Does Ukraine Need Peace: Zelensky on Ceasefires, War Costs, and Strategic Implications

Does Ukraine Need Peace

In a detailed interview with the Wall Street Journal, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky argued that a ceasefire or a pause with Russia would simply extend the war without restoring Ukrainian territory. He warned that a truce would give Moscow room to regroup, resupply, and prepare for a fresh round of hostilities. The takeaway is clear: a pause can become a strategic advantage for the aggressor, not a step toward lasting security for Ukraine.

According to Zelensky, freezing the conflict would amount to a temporary lull rather than a veto of Russia’s long-term aims. He contends that Moscow would use such a hiatus to reaffirm its geopolitical objectives and to preserve claims over former Soviet states. In his view, the only durable peace would require a negotiation framework that preserves Ukrainian sovereignty and alters the balance of power on the ground.

The president also noted ongoing casualties among Ukrainian forces. He described daily losses and emphasized that shifts in firepower momentum had begun to lessen Ukrainian casualties over time, though fighting continued across frontline areas. The sense is that change on the battlefield, rather than a political pause, is what ultimately affects the human costs of the war and the prospects for Ukrainian strategic security.

There have been reports circulating about Zelensky’s health and hospital status, which he openly addressed, stating that he was in good spirits and not in intensive care. Officials have stated that public misinformation had circulated after cyberattacks targeted media outlets and radio stations, attempting to inflate the severity of the president’s condition. The Ukrainian leadership continues to manage information carefully while presenting a steady public stance on resilience and governance during the crisis.

Calls from Moscow

On July 15, Russia’s First Deputy Representative to the United Nations suggested on a media program that Western nations should press Kyiv to begin serious peace negotiations with Moscow, arguing that the current military balance was unfavorable to Ukraine. While acknowledging varying assessments of American support, the envoy expressed concern that continuing security aid could appear incongruent with a realistic path to peace.

The diplomat argued that the most constructive Western involvement would be to push for political planning and negotiations that lead to a ceasefire acceptable to both sides. He recalled remarks from earlier talks that Ukrainian proposals had potential as a foundation for dialogue, but warned that external consultations should align with broader political realities in Washington and London.

Moscow has consistently urged negotiations from the outset of its operation in Ukraine. Several rounds of talks have taken place, yet no agreement was reached on terms. Moscow has described Kyiv’s demands as excessive, while Kyiv has characterized Moscow’s demands as unacceptable. The Istanbul talks on March 30 raised cautious optimism but ultimately did not produce a lasting agreement, and the process stalled.

During past discussions, Moscow pressed for Kyiv to commit to non-alignment and to recognize Crimea as part of Russia, along with recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. Kyiv sought robust security guarantees under an international agreement, with potential guarantors including major powers and regional actors. Kyiv also called for an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of Russian forces, and the restoration of Crimea to Ukrainian jurisdiction. Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Rudenko later stated that formal peace talks with Ukraine were not currently underway and that the involvement of third countries remained uncertain.

In early July, President Vladimir Putin warned that while Russia did not reject the idea of peace, any negotiations would require the other side to understand that pushing further would complicate the process. He linked Western support for Ukraine to broader economic challenges facing Russia and framed negotiations as a test of political will on all sides.

The Current State of Operations

Official briefings from the Russian Defense Ministry on July 22 claimed that multiple strike operations had targeted Ukrainian forces in recent weeks. Reported actions included the destruction of several mobile rocket launch systems, the neutralization of a temporary staging area for foreign-placed units near Kramatorsk, and the elimination of dozens of personnel and equipment. Other summaries noted hits on Ukrainian command nodes and air defense assets, along with the destruction of unmanned aerial vehicles. Analysts indicate that both sides continue to adjust deployments and seek tactical advantages on the ground.

Observers note ongoing combat activity in various sectors, with Ukrainian forces reporting losses and claims of Russian advances near critical landmarks. The broader picture remains one of a contested battlefield where both sides claim progress at different times, and where the tempo of fighting can shift rapidly with each new engagement.

Meanwhile, a regional portal associated with Russian-aligned sources reported that Russian troops, alongside allied formations, had taken control of a significant Ukrainian formation near Seversk in the Donetsk region. Such updates contribute to a volatile narrative on the battlefield, underscoring the importance of corroborating information through multiple channels in fast-moving conflict zones.

Civilians in frontline zones continue to bear the brunt of the conflict as frontline dynamics persist. The human dimension remains a central concern for international observers and humanitarian organizations seeking safe corridors, aid delivery, and protections for those affected by the fighting.