Is ukraine war at end
Executive summary
The war in Ukraine is not at an end: fighting, territorial shifts, and high-intensity strikes continue across multiple fronts, with recent reporting showing significant Russian territorial gains in November and sustained missile and drone barrages [1] [2]. Negotiations and diplomatic activity are active but stalled: U.S.-brokered talks have not produced an agreed settlement and both sides — and third-party mediators — remain far apart on core issues [2] [3].
1. Frontline reality: active combat and recent Russian gains
Recent open-source battlefield assessments and reporting show continued combat and measurable Russian advances: analysts cite that Russian forces captured about 505 sq km in November and other think‑tank analysis records 247 sq miles gained in a four-week period early December, indicating intensified Russian operational success rather than a cessation of hostilities [1] [4]. ISW and local outlets report tactical breakthroughs near Huliaipole and continued fighting around Pokrovsk, Myrnohrad and other eastern localities, underscoring ongoing offensive operations [5] [6].
2. Strategic campaigning: strikes, logistics and attrition warfare
The campaign remains high‑intensity: one assessment documented 704 missiles and drones launched at Ukrainian infrastructure overnight in early December, and other reporting details missile strikes on cities like Dnipro and Kryvyi Rih with civilian casualties — evidence the conflict remains kinetic and aimed at degrading logistics and energy systems [2] [7]. Western officials and analysts say Moscow’s approach assumes it can outlast Ukraine and its backers in a war of attrition, a view Vladimir Putin and some Kremlin interlocutors have signaled publicly [5].
3. Diplomacy in motion but no breakthrough
Diplomatic activity is active but inconclusive: U.S.-Ukrainian delegations and third-party envoys have met, and negotiators have discussed security frameworks, reconstruction and a “credible path” to peace, but both negotiators and analysts say progress depends on Russia demonstrating good‑faith commitments that have not yet materialized [2] [3]. Reports note Moscow has publicly avoided detailing its position after talks and continues to press maximalist demands, which the Institute for the Study of War interprets as part of cognitive‑warfare to present victory as inevitable [3].
4. Political signals and contested narratives
Political messaging diverges sharply: Ukrainian leaders publicly press to “end the war as soon as possible,” while Russian state actors and some deputies reiterate territorial claims and threaten further action, including rhetoric about Odesa and cutting Ukraine off from the Black Sea [8] [3]. ISW warns that Kremlin information operations are designed to shape Western and Ukrainian perceptions, arguing that some Russian officials portray battlefield success as imminent to extract concessions [3].
5. Human and institutional strain: soldiers, civilians and nuclear safety
Reporting highlights persistent human costs and risk to critical sites: frontline troops describe extended deployments and war‑weariness while civilian areas remain under attack [9] [7]. The IAEA reported damage to the Chornobyl New Safe Confinement after a February drone strike, leaving the structure unable to fulfill primary safety functions — a reminder of nuclear and environmental risks that persist while fighting continues [2].
6. Why “is the war at an end?” is premature
Available reporting shows three concrete reasons the war is not over: active offensive operations and territorial changes on the ground [5] [1]; sustained, large‑scale missile and drone strikes targeting infrastructure [2]; and stalled negotiations without Russian concessions deemed necessary by Ukraine and its Western partners [2] [3]. Some voices and outlets promote narratives suggesting imminent resolution, but ISW and frontline reporting contradict the idea of an imminent or finished conflict [3] [8].
7. What to watch next
Track three indicators: whether large strikes and ground offensives decline (current reports show they have not) [2] [5]; whether Russia accepts concrete, verifiable security and territorial terms discussed by U.S.-Ukrainian delegations (negotiators say progress depends on Russian good faith) [2]; and independent verification of any reported ceasefire or major territorial handovers beyond conflicting battlefield claims (ISW and local reporting continue to treat capture claims cautiously) [3] [6].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the provided reporting snapshots and does not include classified assessments or data released after these items; available sources do not mention any formal, mutually agreed ceasefire or comprehensive peace settlement that ends the war [2] [3].