The armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia has become a major concern for the international community.
It has already turned into a prolonged war, with global repercussions such as soaring energy prices and a growing refugee crisis.
According to the United Nations, by 2024, the number of refugees caused by the war has reached approximately 8.5 million, placing a significant burden on the social welfare systems of European countries.
In 2023, crude oil prices even surpassed $100 per barrel at times, causing severe disruption in the energy markets.
While economic sanctions from Western countries have been repeatedly imposed, Russia continues to respond with countermeasures, showing no signs of resolution.
Understanding the causes of this prolonged war from multiple perspectives is extremely important for international relations and peacebuilding.
This article analyzes the reasons behind the ongoing conflict by exploring various factors, including historical background, political and strategic elements, economic and resource-related issues, diplomatic and international influences, as well as psychological and cultural aspects.
Our goal is to provide concrete information to help readers gain a deeper understanding of the core issues and better grasp the current state and challenges facing the international community.
{tocify} $title={Table of Contents}Historical Background
The root of the war in Ukraine is not merely a struggle over territory or resources but deeply tied to its historical background.
Following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, tensions—both political and cultural—have accumulated between Ukraine and Russia.
Here, we will explore the historical developments that have shaped the current conflict structure.
The Aftermath of the Cold War
The Cold War era, dominated by the U.S. and Soviet Union, came to an end in 1991 with the collapse of the USSR.
This dramatic shift brought significant changes to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet states, with Ukraine declaring independence that same year.
Ukraine attempted to adopt a democratic election system and transition to a market economy, but the country faced ongoing instability with frequent government changes.
In 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum, giving up its inherited nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the U.S., and the U.K.
However, relations with Russia gradually worsened.
In the 2004 Orange Revolution, a massive civil movement protested election fraud, leading to the annulment of a pro-Russian candidate’s victory.
Later in 2014, after a pro-Western government took power, Russia strongly opposed it and unilaterally annexed Crimea.
This triggered armed conflict between pro-Russian separatists and the Ukrainian government in the Donbas region.
Despite cultural and linguistic ties between Ukraine and Russia, differing political systems and views on national security have deepened their rift, eventually escalating into the current war.
Past Conflicts and Memories
Ukraine and Russia share a long, complicated history.
One of the most tragic episodes was the Holodomor, a massive famine in Ukraine from 1932 to 1933.
Believed to be caused by Soviet agricultural policies, it resulted in the deaths of millions due to food shortages.
Many Ukrainians view this tragedy as a deliberate act of genocide against their people.
During World War II, Ukraine became a battleground, suffering attacks from both German and Soviet forces and incurring massive casualties.
Post-war, Ukraine was reorganized as part of the Soviet Union and benefited from improvements in education, healthcare, and welfare systems.
However, cultural oppression also continued, as the use of the Ukrainian language and culture was restricted in favor of Russian.
These contradictory experiences have led to complex sentiments about the Soviet era, which still fuel resentment and mistrust today.
Beyond a geopolitical conflict, the emotional scars—feelings of anger and sorrow—among people have made peace harder to achieve.
For some generations, the Soviet era is remembered as a time of stable living conditions with free public services.
This diversity of opinions reflects conflicting historical views within Ukraine and contributes to generational and regional divisions, impacting both internal consensus and international positioning.
Political and Strategic Factors
The prolonged nature of this war stems not only from the domestic politics and strategies of each country but also from complex elements related to international security and the global balance of power.
Rising nationalism and political agendas within both countries have fueled the continuation of the war, while Ukraine's geographical position and its relationship with NATO and the EU have significantly influenced the strategic considerations of the global community.
In this section, we will explore why the war is so difficult to resolve from political and strategic perspectives.
Domestic Politics and Nationalism
One major reason the war persists lies in the domestic politics and public sentiment within each nation.
In Russia, President Vladimir Putin has maintained power for many years, building a strong centralized regime that unites the country.
The government portrays the war as a "legitimate act of national defense," emphasizing that Western countries threaten Russia's security.
This narrative is repeatedly broadcast through television and print media, gaining widespread support among Russian citizens.
