U.S. President Donald Trump said on March 17 that he expects to hold a phone call with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to discuss a U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal that Moscow has yet to agree to.
Russia has declined to immediately accept the 30-day ceasefire proposal, with the Kremlin pointing out that Ukraine stands to benefit more from the halt in military action.
Putin demanded that Kyiv first halt mobilization, military training, and foreign aid deliveries before Russia would consider halting military action.
According to experts, a month-long ceasefire would benefit both sides, allowing the warring parties to replenish and regroup their forces.
The battlefield situation, however, is developing worse for Ukraine than for Russia. Following Ukrainian troops' withdrawal from the town of Sudzha in Russia's Kursk Oblast, experts who spoke with the Kyiv Independent said that Kyiv had a greater need for a pause in military action.
"Russia can regroup as well, but because Ukraine's problems are so much centered on questions of manpower and Russia has more blood to spare, I think it is more urgent for Ukraine to replenish some understaffed front-line brigades and therefore, the ceasefire could benefit them more," Sascha Bruchmann, a military analyst at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, told the Kyiv Independent.
Kyiv could also get a respite from Moscow's missile and drone attacks, which have been more devastating than Ukrainian retaliatory strikes deep inside Russia.
Oleg Sukhov
Who would benefit from a ceasefire on the ground?
Following talks in Jeddah on March 11, Kyiv said it had agreed to a 30-day ceasefire proposed by Washington, provided that Russia did as well.
On March 13, Putin said Russia was ready to agree to the U.S.-proposed ceasefire with Ukraine but then followed up with a list of demands that Kyiv and Washington must accommodate in order for Moscow to proceed with peace talks.
The topic of a potential ceasefire is first on the list of the upcoming Trump-Putin phone call scheduled for March 18.
Meanwhile, both Ukraine and Russia have experienced problems with manpower and equipment.
Russia has been on the offensive in Donetsk Oblast since 2023, with its advance bogging down over the past month and Ukrainian troops even making gains near the towns of Toretsk and Pokrovsk.
Ukraine, however, has faced setbacks in Russia's Kursk Oblast, losing the key town of Sudzha and withdrawing closer to the border.
Peter Layton, a military expert at the Royal United Services Institute, said that "both sides would try to rearm during a ceasefire and rush supplies forward to the front line."
"Ukraine was suffering from Russia's manpower advantages, especially in Kursk (Oblast)."
Federico Borsari, a defense expert at the Center for European Policy Analysis, also argued that "the ceasefire would be beneficial for both sides, given the issues and problems both Ukrainian and Russian forces face."
However, Ukraine would still gain a bit more from a potential ceasefire.
Borsari said that a ceasefire "will allow much-needed (Ukrainian) unit rotations in key sectors of the front line (Sumy-Kursk, Lyman, etc), train new forces, strengthen defenses, and resupply units along the front lines."
"Ukraine was suffering from Russia's manpower advantages, especially in Kursk (Oblast), and as the two sides seem to be on a relative technological parity in the use of tactical drones, a ceasefire gives Ukraine time to carefully assess the situation on the front line, establish more anti-drone countermeasures, and train new forces," he added.
"Russia was advancing in Kursk (Oblast), so a ceasefire may be detrimental to any potential attempt to advance in (bordering) Sumy (Oblast) by exploiting Ukrainian vulnerabilities in that localized area."
Meanwhile, Bruchmann said that "there is an overriding political imperative, so the ceasefire approval in principle is good for Ukraine as it reinvigorates the U.S.-Ukraine weapons and intelligence partnership."
"Everything else pales in comparison," he added.
But in some areas of the front a ceasefire could favor Russia more than Ukraine at the moment.
"In recent days, Ukrainian forces have managed to regain sizeable chunks of territory near Toretsk while also stopping Russian advances southwest of Pokrovsk," Borsari argued.
"Russian forces in these areas were becoming overstretched and lacked sufficient mechanized support to continue their assaults. A ceasefire, therefore, would be more beneficial for Russia in this specific sector."
Oleg Sukhov
Ukraine would benefit from a ceasefire in the sky
Meanwhile, Ukraine would clearly benefit from a halt in Russia's air assaults and bombardments, analysts say.
