Russian casualties in Ukraine are approaching one million dead and wounded, making President Donald Trump’s peace plans more urgent for Moscow, according to western analysts.
The latest figures since its invasion began three years ago show that Russia’s forces have suffered between 300,000 to 350,000 killed in action and between 600,000 and 700,000 wounded, according to the latest Ukrainian estimates provided by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
The Ukrainians also claim that its troops are approaching a ratio of 2:1 wounded to dead.
In the last year alone, Russia has ground forward, seizing 4,100 square kilometres but at a cost of 434,000 casualties, including 150,000 killed, the highest number in a single year. Ukraine has admitted to more than 45,000 military dead.
It is unclear how long the combatants can continue the immense cost in personnel. But the latest purported peace proposals by Mr Trump in which Moscow will retain all seized territory could be timely for President Vladimir Putin.
“One million casualties is immense even by Russian standards,” said retired British army officer Hamish de Bretton-Gordon. “Let us hope this stimulates the Russian people to let Putin know enough is enough, that it's time for peace with him or without him.”
Forced surrender
Mr Trump’s purported peace plan would leave Russia with all territory taken since 2022.
Under the leaked proposals, that Mr Trump allegedly wants in place by April 20, Ukraine would not be allowed to join Nato but might be put on a fast track to become a member of the European Union.
However, an analyst said the leaked plan “is in effect forcing a surrender on Ukraine”.
Keir Giles, a UK expert on the Russia military, said: “If Ukraine still considers that it is in condition to carry on the war, then it makes more sense to continue fighting than to accept terms like that.”
With Mr Trump keen to end the conflict within 100 days of being in office – April 30 – the issue will also certainly be discussed at the Munich Security Conference next week, attended by Mr Zelenskyy and other world leaders. According to Izvestia, the Russia Federation has not been invited.
Peace force deterrence
The peace plans, disclosed by Strana, a Ukrainian outlet, include an April 20 ceasefire that will halt Russia’s advances in return for Kyiv’s acceptance of Russian sovereignty of annexed land.
A final declaration for peace would be made by May 9, with Ukraine requested to stop military mobilisation and give up the part of Russia's Kursk province it took in August, followed by an international peace conference.
Part of the deal will be for a force of EU and British troops to patrol a demilitarised zone to prevent any further conflict.
But The National was told by the Czech deputy foreign minister this week that in Europe there was no “political will” to put troops on the doorstep of Russia.
“We don’t see much political buy-in in Europe for this and I wonder whether we have the necessary capabilities,” he added.
That point was agreed by Mr Giles, senior fellow for Russia at Chatham House think tank, who said whenever an international force in Ukraine was proposed “the EU is sent into a panicked frenzy of denials”.
It would also need to be a heavy armoured force “capable of defending itself” rather than “blue berets and light arms”, he added.
Nothing for Kyiv
Political sources have told The National that while there was a consensus for a ceasefire to happen, the conditions to make it work were “still far away from being in place”.
This is amplified by the operations with both sides continuing their offensives. Ukraine on Thursday launched a push using two armoured battalions to punch five kilometres further into Kursk.
Col de Bretton-Gordon said the apparent deal gave “absolutely nothing” for the Ukrainians beyond a ceasefire.
He suggested that at the very least Kyiv should get some “quid pro quo” for returning the estimated 4,000sq km of Russia territory.
Ultimately, Ukraine would only accept such an proposal if the country was “on the point of collapse”, said Mr Giles, giving examples of Finland in the Second World War and Rhodesia in the late 70s that were “under existential threat and sued for peace, even though that was on disastrous terms”.
He also criticised the “key missing element” in negotiations of a “security guarantee” that ensured Russia did not resume its territorial grab after its military had rebuilt following its immense losses.