One example of this sentiment can be seen in past sanctions imposed on Russia during international sports events.
For instance, due to doping scandals, Russia was restricted from participating in the Olympics as a nation and had to compete as the "ROC (Russian Olympic Committee)."
Furthermore, the International Olympic Committee banned the use of the Russian flag and national anthem.
These sanctions are widely viewed within Russia as "Western political attacks," intensifying distrust and resentment toward the West.
Meanwhile, in Ukraine, the political movements of 2014 sparked a surge in national consciousness, with people feeling that they must defend their own country.
Russia’s invasion has further strengthened this resolve, and many now believe they must fight to protect their independence and freedom.
As a result, public support for the government has risen, and a spirit of resistance over negotiation has taken root.
Thus, both Russia and Ukraine have domestic environments that favor the continuation of war, making it difficult to pursue a path toward peace.
As patriotism and the desire to protect the nation grow stronger, compromise becomes harder, contributing to the ongoing conflict.
Geopolitical Tensions
Ukraine is geographically situated between Europe and Russia, making it a strategically vital location for global security.
From Russia’s perspective, Ukraine joining NATO—a Western military alliance—poses a serious threat.
This is because it could lead to NATO troops being deployed close to Russia’s borders.
Given that several former Soviet states have already joined NATO, Russia feels deeply uneasy about further NATO expansion.
On the other hand, since gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine has steadily strengthened ties with Western countries in both economic and political arenas.
Especially after the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution, the idea of "partnering with the West to protect the country" has gained momentum, with Ukraine seeking closer cooperation with NATO and the EU.
As a result, Russia’s wariness toward NATO’s expansion and Ukraine’s determination to align with the West have placed the two nations on entirely opposing paths, intensifying tensions between them.
This is one of the key reasons the military conflict continues to escalate.
Economic and Resource Factors
The Ukraine-Russia war is deeply intertwined not only with politics and history but also with economic and resource-related issues.
In particular, disputes over energy resources and the impact of economic sanctions have greatly affected not just both countries, but the entire global community.
This section will clearly explain the economic and resource factors contributing to the prolonged war and provide context on their background and current state.
Energy and Natural Resource Struggles
Ukraine lies along a critical pipeline route that delivers Russian natural gas to European countries, making its geographic location highly strategic.
Securing and controlling these energy transport routes holds tremendous economic and political significance for Russia.
Russia earns significant revenue from exporting energy resources, particularly natural gas, and has used this supply as a means of exerting influence over other countries.
With the war underway, control and security over pipelines through Ukraine have become even more crucial, directly affecting energy prices and the stability of supply.
Since the conflict began, reports of gas supply cuts and pipeline attacks have emerged, causing major disruptions to European energy policies.
Thus, the fight over natural resource transit routes is not just an economic issue—it’s a matter of national strategy and security, and a key factor in prolonging the war.
Economic Sanctions and Market Trends
Russia has been hit with economic sanctions led by the United States and European countries.
These include removal from international financial networks like SWIFT, asset freezes on major banks and corporations, and bans on the trade of advanced technology and military goods.
As a result, the Russian economy has taken a major hit across finance, trade, and industry.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s infrastructure has been devastated by the war, with damage to factories and transport networks stalling production and trade.
In the agricultural sector in particular, shortages of fertilizer and fuel, along with export restrictions, have become increasingly severe.
As both countries impose sanctions and countermeasures, the world has experienced surging energy prices and rising inflation.
Global supply chains have also been disrupted, leading to unstable food prices and shaken stock markets.
In this way, the ongoing economic pressure is affecting the entire international community, while making conflict resolution increasingly difficult.
Diplomacy and International Relations
This war has grown beyond a bilateral issue between Russia and Ukraine—it has become a global conflict involving numerous countries and international organizations.
Major powers and regional influencers such as the United States, the EU, NATO, China, and Saudi Arabia have each intervened with their own strategic agendas, continuing the struggle over ceasefire and peace negotiations.
In this section, we examine recent diplomatic developments, international responses, and how these factors are shaping the duration and complexity of the war.
Latest Diplomatic Developments
In late February 2025, U.S. President Trump and Vice President Vance met with Ukrainian President Zelensky at the White House.
