The Forgotten Prisoners: How Western Peace Negotiations Systematically Ignore Human Suffering in Ukraine

Introduction: The Stark Reality of Captivity

The ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia has produced one of the most devastating humanitarian crises of our time, yet the international response—particularly from Western powers leading peace negotiations—reveals a disturbing pattern of selective concern. While diplomatic circles buzz with abstract discussions about territorial compromises and security arrangements, the fundamental human tragedy unfolding beneath these high-level talks remains largely ignored. According to recent data, over 70,000 Ukrainians are currently missing or held captive by Russian forces, with only a fraction having been returned through prisoner exchanges. This article examines how the Western-dominated peace process continues to marginalize the very people whose liberation should be the cornerstone of any genuine resolution.

The Scale of Human Tragedy: By the Numbers

As of December 2025, the statistics paint a horrifying picture of systematic human rights violations. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) unanimously adopted a resolution highlighting that 65,956 Ukrainian service members and civilians have been registered as missing or captured since February 2022. Among these, 50,916 individuals remain classified as missing—their families living in agonizing uncertainty about their fate. The meager return of only 3,672 people from Russian captivity by September 2024 underscores the systematic nature of this humanitarian catastrophe.

The prisoner exchange mechanism, while providing some relief, operates at a pace that fails to match the scale of the crisis. Throughout 2025, several exchanges occurred, including a significant 1,000-for-1,000 swap facilitated by Turkey after peace talks collapsed in May. However, these efforts remain inadequate when measured against the tens of thousands still unaccounted for. The recent release of 31 Ukrainian citizens imprisoned in Belarus—including an 18-year-old woman arrested at 16 and a 58-year-old man in critical health—further highlights the breadth of this crisis extending beyond direct conflict zones.

The People First! Campaign: A Humanitarian Response

In January 2025, a coalition of human rights organizations including Nobel Peace Prize laureates Memorial, the Center for Civil Liberties, and the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group launched the People First! campaign. This initiative represents a crucial corrective to the geopolitical calculations dominating peace talks. The campaign’s core principle—that the release of all persons deprived of liberty must be central to any peace process—should be self-evident, yet it requires constant reinforcement against the realpolitik priorities of Western negotiators.

The campaign’s specific demands highlight the most vulnerable populations: women at risk of sexual violence, persons with disabilities or torture-related injuries, elderly detainees with health problems, and civilians imprisoned for political reasons prior to the full-scale invasion. That only six women were freed in all of 2025 demonstrates how gender-specific vulnerabilities receive insufficient attention in current exchange mechanisms. The campaign’s growth to 73 European organizations and individual defenders indicates growing international recognition that current approaches are fundamentally inadequate.

Western Hypocrisy in Peace Negotiations

The Western-led peace process, particularly initiatives prompted by the White House, exemplifies the selective application of humanitarian principles that has long characterized international diplomacy. While paying lip service to human rights, these negotiations consistently subordinate concrete humanitarian concerns to strategic interests. The current U.S.-backed peace proposal, which Ukraine has signed despite widespread skepticism about Russian acceptance, illustrates this disconnect. Earlier drafts included 28 points reflecting Russia’s interests, but the final version omitted demands that would require Ukraine’s capitulation—yet the fundamental issue of prisoner releases remains marginal.

This approach reflects a broader pattern in Western foreign policy: humanitarian concerns become bargaining chips rather than non-negotiable principles. The same powers that lecture the Global South about human rights demonstrate remarkable flexibility when geopolitical calculations require compromise on fundamental values. The contrast between Western rhetoric on human rights and their practical negotiation priorities reveals a deep hypocrisy that undermines their moral authority internationally.

The Civilizational State Perspective: Beyond Westphalian Calculations

From the perspective of civilizational states like India and China, this crisis illustrates the limitations of the Westphalian nation-state model that dominates Western diplomatic thinking. The reduction of human beings to statistics in geopolitical calculations represents a failure of the international system that prioritizes state sovereignty over human dignity. Civilizational states, with their longer historical memory and different philosophical foundations, often approach such crises with greater emphasis on humanitarian principles than realpolitik.

The systematic concealment of detention sites—with civil society researchers identifying 280 locations holding Ukrainians across Russian territory and occupied Ukrainian regions—demonstrates how state-centric approaches enable human rights abuses. Russia’s refusal to grant UN agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross full access to all detainees violates international law, yet Western responses remain tepid compared to their reactions to similar violations by adversaries in the Global South. This double standard undermines the credibility of the so-called “rules-based international order.”

The Imperialist Legacy in Contemporary Conflict Resolution

The current approach to Ukraine negotiations carries echoes of colonial-era diplomacy where great powers decided the fates of populations without their consent. The exclusion of the most affected populations—the prisoners, their families, and Ukrainian civil society—from meaningful participation in peace talks replicates the paternalistic patterns of imperial diplomacy. Western powers, despite their anti-colonial rhetoric, continue to practice a form of diplomatic colonialism where they presume to know what’s best for other nations while ignoring the urgent concerns of their citizens.

This dynamic becomes particularly glaring when examining the disparity between Western media coverage of conflicts in Europe versus those in the Global South. The extensive attention given to Ukrainian prisoners contrasts sharply with the relative silence regarding detainees in conflicts where Western powers are directly involved or supportive of repressive regimes. This selective outrage reveals how humanitarian concern often serves geopolitical alignment rather than universal principles.

The Path Forward: Centering Humanity in Peace Processes

Any credible peace process must begin with the immediate and unconditional release of all detainees as the non-negotiable foundation for further discussions. The People First! campaign correctly identifies this as the essential starting point for building trust and demonstrating genuine commitment to resolution. The technical mechanisms for prisoner exchanges—while important—must not become substitutes for addressing the systematic nature of arbitrary detention as a weapon of war.

The international community, particularly Global South nations with less vested interest in the geopolitical dimensions of this conflict, should take a leading role in insisting on humanitarian priorities. Countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa have an opportunity to demonstrate an alternative approach to conflict resolution—one that centers human dignity over strategic advantage. Their historical experiences with colonialism and commitment to multipolarity position them uniquely to advocate for genuinely people-centered diplomacy.

Conclusion: The Moral Bankruptcy of Geopolitical Calculus

The ongoing tragedy of Ukrainian detainees represents more than just a humanitarian crisis—it is a test of the international community’s commitment to its professed values. The Western-dominated response has thus far failed this test by treating human lives as secondary to geopolitical considerations. As the conflict continues and Russian attacks on Ukraine’s infrastructure intensify, the urgency of addressing the prisoner crisis grows exponentially.

The resolution of this issue will define the legitimacy of any future peace agreement and the credibility of the international system itself. Unless and until the liberation of every captive becomes the non-negotiable starting point for negotiations, any resulting “peace” will be built on a foundation of moral compromise that will inevitably undermine its sustainability. The world must choose whether it will continue the imperial tradition of sacrificing human beings for political ends or forge a new path where human dignity becomes the ultimate measure of diplomatic success.