Why India is now best positioned to propose a Ukraine ceasefire framework
The Modi-Putin meeting in Delhi has once again drawn global attention to the unresolved Ukraine war.
Western reactions, particularly from the United States, suggest discomfort with any engagement legitimizing Russia while fighting continues.
Yet the same Western capitals acknowledge privately that the war is unsustainable and are themselves searching for ways to bring it to an end, apart from buying essentials from a sanctioned Russia.
India’s position is straightforward:
- It did not cause the conflict
- It has no territorial or military role in it
- It faces its own economic and security priorities
As a low per-capita income country with two nuclear-armed adversaries on its borders, India must balance its principles with its interests.
Notwithstanding this, India has consistently stated that it wants the war to end and is prepared to support diplomatic pathways, though it has no ‘locus standi’ to impose solutions on sovereign states.
Meanwhile, the war grinds on with immense human and economic cost.
Each passing month brings more casualties, deeper global inflationary pressures, and a growing risk of war escalation.
Yet peace efforts keep collapsing for one core reason: all parties insist on maximalist demands.
Idealism – whether about territorial justice, international law, punishment, or victory – has produced rigid positions that make real-world compromise impossible.
Idealism comes in many versions; realism comes in only one: the ground situation that exists today.
Wars end bloodily only when winners emerge. They end with less damage when both sides reluctantly accept that an imperfect peace is better than a perfect war.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict is now at precisely that point.
Why all peace plans failing
Recent initiatives demonstrate the depth of the stalemate.
Trump’s broad peace outline tilted toward Russia. It envisions an immediate ceasefire, acceptance of Russia’s control over Crimea and the Donbas, limitations on Ukraine’s military size, and a formal renunciation of NATO membership. It seeks to freeze the conflict along the present lines, accepting Russia’s land bridge to Crimea.
The EU-Ukraine Counter-proposal goes in the opposite direction. It refuses territorial concessions, seeks stronger Western security guarantees, insists on a larger Ukrainian peacetime army, and rejects amnesty for Russia. It demands that frozen Russian assets remain blocked until Russia pays for reconstruction.
Both frameworks reflect legitimate perspectives, yet neither is a non-starter.
Each demands that the other side concede its core strategic or political identity and economic interests. As long as negotiations begin from maximalist positions, peace will remain unreachable.
What the world needs is not a perfect settlement, but the least objectionable one, a pathway that neither side will celebrate, but both can live with, even if unhappily.
A minimal, reciprocal, and workable framework
A realistic, workable compromise for an immediate ceasefire can be built around 4 essential principles, as outlined in my article published 3 months ago. [1]
1. Freeze the lines; recognize nothing
The territorial question is the hardest obstacle. Any forced recognition of Russian control is unacceptable to Ukraine; any withdrawal that reverses Russia’s gains is unacceptable to Russia.
The only viable option is to freeze the current Line of Control while deferring all sovereignty decisions indefinitely.
This saves lives today without prejudging tomorrow’s map.
2. Joint security guarantees, not NATO expansion
Ukraine needs credible security assurances. Russia needs assurance that NATO will not expand into what it sees as its strategic buffer.
A joint NATO – Russia guarantee mechanism can offer a middle ground:
- Ukraine receives strong protection against renewed aggression.
- Russia’s core demand – no NATO membership for Ukraine – is addressed without undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty through an adequate alternative form of security guarantees.
This model is imperfect, but it addresses the existential fears of both sides.
3. Sequenced accountability and sanctions relief
If war-crimes trials or full sanctions relief are made preconditions, the conflict will remain permanent. Accountability must be sequenced and deferred for a future resolution, not front-loaded.
A workable formula:
- Maintain existing sanctions during the ceasefire
- Ease them only after verifiable compliance
- Address justice and reparations through long-term negotiations
This removes veto points that currently kill every peace initiative.
4. The asset reciprocity lock – An enforceable compromise
The West’s frozen Russian sovereign assets – nearly US$300 billion – offer a unique enforcement tool.
A balanced mechanism could work as follows:
- 50% released to Russia in phased tranches contingent on full adherence to the ceasefire.
- 50% held in escrow, accessible only after a final negotiated settlement of outstanding issues.
This creates a mutually painful deterrent against violations:
- If Russia violates the ceasefire, it loses access to escrow funds and halts phased releases.
- If Ukraine or Western states breach terms, Russia immediately retains the option to withdraw from the agreement.
This structure makes peace not just desirable but self-enforcing.
A political catalyst: Incentivizing U.S. commitment
Even the best-designed mechanism requires political will.
A controversial but pragmatic approach would be for all negotiating parties to recommend US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize if he successfully brokers the ceasefire and holds long enough.
This is not a moral endorsement but a political incentive.
A symbolic reward that costs nothing may unlock the one element no peace plan can succeed without: U.S. presidential backing. Compared to the cost of a protracted war, such a gesture is trivial.
Why India should table this proposal
Following the Modi-Putin meeting, India is better positioned than most to propose a neutral, realistic roadmap.
- It will be trusted by both the U.S. and Russia.
- It has goodwill in Europe and Ukraine.
- It has no motives, no territorial stake, and no historical baggage.
- Its global standing has never been higher.
India cannot credibly ask either Russia or Ukraine to surrender vital interests. But it can propose a framework that asks both sides to pause the war where it is, lock in compliance through reciprocal economic mechanisms, and leave long-term issues for future negotiation.
Such an initiative does not require India to take sides. It requires India to take responsibility – as a major power whose voice can shape outcomes and whose neutrality is an asset.
The Ukraine war now needs a solution that everyone may even dislike, but no one can refuse.
A least-bad plan is not a sign of weakness; it is the only path left to prevent a larger tragedy.
If India has no proposal to offer, it can at least present a proposal along these lines.
The world has already waited too long for the Ukraine war to end. Everyone is looking for an off-ramp.
Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
References:
[1] Is it possible to end the Russia-Ukraine war without delay? – Sep 01, 2025, PGurus.com
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
- A ‘least objectionable’ solution to Ukraine war - December 6, 2025
- Need to reinvent the opposition - December 2, 2025
- The China File: A fictional thriller - November 26, 2025