Reports suggested that the meeting was expected to be a positive step toward ceasefire discussions, but President Trump reportedly expressed skepticism about Ukraine’s current situation and the use of international support, stating that "Ukraine currently lacks leverage in negotiations."
This comment added tension to the talks. While President Zelensky maintained a cooperative stance, he also expressed caution regarding the Trump administration’s commitment to continued support.
Subsequently, President Putin and President Trump held a phone call, resulting in a temporary 30-day agreement to halt attacks on energy infrastructure and ensure maritime safety in the Black Sea region.
The agreement also included measures to protect civilian infrastructure and secure food shipments, reflecting a humanitarian angle.
In March, high-level U.S.-Russia talks were held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where agreements were reached on partial demilitarization of Black Sea routes and maintaining communication lines.
Meanwhile, the European Union, while cautious about direct talks with Russia, has been increasing its support for Ukraine.
The EU has outlined a defense strategy called "Steel Porcupine," gradually expanding military aid including air defense systems, combat drones, and artillery supplies to strengthen Ukraine’s defense capabilities.
This growing support has alarmed Russia, and divisions in the international community are making ceasefire agreements even harder to achieve.
Multilateral Alliances and International Pressure
The Ukraine issue involves major global powers and international organizations, including NATO, the EU, the United States, and China.
While NATO countries have provided Ukraine with weapons and military training, they have adopted a cautious stance to avoid direct confrontation with Russia.
This has led to ongoing debates and coordination over the scope and method of military support, making the response increasingly complex.
Meanwhile, Russia has long claimed that NATO’s eastward expansion poses a security threat and views Ukraine’s alignment with the West as part of a broader encirclement strategy.
The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO is seen by Russia as a red line and has been used as a justification for its military actions.
In fact, since 2022, Ukraine has received over $380 billion in aid from Western countries, with around $118 billion allocated to military support.
This has intensified Russian perceptions of Western military pressure, further escalating tensions.
However, Western nations view this support as a legitimate effort to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and right to self-defense, framing it as a deterrent to Russian aggression.
Each side continues to justify its actions while perceiving the other’s moves as provocative, creating a dynamic that contributes to the prolongation of the war and difficulties in achieving peace.
In addition, EU countries have sought to reduce their energy dependence on Russia, resulting in soaring electricity and gas prices at home and mounting economic strain.
At the same time, China has maintained a neutral public stance while strengthening economic cooperation with Russia, seemingly aiming to exert indirect influence amid growing tensions with the U.S. and EU.
These overlapping interests and strategies make simple ceasefires or peace talks increasingly difficult, further complicating the path to ending the war.
Global Power Balance
Since the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, the world has shifted from a U.S.-dominated unipolar system to a more multipolar one, with multiple major powers competing for influence.
Western countries, led by the United States, have promoted democratic values and free-market principles, while countries like Russia and China have reinforced their own models of governance and sought to expand their regional and global influence.
The conflict in Ukraine is emblematic of this broader global power struggle.
While the U.S. and EU support Ukraine, Russia has taken military action to protect what it sees as its sphere of influence and national security.
Since returning to office in 2025, U.S. President Trump has expressed interest in ending the war quickly and has engaged in active diplomatic efforts.
In a February 2025 phone call, Presidents Trump and Putin reportedly discussed earlier ceasefire efforts, particularly the Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015.
President Putin reiterated his dissatisfaction, claiming that Ukraine and the EU failed to honor the agreements, and emphasized Russia’s position.
Western nations, on the other hand, have criticized Russia for not fulfilling essential conditions such as ceasefires and the withdrawal of heavy weaponry.
The Minsk Agreements included provisions for ceasefires, disarmament, autonomy, and border control in Eastern Ukraine, but both sides have continued to accuse each other of non-compliance, preventing implementation.
Since 2014, the U.S. and EU have steadily increased military aid and imposed economic sanctions on Russia in response to the annexation of Crimea and military involvement in Eastern Ukraine—actions that Russia views as encirclement and pressure.
This growing mutual distrust has left the Minsk Agreements effectively defunct.
