As of end of August 2025, Russian war against Ukraine has dragged on for over three and a half years, with no end in sight despite intermittent diplomatic efforts. Recent attempts at negotiations, including those influenced by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration, have collapsed amid mutual accusations and irreconcilable demands.
Russia’s invasion, initially framed by Putin as a so called “special military operation” to demilitarize and “denazify” Ukraine, has evolved into a grueling war of attrition.
It is needed to deeply analyze the key reasons behind Russia’s failure to secure a favorable peace deal and why, despite territorial gains, Moscow is structurally incapable of achieving a decisive victory.
Drawing on military, economic and diplomatic realities, it becomes clear that Russia’s overreach has led to a quagmire from which it cannot extricate itself without significant concessions – concessions Putin appears unwilling to make.
Peace talks between Russia and Ukraine have repeatedly faltered since the war’s early days, with the latest rounds in 2025 yielding little beyond prisoner swaps. Several structural factors explain this impasse, rooted in Russia’s aggressive posture and Ukraine’s resilient defense.
First, Russia’s demands remain maximalist and non-negotiable, effectively demanding Ukraine’s capitulation rather than a mutual compromise. Putin has insisted on Ukraine ceding control over the entire Donbas region, including areas still held by Kyiv, as a prerequisite for any ceasefire. This echoes earlier failed talks, such as those in Istanbul in 2022 and renewed efforts in 2025, where Russia also pushed for Ukraine’s demilitarization, neutrality and recognition of annexed territories like Crimea.
Such conditions are incompatible with Ukraine’s sovereignty, as President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly stated that negotiations must begin with a full Russian withdrawal and accountability for war crimes, including the Bucha massacre that derailed early discussions.
This reflects Putin’s obsession with restoring a Soviet-era sphere of influence, where Ukraine is treated as a colony rather than an independent state – a mindset that precludes genuine diplomacy.
Second, external influences, particularly U.S. politics, have complicated talks without resolving them. Trump’s recent calls for direct negotiations with Putin, bypassing a ceasefire in favor of a comprehensive deal, have been met with skepticism. Despite high-profile summits, no breakthroughs have occurred, as Russia continues bombing civilian infrastructure and advancing in the Donbas.
This shows that Putin will not pursue peace until facing military defeat or intensified sanctions, which Trump has ruled out imposing further. Ukraine, meanwhile, has criticized Russia for stalling by failing to submit concrete proposals, demanding visibility into terms before attending sessions.
This dynamic underscores a broader issue: Russia’s strategy relies on prolonging the war to erode Western support, but this has backfired as allies like the EU and NATO continue aiding Ukraine, viewing Russian aggression as an existential threat.
Doubts about Russia’s sincerity plague the process. Historical precedents, such as the Minsk agreements that Russia violated, fuel Ukrainian distrust. In 2025, talks have ignored justice for atrocities and the trauma inflicted on Ukrainians, risking a frozen conflict rather than true resolution. Putin seeks surrender, not peace, as evidenced by ongoing offensives despite diplomatic overtures.
This failure stems from Russia’s internal constraints: ending the war without “victory” could destabilize Putin’s regime, given the domestic propaganda framing the invasion as essential to Russian security. As a result, peace appears more remote than ever, with no party ready to concede core interests.
Beyond diplomatic failures, Russia’s inability to win the war outright is evident in its military struggles, economic vulnerabilities and the broader geopolitical landscape. Despite initial advantages in manpower and resources, Moscow has squandered them through poor strategy and underestimation of Ukrainian resolve.
Militarily, Russia has suffered staggering losses without decisive gains. By mid-2025, Russian forces have failed to advance along multiple fronts, seizing only limited territory while losing substantial equipment. Casualties are estimated more than one million, with Russia’s army relying on outdated tactics and conscripts.
Ukraine’s “strategic neutralization” approach – rendering Russian aggression futile through attrition – has proven effective. Russia’s navy and air force are outdated, with significant losses in armor and reserves. This reflects a fundamental mismatch: Russia’s doctrine, rooted in mass artillery and manpower, cannot overcome Ukraine’s adaptive defenses, Western-supplied weapons like drones and precision munitions, and NATO intelligence support.
Launching the invasion at all was Putin’s first mistake, as Russia lacks the capacity to achieve strategic goals like full occupation. Without air superiority or the ability to suppress Ukrainian strikes, Russian advances grind to a halt, turning the war into a positional stalemate that favors the defender.
Economically, sanctions and war expenditures have pushed Russia to the brink. The economy is overheating, with military production ramped up at the expense of civilian sectors, but this is unsustainable. Russia’s reliance on North Korean and Iranian supplies highlights depleted stockpiles, while its population decline and collapsing economy limit long-term endurance. In contrast, Ukraine benefits from Western aid, which, though inconsistent, has sustained its resistance.
Prolonged warfare disproportionately harms Russia, as its smaller GDP (comparable to Italy’s) cannot match the combined resources of NATO allies. Putin’s war economy may produce more munitions short-term, but it drains reserves and fosters corruption, leading to inefficiencies. Structurally, Russia’s isolation from global markets – exacerbated by sanctions ensures it cannot outlast a coalition-backed Ukraine.
Geopolitically, international support for Ukraine has isolated Russia, turning what Putin envisioned as a quick victory into a global pariah status. NATO’s expansion, including Finland and Sweden, was accelerated by the invasion, countering Putin’s goals. Western fatigue exists, but public opinion in key allies remains pro-Ukraine, with no appetite for Russian concessions.
Russia’s alliances with China and others provide limited relief, as Beijing prioritizes economic ties over military entanglement. This war exposes the limits of Russian power: it cannot subdue a determined Ukraine without risking escalation to nuclear thresholds, which deters full commitment. Victory for Russia would require Ukraine’s collapse, but Kyiv’s morale and innovations – drones, asymmetric warfare – ensure survival.
Russia’s failure in peace talks and inability to win stem from the same hubris: an underestimation of Ukraine’s will and Western resolve. Putin may hold territory, but at immense cost, with no path to strategic triumph.
As the war prolongs, Russia’s economy falters, military erodes and isolation deepens, making defeat – framed as a frozen conflict or forced withdrawal – increasingly likely. For lasting peace, Moscow must abandon imperial ambitions, but until then, Ukraine’s defiance ensures Russia’s quagmire persists.