Four Years of the Russia-Ukraine War: The Stalemate of Attrition and the Dilemma of Peace

By February 22, 2026, Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has lasted 1,418 days. This duration exceeds that of the Soviet Union's Great Patriotic War against Nazi Germany during World War II. However, unlike the Red Army that fought its way to Berlin eighty years ago, the Russian military has so far failed to gain full control over Ukraine's industrial heartland in the east. Since the full-scale invasion in February 2022, Russia has occupied approximately 20% of Ukraine's territory, but the pace of its subsequent advances has been described by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte as "the speed of a garden snail." Over the past two years, Russian forces have advanced only about 50 kilometers in the direction of Donetsk. Nearly 2 million military personnel from both sides have been killed, wounded, or gone missing, with Europe experiencing the most devastating war of attrition since World War II.

Frontline: From Blitzkrieg to "Snail's Pace Advance"

The nature of warfare has been completely transformed over the past four years. In early 2022, the Russian military's plan to swiftly capture Kyiv and establish a puppet government using large-scale armored formations had already failed. Following Ukraine's counteroffensive in Kharkiv in the autumn of that same year, the 1,200-kilometer front line gradually solidified, evolving into bloody positional warfare. According to data from the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, Russian military casualties have approached 1.2 million, with approximately 325,000 deaths; Ukrainian military casualties are estimated at 600,000, including around 140,000 deaths.

At the Pokrovsk direction of the Donetsk transportation hub, Russian forces advance only about 70 meters per day on average. Behind this snail's pace lies a battlefield revolution dominated by drones. Both sides find it difficult to secretly assemble large forces, as high-resolution reconnaissance drones and first-person view attack drones have turned the area up to 50 kilometers behind the front lines into a death zone. The battlefield has taken on a hybrid form: on one hand, fiber-optic guided long-endurance drones and electronic warfare systems create a high-tech killing network; on the other hand, small infantry units conduct trench infiltration reminiscent of World War I in ruins destroyed by heavy artillery and glide bombs, often with just two or three soldiers forming an assault team. Logistics supply and casualty evacuation have become extremely dangerous, with drones continuously hunting every known supply route.

Ukrainian officials stated that the winter of 2025-2026 was the most difficult period since the outbreak of the war. Russian strikes on Ukraine's energy system have increased exponentially, with cities like Kyiv receiving only a few hours of electricity per day amid severe cold. The tactical objective of the Russian military is clear: by attacking transmission lines, they aim to fragment Ukraine's power grid into isolated segments, systematically undermining its civilian and industrial infrastructure. In response, Ukraine has deployed long-range drones deep into Russian territory to target energy facilities such as refineries, aiming to weaken Moscow's export revenue.

A more symbolic blow occurred in the Black Sea and deep within Russian territory. Ukrainian drones and missiles sank multiple Russian warships, forcing the Black Sea Fleet to retreat from Sevastopol in Crimea to Novorossiysk. In June 2025, during an operation codenamed Spider Web, Ukraine used truck-mounted drones to attack several air bases inside Russia that were hosting long-range bombers, which was a humiliating strategic breach for the Kremlin.

Strategy: Irreconcilable Core Demands

Despite slow battlefield progress and staggering costs, Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to insist on maximalist demands in U.S.-mediated peace negotiations. He demands that Ukrainian forces withdraw from areas in four regions, including Donetsk, that are not fully under Russian control—territories that Moscow has illegally annexed. Additionally, Putin requires Ukraine to abandon its bid to join NATO, reduce its military capabilities, and grant official status to the Russian language. The Kremlin remains open to Ukraine’s potential future accession to the European Union but firmly opposes any deployment of European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Zelensky's stance is confrontational. He demands a ceasefire along the current line of contact, but Putin has ruled out any possibility of a temporary truce, insisting that a comprehensive peace agreement must be reached. Tatiana Stanovaya of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center analyzes: While territorial issues are indeed important to the Kremlin, this war has a broader objective: shaping a Ukraine that is entirely within Russia's sphere of influence and not perceived by Moscow as "anti-Russian." The deeper reason is that this war has transcended mere geopolitical maneuvering; it concerns Russia's redefinition of its own security boundaries and historical status.