Thus, the war in Ukraine is no longer just a regional border conflict—it has become a central issue in the restructuring of global power and international order.
Psychological and Cultural Aspects
Beyond political, economic, and military factors, the collective memory of history and cultural differences deeply influence the ongoing conflict.
Although Russia and Ukraine have long shared ties in language, religion, and ethnicity, these very connections have also intensified emotional rifts due to past oppression and historical conflict.
Moreover, how information is disseminated and the role of media have been noted as contributing to the escalation of tensions and hindering peace efforts.
This chapter delves into the psychological and cultural forces—often invisible—that continue to sustain the war.
Identity and Historical Perception
The cultural differences between Ukraine and Russia go beyond shared history and memories of oppression.
For instance, Ukraine has seen a rise in spiritual and cultural independence, as demonstrated by the recent establishment of an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church separate from the Moscow Patriarchate.
Policies promoting the use of the Ukrainian language in education and media have also strengthened, especially among the younger generation, fostering a growing sense of pride in Ukrainian identity.
In contrast, many in Russia still view Ukraine as "historically one with Russia," and such moves are often seen as signs of betrayal or division.
These cultural frictions underscore ethnic divisions and conflicting senses of belonging, making the war more than just a territorial or economic conflict—it is also deeply rooted in identity.
Within Ukraine, regions differ significantly in language and political alignment, with some areas leaning pro-Russian and others leaning pro-Western.
These divisions extend into questions like "Who am I?" and "Where do I belong?"—fundamental questions of identity that complicate both domestic unity and international diplomacy.
Even historical events are interpreted differently by Russia and Ukraine, with each side insisting on its own version of the truth, making reconciliation even more difficult.
Such underlying factors deepen the conflict and make resolution increasingly elusive.
Media and Propaganda Influence
In the ongoing information war, media outlets in various countries have become more entrenched in defending national narratives and criticizing opposing sides.
Within Russia, state-run media emphasizes the war’s legitimacy while suppressing dissent and critical reporting.
Independent foreign media have been shut down in some cases, increasing the population's exposure to biased or one-sided information.
Meanwhile, in the West and in Ukraine, media often focuses on promoting the values of justice and democracy, with coverage frequently portraying Russia’s actions as straightforward acts of aggression.
This emotionally charged reporting can limit the space for dialogue and compromise.
The rise of social media has empowered individuals to instantly share and amplify information, but has also fueled the spread of misinformation and emotionally driven posts.
In emotionally sensitive situations like war, issues such as bot-driven opinion manipulation, AI-generated content, and deepfake videos have become serious concerns, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish fact from fiction.
In such an environment, calm, fact-based judgment and mutual understanding become harder to achieve, and public sentiment tends to harden along the lines of conflict.
As a result, distrust and hostility accumulate, leading to growing rejection of peace talks and increasing skepticism about diplomacy—creating a vicious cycle where opportunities for dialogue drift further out of reach.
Future Outlook and Possibilities for Resolution
As the war in Ukraine continues to drag on, the question of how and when it might end—and what actions could pave the way for peace—has drawn the attention of the global community.
This section explores various potential endgame scenarios, analyzing the feasibility and challenges of each.
We will also examine the peace process after the war, the need for international coordination, and strategies for rebuilding trust, all in pursuit of lasting peace.
Military Victory or Stalemate
One scenario envisions a decisive victory, in which one side ends the war through overwhelming military force.
For example, if Russia or Ukraine successfully launches a major offensive that forces enemy troops to withdraw, topples a government, or completely occupies a key region, the war might come to an end.
In reality, however, both sides are receiving extensive military aid from major powers like the United States, the EU, and China—including weapons, training, and intelligence support.
These efforts keep both armies highly capable, making a clear military victory unlikely in the near future.
As a result, the most probable scenario is a prolonged stalemate, where frontlines remain largely unchanged.
This prolonged state leads to harsh conditions for soldiers on the ground, causing severe physical and mental exhaustion.
Civilians living near the front suffer from bombings and shelling that destroy homes, hospitals, and schools, while essential services and infrastructure collapse.
