On March 17, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he expects to speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin regarding a U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal, which Moscow has yet to accept.
Russia has been hesitant to agree to the 30-day ceasefire, arguing that Ukraine would benefit more from a temporary halt in hostilities. Putin has stated that before considering a ceasefire, Kyiv must first suspend military mobilization, training, and foreign aid deliveries.
Experts suggest that a month-long ceasefire could be advantageous for both sides, providing time to replenish and reorganize their forces. However, the battlefield situation appears more critical for Ukraine. Following the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Sudzha in Russia's Kursk Oblast, analysts speaking with the Kyiv Independent indicated that Ukraine has a greater need for a pause in combat.
"Russia can also regroup, but since Ukraine's challenges are more focused on manpower shortages, while Russia has more personnel to spare, a ceasefire is more urgently needed by Ukraine to reinforce understaffed front-line brigades," said Sascha Bruchmann, a military analyst at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
A ceasefire could also provide Ukraine with relief from Russia’s missile and drone attacks, which have been more devastating than Ukrainian strikes inside Russia.
Who Would Benefit from a Ceasefire?
Following negotiations in Jeddah on March 11, Kyiv agreed to the U.S.-proposed 30-day ceasefire—contingent on Russia doing the same. However, on March 13, Putin stated that while Russia was open to the proposal, it would require Kyiv and Washington to meet specific demands before proceeding with peace talks.
Trump and Putin are set to discuss the ceasefire as the top agenda item during their scheduled phone call on March 18.
Both Ukraine and Russia face challenges with manpower and equipment. Russia has been on the offensive in Donetsk Oblast since 2023, but its advance has slowed in recent weeks, with Ukrainian troops even making gains near Toretsk and Pokrovsk. Meanwhile, Ukraine has suffered setbacks in Kursk Oblast, losing the key town of Sudzha and retreating closer to the border.
Peter Layton, a military expert at the Royal United Services Institute, noted that "both sides would use a ceasefire to rearm and push supplies to the front lines."
Federico Borsari, a defense expert at the Center for European Policy Analysis, agreed that "a ceasefire would be beneficial to both sides, given their respective challenges." However, he argued that Ukraine stands to gain more.
"A ceasefire would allow for much-needed unit rotations in key front-line sectors like Sumy-Kursk and Lyman, the training of new forces, and the strengthening of defensive positions," Borsari explained. "Ukraine is particularly affected by Russia’s manpower advantage in Kursk, and since both sides are at a technological standstill with drones, a ceasefire would give Ukraine time to enhance counter-drone measures and train reinforcements."
Although Russia has made gains in Kursk Oblast, a ceasefire might hinder its ability to exploit Ukrainian vulnerabilities in Sumy.
Bruchmann added that, beyond the battlefield, a ceasefire would help reinvigorate U.S. military and intelligence support for Ukraine.
"In the grand scheme, securing U.S. backing is more critical for Ukraine than any short-term battlefield dynamics," he said.
However, in some areas, a ceasefire could be more beneficial for Russia.
"In recent days, Ukrainian forces have retaken significant territory near Toretsk while halting Russian advances southwest of Pokrovsk," Borsari noted. "Russian units in those areas are overstretched and lack mechanized support for continued assaults. A ceasefire would give them time to recover, making it more advantageous for Russia in that sector."
Air Superiority and Missile Attacks
A ceasefire would particularly benefit Ukraine in terms of air warfare, experts say.
Russia has been launching daily missile and drone strikes across Ukraine, causing significant damage to energy infrastructure. In response, Ukraine has targeted Russian refineries, ammunition depots, and military positions. However, Ukraine's attacks have not been as devastating as Russia’s long-range strikes.
Justin Bronk, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, explained:
"While Ukraine’s long-range strikes have forced Russia to disperse its assets inefficiently, the sheer volume of Russian cruise and ballistic missile attacks has had a greater impact on Ukraine’s military, industry, and society. A ceasefire that halts long-range strikes and aerial glide bomb attacks would clearly be in Ukraine’s favor—assuming both sides abide by it."
Borsari emphasized that a ceasefire would allow Ukraine to restock air-defense interceptors and repair critical infrastructure, though it would also give Russia time to replenish its missile arsenal.
Erik Stijnman, a military expert at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations (Clingendael), added that neither side currently has air superiority, making glide bombs particularly dangerous.
"Removing glide bombs from the equation would likely benefit Ukraine slightly more," he said. "However, enforcing a ban on drone use would be challenging, as attributing responsibility for drone strikes is difficult."
At the same time, Russia may also need a break from Ukrainian drone attacks.
"Ukraine’s strike campaign has significantly increased the cost of war for Russia," said Fabian Hoffman, a defense policy expert at the Oslo Nuclear Project. "While the effectiveness of these campaigns has fluctuated, Ukraine has managed to pressure Russian assets over time."
Black Sea Considerations
In the Black Sea, a ceasefire would likely provide Russia with an advantage.
Ukraine has successfully pushed Russian warships out of much of the Black Sea using drone and missile strikes. One of its most notable victories was the sinking of Russia’s flagship Moskva in 2022. Ukraine’s naval success has enabled the establishment of a shipping corridor to export grain and agricultural products.
Bruchmann noted that "a ceasefire at sea might slightly favor Russia," as Moscow has struggled to counter Ukraine’s effective use of unmanned surface vehicles (USVs).
However, Borsari argued that a ceasefire would not significantly alter the balance in the Black Sea.
"Russia has already adapted by relocating most of its naval assets out of range of Ukrainian missiles," he explained. "Ukraine, meanwhile, has continued to attack high-value Russian air-defense systems using drones."
The Future of Ceasefire Negotiations
As discussions over a potential ceasefire continue, both Ukraine and Russia see it as a strategic opportunity.
"Both sides need to prepare for the next phase of the conflict—whether that be offense, defense, or stabilization," Stijnman said.
"Ceasefire talks create a window for each side to reposition itself in a more advantageous way," he added. "The challenge, however, lies in ensuring that both parties honor the terms of any agreement reached.
Comments
Post a Comment