains, why, despite significant international efforts, does the war not seem to end? And what continues to block a peace agreement even after decades of conflicting interests? The obstacles preventing a lasting peace between the two nations are not just military or political but strategic and deeply rooted in history, national identity, and international law.

The key issue remains of territorial integrity and sovereignty. Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, seeks recognition of its political control and influence over regions like Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhia, all under Ukraine’s territory, which it annexed in 2022.

On the other side, Ukraine views the entirety of its internationally recognised territory as inviolable, a position deeply rooted in its national identity and pride. This is why Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy categorically rejects any peace deal involving territorial concessions to Russia, as Zelenskyy emphasises that issues like sovereignty and national identity are fundamentally “all or nothing” and non-negotiable. This makes compromise deeply contentious. 

Furthermore, years of mistrust due to numerous broken ceasefires have built profound scepticism between the two nations. The brief Easter Truce of 2023 and the three-day ceasefire during Victory Day celebrations in 2025 were relentlessly violated amid accusations from both sides. Ukraine’s foreign minister Andrii Sybiha accused Russia of 734 violations because of continued attacks on the frontline and called the ceasefire a farce, while the Russian defence ministry accused Ukraine of 488 violations.

Such breaches have largely served as political drama rather than genuine steps toward peace, erasing any remaining possibility for trust. Zelenskyy stated that Russia has repeatedly scorned ceasefire calls and that if they can’t heed a simple order to halt the strikes, achieving a long-term peaceful co-existence may prove far more difficult. 

The role of the International Community and geopolitical dynamics adds another layer of complexity to the conflict. The Western nations, particularly members of NATO and the European Union, staunchly support Ukraine’s claim of sovereignty, providing substantial military, economic, and humanitarian aid and simultaneously imposing severe sanctions on Russia.

The collective backing strengthened Ukraine’s position while deepening Moscow’s view of NATO as an existential threat due to its eastern expansion and growing western influence. Russia also allegedly demands that Ukraine make for permanent renunciation of any future NATO membership, which Kyiv and the West strongly oppose.

This geopolitical impasse transforms what might have been a bilateral conflict into a broader proxy struggle where there are no easy negotiations due to immense international influence. Another significant factor is the ongoing military hostilities and frequent escalation of fighting through many fronts- missile strikes, drone attacks, to local skirmishes, which is seen as a tool to strengthen their negotiating positions.

Both sides interpret military gains or losses as leverage or pressure tactics that discourage diplomatic compromise. This is compounded by a lack of clear and shared information and differing perceptions regarding the conflict’s trajectory.

Russia and Ukraine hold divergent views of their military capabilities and the support they get internationally, which makes the leaders believe that prolonging the war might secure a more favourable outcome, whether a complete victory, strengthened bargaining positions, or increased international pressure on the adversary. Consequently, neither side feels the urgency to settle and end the war.

IN TALKS FOR PEACE

Trump, in the recent Alaska summit, stated that the Ukrainian conflict can only be resolved if both nations directly enter into a long-term peace agreement. In an interview following the summit, he emphasised, Ukraine has to make a deal, as ‘Russia is a very big power and they’re not.’ President Putin described the summit as “very useful” and offered to freeze most of the frontlines if Kyiv ceded all of Donetsk, one of Moscow’s main targets. Zelenskyy firmly denied any exchange of Ukrainian territory for peace. He instead called on Russia to stop the killing as ‘stopping the killing is a key element of stopping the war’. 

Following the meeting in Washington on August 18th with Zelenskyy and other European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump appeared more supportive of Ukraine, claiming that the United States would help Ukraine guarantee its security within ten days, as Zelenskyy had demanded. Yet despite dramatic summitry, neither of the meetings ended with a concrete conclusion to the ongoing war. 

WHAT COMES AHEAD?

Still, peace, stability, and settlement seem like a distant dream. The summit in Alaska and then Washington reflected renewed Western unity and lingering contradictions in global diplomacy. In my view, the war has not ended because external actors repeatedly complicate the negotiations.

Rather than narrowing the gap, such interventions often reinforce it, prioritizing the influence, authority, and appearance of global powers over resolving the matter. NATO’s direct stake and Trump’s oscillating stance highlight how external influence, though well-intentioned, has paradoxically kept the core issue locked in stalemate. Peace can only emerge when global leaders stop treating the conflict as a leverage point and instead enable direct and uncompromised dialogue between Moscow and Kyiv.

---

BY PARIDHI SINGH

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com