Economic activity grinds to a halt, inflation rises, and public services like healthcare and education deteriorate—making daily life increasingly difficult.
Rather than leading to resolution, the "military victory" or "stalemate" scenario risks perpetuating a cycle of destruction and immense human suffering.
Ceasefire Agreement Through Diplomacy
Another scenario involves the international community mediating a temporary or permanent halt to hostilities through negotiation.
Such talks would need to address who controls which areas (ceasefire lines), the final status of disputed territories, and who pays for rebuilding destroyed infrastructure (post-war reparations).
One of the thorniest issues would be determining accountability for atrocities and war crimes committed during the conflict.
Disagreements over whether and how perpetrators should be prosecuted could easily derail negotiations.
Key concerns also include how to safely return refugees and how to provide reconstruction support for damaged hospitals, schools, and roads.
To maintain trust, third-party observers—such as a UN monitoring force—might need to be deployed, and demilitarized zones could be established to prevent renewed conflict.
Verification mechanisms are also essential. These could include plans to gradually reduce troop presence and create regular forums for discussion to ensure peace agreements are not merely symbolic.
Regional Division and De Facto Boundaries
Even if fighting subsides, a lack of political agreement could lead to a "frozen conflict"—where control of territories remains divided, and core disputes and tensions persist.
In such cases, the war may appear to be over, but true peace remains elusive.
Examples include the Korean Peninsula, where conflict was halted by an armistice but not formally resolved, or the Balkans, where ethnic tensions lasted for decades after hostilities ended.
Frozen conflicts carry constant risks of renewed violence and make it difficult to restore normal civilian life.
Even under a ceasefire, threats remain: clashes along borders, unresolved refugee issues, lack of infrastructure, and dangers from landmines and unexploded ordnance.
Distrust and resentment may linger among populations divided by ethnicity, language, or religion, deepening social fragmentation.
To avoid this scenario, continued dialogue and compromise between the parties is essential.
In addition, the international community must provide political, economic, and humanitarian support—working to rebuild trust, assist in regional reconstruction, and promote mutual understanding through education and media as part of a comprehensive approach to long-term peacebuilding.
International Cooperation and the Potential for Negotiation
Currently, Russia faces economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure from the international community, which are believed to have some deterrent effect.
However, these measures alone are insufficient to end the war—and some argue they have only deepened Russia’s sense of distrust.
If sanctions and pressure continue to escalate unilaterally, there is a risk of pushing the other side further away from the negotiating table rather than encouraging compromise.
To break this impasse, more proactive diplomatic efforts involving a wider range of countries are necessary.
For example, international organizations such as the United Nations and the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) could serve as neutral mediators between Russia and Ukraine, helping to initiate dialogue.
Concrete steps such as humanitarian aid, prisoner exchanges, temporary ceasefires in frontline areas, and the creation of demilitarized zones can serve as effective confidence-building measures.
Implementing these steps gradually can create an environment where both sides feel secure enough to engage in talks, moving slowly from hostility to peaceful cooperation.
It is also crucial to establish mechanisms for monitoring post-ceasefire commitments.
This could include deploying international observer forces to monitor compliance and setting up security frameworks to prevent renewed conflict, such as maintaining demilitarized zones and phased disarmament.
Such a gradual and concrete accumulation of trust may offer a realistic path toward ending this prolonged war.
Conclusion
The war between Ukraine and Russia has been prolonged by a complex web of factors, including historical and cultural tensions, domestic political dynamics, geopolitical power struggles, and competition over economic and energy resources.
These elements interact with one another, making the conflict’s resolution even more challenging.
The outcome of this war has direct implications for the stability and prosperity of the world, which is why it is important for each of us to stay engaged with the issue.
Approaching media information with a critical mind and cultivating fair and objective perspectives can lead to more accurate understanding and constructive discussions.
Moreover, it is one of our responsibilities as global citizens to encourage our governments and the international community to continue sincere efforts toward a peaceful resolution.
Ultimately, untangling the root causes of the conflict and building a world where lives and livelihoods are no longer under threat will be the path toward sustainable peace—a goal that the international community must collectively strive to achieve.
Post a Comment