Russia has been attacking Ukraine's entire territory with drones and missiles on a daily basis. As a result, a large part of Ukraine's energy infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed.
Ukraine has retaliated, striking deep into Russia with drones of its own making and attacking border regions with foreign-provided missiles. Although Ukraine has caused damage to refineries, ammunition depots, and troops, the impact has been less devastating than that of Russian attacks on Ukraine.
The foreign-provided missiles are also running out.
"While Ukraine's long-range strike campaign against Russian bases and infrastructure has had some significant effects, especially in forcing Russian forces to distribute their assets in less efficient ways, it is undeniable that the impact of Russia's long-range strike campaign on Ukrainian society, industry, and the military has been greater," Justin Bronk, a senior research fellow at the London-based Royal United Services Institute, told the Kyiv Independent.
"This is due to the far greater strike weight, especially in terms of heavier cruise and ballistic missiles, that Russian forces can generate. Therefore, any ceasefire agreement covering long-range strikes and aerial glide bomb attacks would almost certainly be more advantageous for Ukraine than for Russia — assuming all other factors remain equal."
Borsari argued that "Ukraine would be able to significantly replenish its air-defense interceptors stocks and repair critical energy infrastructure, though Russia can also restock its missile arsenal for newer attacks."
Erik Stijnman, a military expert at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations (Clingendael), said that "both air forces do not have air superiority, let alone air supremacy over the contested battlespace."
"Removing the glide bomb out of the equation will probably benefit the Ukrainians a bit more," he added. "Although enforcing a ceasefire for air assets should be achievable, restricting or enforcing the use of drones is very difficult, as it is to attribute the use of drones to one of the parties."
However, Russia could also need a respite from Ukrainian drone attacks.
"What Ukraine's strike campaign has done is to significantly drive up the costs of aggression for Russia," Fabian Hoffman, a defense policy expert at the Oslo Nuclear Project, told the Kyiv Independent.
"The effectiveness of the strike campaigns has varied on both sides, so has their impact. At times, Ukraine's campaign was likely more effective, while at other times Russia's was."
Natalia YermakBlack Sea question
In the Black Sea, meanwhile, the ceasefire would give Russia some breathing room.
Ukraine has successfully targeted Russian warships with drones and missiles, pushing them out of large parts of the Black Sea. One of Ukraine's most spectacular successes was the sinking of Russia's flagship cruiser Moskva in 2022.
Ukraine's victories have allowed it to launch a corridor in the Black Sea in 2023 to ship its grain and other agricultural products.
Bruchmann said that "on the seas, (a ceasefire) might favor Russia slightly."
"I think the Russians failed to seize the initiative in the Black Sea for some time," he said. "Their navy is boxed in and did not find a solution against Ukrainian unmanned surface vehicles (USVs), which seem to have become more lethal and versatile."
Meanwhile, Borsari said that "overall, the ceasefire would not bring any significant change in the Black Sea."
"In the Black Sea, we have seen a progressive decrease in Ukrainian attacks against Russian naval assets due to Russia's adaptation and decision to move most of its assets further away and outside the reach of Storm Shadow/SCALP cruise missiles," he added. "Ukraine has used USVs and motherships with first-person view drones (FPVs) to destroy a few valuable air-defense systems."
"This would benefit both parties, but probably Ukraine more, as it has access to one route."
Stijnman said that "looking at operational advantages, a ceasefire on the sea will probably be the easiest to enforce, allowing the unhindered use of sealines of communications."
"This would benefit both parties, but probably Ukraine more, as it has access to one route," he added.
The prospects for a ceasefire at sea, in the air, and on land remain unclear, but both Ukraine and Russia could see it as an opportunity.
"Both parties will need to prepare for the next phase, whatever it will be," Stijnman said.
"The advent of ceasefire negotiations, ceasefires, and peace negotiations will create a window of opportunity to (re)gain a more advantageous position over the other (side), either in a defensive, offensive, or stabilizing operation framework."
"The difficulty with any ceasefire, however, is that all parties are unsure to what extent the other party will commit to the agreements made," he added.
