Ukraine Peace Plan: Ceasefire Along the Contact Line

One Million Russian Casualties and a Frozen Front: The Peace Plan

A calculation circulating among the coldest analyses puts the figure on the table: three million Ukrainian casualties between dead and wounded, versus around one million on the Russian side. With these numbers and a front advancing at a snail's pace, the hypothesis gaining ground is not victory for anyone, but a permanent ceasefire along the contact line. The peace plan in Ukraine is no longer discussed as surrender or triumph: it is discussed as a freeze.

Therein lies the problem. Because if this war has shown anything, it's that nobody knows how many men it has cost.

Casualties: The Figure No One Confirms and Everyone Uses

Not everyone buys this balance. Some argue the opposite: the attacker always loses more men, so Russian casualties would exceed Ukrainian ones. Both propagandas speak of 1.5 million on the opposing side; the most repeated calculation puts Russia near one million and Ukraine below half a million.

To defend one thesis or the other, history is invoked: in Operation Barbarossa, Soviet casualties far outnumbered German ones, and in World War II, five million Germans died compared to eleven million Soviets. Others point to artillery and glide bombs as the true attrition factor, with ratios ranging from 1 to 5 to 1 to 15 depending on who you ask.

The only data both sides acknowledge—and the most uncomfortable—is the exchange of bodies: one hundred for twenty or thirty.

Who Has Air Superiority in Ukraine?

Half the debate depends on the answer. Some deny it outright: neither side has had air superiority since the war began, Russian bombers barely cross the border, and their guided bombs are launched from their own territory. If they risked more, they argue, Ukrainian F-16s and MiGs would shoot them down.

The counter-argument is technical and much more uncomfortable: there's no need to enter enemy airspace when a cheap guidance kit turns an old Soviet bomb into a precision weapon. Russia has plenty of Soviet-era arsenals. The discussion even extends to Iran, where they also argue about whether the United States and its ally are or are not flying over the sky.

Drones, Artillery, and Empty Western Arsenals

Here, figures weigh more than opinions. Russia fires millions of shells per month and has manufactured millions of drones, according to available data. On the other side, European arsenals count drones in the hundreds and kamikazes in the very few numbers: Spain, if it exceeds 100, it's a lot, while the other side deploys thousands in days. The conclusion that emerges is uncomfortable: NATO has emptied its depots, and Russian industry, while not Soviet, is holding its own.

Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, and the Dnipro Question

The front advances slowly, but it advances. Sloviansk and Kramatorsk are the cities expected to fall soon; after that, the Dnipro River appears on the map as a natural border. The question that lingers is whether Moscow will stop there or if the next target is in Poland. And underneath, the unresolved problem festers: Ukraine is losing human capital—desertions, refugees, forced conscription—while Russia still has soldiers to spare.

What Does a War Economy Cost the EU?

Some calculations paint an unpleasant scenario for Europe. The EU has about 500 hospital beds per 100,000 inhabitants—more than two million—but in case of conflict, military personnel would have priority over civilians. Adopting a war economy would make products disappear from the market and push consumers towards a black market with prices, they say, like unicorn horns. And with Ukraine included, the balance seems worse: there's already talk of 7% of its GDP at stake and 50% of its export capacity destroyed.

In the end, the least pleasant phrase that sums it all up is: whether a hundred or a hundred million men fall, the only thing that matters is winning the war. The price of peace, if it comes, has already been paid. The question is whether anyone intends to repay it.