Former U.S. President Trump once promised to end the war within a day, and his administration actively promoted mediation, but the mediation efforts encountered fundamental contradictions. At the Alaska Summit in August 2025, Trump and Putin reached a provisional understanding, but its content was vague. Ukraine and its European allies accused Putin of using negotiations to buy time in order to seize more territory, while the Kremlin countered by accusing Kyiv and its supporters of attempting to undermine the Alaska consensus.

After a setback in his White House meeting with Trump a year ago, Zelensky adjusted his negotiation stance, demonstrating more goodwill and flexibility. In response to Trump's demand for a presidential election in Ukraine (despite being prohibited under martial law), Zelensky expressed a willingness to consider it in principle, but only on the condition of achieving a ceasefire first and obtaining security guarantees from allies such as the United States. He proposed combining the election with a referendum on a peace agreement.

External: U.S. Pressure and the War Economy

The White House has set a June 2026 deadline for the end of the war, which is expected to put pressure on both sides. Trump’s willingness to reach a peace agreement before the midterm elections appears urgent, but the challenges are significant. Putin insists on the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Donetsk, while Zelenskyy firmly rejects this, making a quick agreement unlikely. Zelenskyy is also skeptical of the U.S.-proposed compromise to turn eastern Ukraine into a free trade zone.

The Kremlin's strategic expectation is to eventually force Kyiv to accept Moscow's terms through sustained military pressure. Ukraine hopes to hold out until Trump loses patience, thereby increasing sanctions on Russia and forcing Putin to halt the aggression. However, the reality is that Trump's patience appears to be more consumed by Zelenskyy.

War and Western sanctions are indeed placing increasing pressure on the Russian economy. Economic growth has nearly stagnated, inflation persists, and there is a labor shortage. The latest U.S. sanctions on Russian oil exports have exacerbated the difficulties. Richard Connolly of the Royal United Services Institute notes: The Russian economy has become poorer, less efficient, and its outlook is bleak. However, it still has the capacity to sustain the war. The dependence of its elite on the regime continues to grow. Its political system blocks the channel through which economic discontent could translate into pressure for regime change.

Despite facing economic challenges, Russia's defense industry has increased weapon production, and the government has ensured the welfare of key groups such as military personnel and defense industry workers. The war economy model has demonstrated its resilience. On the other hand, stimulated by the war, Ukraine's defense industry system has undergone partial transformation, gradually developing local drone and missile production capabilities from heavy reliance on Soviet-style equipment and foreign aid. However, overall, it remains deeply dependent on Western assistance.

Both sides have entered a kind of endurance test, competing not only in battlefield attrition but also in the resilience of their internal socio-economic systems, the durability of external allied support, and the political will of their leadership.

Future: A Stalemate with No Winner

Four years have passed, and there is no clear victor in this war. Russia has failed to achieve its initial political and military objectives, paying a heavy price in terms of human lives, economic costs, and strategic reputation. Ukraine has preserved its national sovereignty from destruction, but has lost significant territory, seen its nation-building process completely disrupted, and witnessed a generation deeply scarred by the trauma of war. The European security order has been permanently altered, and global geopolitical plates continue to shift.

The stalemate on the battlefield may persist, but the nature of warfare continues to evolve. Drone technology, the application of artificial intelligence in command systems, and the enhancement of electronic warfare capabilities are constantly transforming the efficiency of combat. Meanwhile, the importance of rear-area warfare targeting energy, logistics, and economic infrastructure is becoming increasingly prominent.

The window for peace appears to exist amid external pressures brought by the U.S. election political cycle, yet the chasm between Moscow and Kyiv's positions is far from easily bridged by external mediation. At the heart of the issue lies the fact that any viable peace plan must provide both sides with a narrative they can justify to their domestic populations, yet their current minimum demands are almost entirely mutually exclusive.

The war has entered its fifth year, and a brutal paradox has become increasingly clear: military means cannot achieve a political resolution, yet a political resolution lacks the corresponding military posture as its foundation. Every inch of progress or retreat at the negotiation table corresponds to the loss of countless lives on the front lines. This war, which began with miscalculations, is dragging both nations and even broader regions toward an unpredictable future through its immense inertia. The ultimate outcome may not be the complete victory of one side, but rather a weary, unstable, temporary cessation that sows the seeds for the next round of conflict.