In the news
On 24 February, marking three years of war, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stressed on Ukraine’s peace and security concerns, continued support and security guarantees. On the same day, EU leaders issued several statements assuring their firm support. EU President Ursula von der Leyen said: “A just and lasting peace comes only through strength.” and assured that the EU would "increase punitive sanctions against Russia unless they demonstrate true willingness to achieve a lasting peace agreement."

On the same day, across the Atlantic, US President Trump asked Ukraine to “forget about” entering NATO and said that the deal on rare earths with Ukraine was “very close.” Mentioning his last call with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, he said that Ukraine was responsible for the conflict, indicating a complete shift in the US’s approach to the war. 

On 23 and 24 February, the UNGA adopted a European-led resolution condemning Russia's invasion, with 93 votes in favor and 18 against, including the US. The UNSC passed a US-drafted resolution calling for peace without ascribing blame, which was approved with 10 votes in favour and five abstentions. 

Issues at large
First, a brief note on major developments during the last three years of the war. In 2022, Russia invaded close to 100,000 square kilometres of Ukraine and continues to control 90,000 square kilometers now including Donetsk, Luhansk, and some parts of southern Ukraine. It was also the only year that saw Ukraine’s successful counteroffensive within its territory pushing back Russian forces from the eastern Dniper River in Kherson Oblast, thanks to advanced medium and high-range weapons. During 2023, the war prolonged with exhaustive battles at Bakhmut and Avdiivka with no major advances for Ukraine. In 2024, the attacks became more tactical than making progress on the ground. Both Ukraine and Russia targeted strategic oil facilities, military hubs, communication, and critical infrastructure to make gains. The only exception would be the Kursk counteroffensive.

Second, Ukraine’s dire ground situation. During the last three years, Ukraine has lost 11 per cent of its land area in the eastern and southern regions facing severe human loss and infrastructure destruction. The support from its backers is changing. While Europe has proposed stationing its peacekeeping force to prevent Russian aggression in the future, the US is forcing Kyiv to end the war. International support before and after Trump for Ukraine has altered, with many right-wing European governments supporting Trump’s decision to end the war to start focusing on strengthening their defences and economy. 

Third, Russia's changing fortune. In the last three years of special military operations in Ukraine, Russia has not fulfilled its original objective of demilitarizing Ukraine. Moscow has suffered heavy losses of 700,000 casualties and has enabled Ukraine to strengthen its military capabilities through Western arms and training programmes. On the other hand, Russia controls about 20 per cent of Ukrainian territory including, Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk Oblasts, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Oblasts actively suppressing any form of resistance. The economic sanctions imposed by NATO did not collapse the Russian economy and they succeeded in shifting their trade interest to China, India and others.  Russia succeeded in procuring arms deals with North Korea including artillery shells and rocket-launch systems approximately 50 per cent of ammunition needs. Russia’s military strategy has evolved significantly adapting to the complexities of the changing international situation. Moscow is now manoeuvring its territorial gains and navigating the challenges of the united Western response. 

Fourth, Europe's dilemma. The war has highlighted Europe's defence vulnerabilities and renewed interest in the arms industry as well as towards reaching self-sufficiency in arms manufacturing. EU has provided 134 billion Euros in support for Ukraine and its people and the EU have also given €28.2 billion in EU macro-financial assistance for Ukraine, in the form of loans and grants. Inflation, energy crises, and economic strain, affecting public opinion in European countries have led to a war fatigue.  Leaders of France and Germany and a few others have started hinting at the possibility of a settlement, while others (Baltic states, and Poland) have remained staunchly supportive of a full Ukrainian victory. 

Fifth, the UN role. The UN has tried to play an important role in addressing the Ukraine conflict. This includes condemning Russia, approving humanitarian aid, and investigating human rights violations. Similarly, the UNGA has passed several resolutions disapproving the invasion. However, they have failed to make a real impact on Ukraine or any other supporting actor. Challenges continue to persist in achieving peace.
 
In perspective
The three years of war in Ukraine have shifted the global order. It has exposed the waning influence of the West while several global south countries prioritise their national interest over West-led policies. The war has also become a wake-up call to increase investment to boost defence and collaborate for stronger strategic partnerships. This applies mainly to the EU which has realised its gap in military spending and would now focus on cutting its dependence on the US military. The war has disturbed the global food supplies, and humanitarian crisis and increased the need for accountability measures for human rights violations. It also reflects the shifting dynamics in diplomacy and peace talks restructuring the power balances in an intensely fragmented world.