Before Putin leaves office, a major war in Europe remains a serious threat. Possible ceasefire agreements will only partially address a broader problem for the Russian president who wants to take part in a new division of influence in the world and to satisfy a similar desire on behalf of the population that he has indoctrinated.
Whether the war remains cold or turns hot depends largely on the willingness of European countries to resist Russian aggression. The plans of the United States to cut support for Ukraine and shift on to Europe full responsibility for the war and, more broadly, security on the continent, are a factor that may provoke Putin.
Putin sees the opportunity for strategic bargaining, using negotiations on a ceasefire as a tool to achieve broader objectives. The Kremlin’s priority is not Ukraine but a wider deal with the West – one that should include sanctions relief and a revision of European security arrangements. The main goal is to consolidate territorial gains while minimising the long-term costs of the war. Whatever the outcome, the Kremlin will aim to limit Ukraine’s military capabilities, restrict the deployment of its armed forces. It will also not allow the presence of any Western military forces on Ukrainian soil.
Expert comment
A rational tactic for the Kremlin is to keep talking, tie up the negotiators, and drag things out
The American-Ukrainian ceasefire proposal taken at face value appears humiliating from the Kremlin’s perspective. It represents exactly what Putin has repeatedly said is unacceptable – a temporary pause while Ukraine continues to receive Western military support.
Potential American carrots, such as an offer to negotiate on easing sanctions – in which Moscow is genuinely interested – will not work in this context because the Kremlin wants sanctions relief upfront. But Trump lacks the leverage to force a quick settlement. So a rational tactic for the Kremlin is to keep talking, tie up the negotiators, and drag things out. With sufficient resources to sustain the war at its current intensity for at least another year or more, Putin sees little reason to compromise quickly.
Nikolai Petrov, Senior Research Fellow, Head of Analysis of Transformational Processes
A key strategic objective for the Kremlin could be the destabilisation of Ukraine. Any concessions made by Kyiv in negotiations could erode President Volodymyr Zelensky’s authority and lead to his defeat in elections. A change of leadership in Ukraine remains one of Moscow’s core demands and a key element of any future settlement. Yet Zelensky continues to enjoy broad domestic support, while opposition forces are divided and do not appear ready to consolidate.
The likelihood of Russian interference in Ukraine’s elections is relatively high, raising the possibility of a scenario similar to Georgia, where the party that won the election and the government are under strong Kremlin influence. Other serious factors that could destabilise Ukraine include:
- External – The West’s reluctance to take an active role in strengthening Ukrainian state institutions and a decision not to accelerate Ukraine’s economic integration with the EU.
- Internal – Ukraine’s struggle with old problems (corruption, judicial dependence) and new ones (censorship, political repression).
The effect of some or all of these factors could persuade western countries to minimise their involvement in Ukraine’s reconstruction and potentially force Ukrainian elites to consider restoring ties with Russia.
Expert comment
Russia will use the negotiation process as a tool of pressure
Putin will try to use the diplomatic time available to shift battlefield conditions in his favour. The Kremlin may agree to a 30-day ceasefire, but only on its own terms – for example, ensuring that Ukraine holds presidential elections. No settlement can be reached with what Moscow regards as an ‘illegitimate’ leadership.
This approach would allow Russia to:
- Extend negotiations while securing additional leverage.
- Attempt to complete the expulsion of Ukrainian forces from Kursk Region to deny Ukraine the possibility to exchange territory.
- Strengthen its position on the southern front.
- Undermine Ukrainian stability and force Kyiv to negotiate from a disadvantageous position.
Vladimir Pastukhov, Research Director
Russian public opinion has shifted unexpectedly since negotiations began. Previously, a significant portion of the population supported peace, as long as it was presented as Putin’s decision. However, Trump’s involvement has altered this dynamic – nearly half of respondents now oppose any concessions. The Kremlin now faces a new dilemma. Strategically, it may be advantageous to agree to a ceasefire, but the population may view it as a sign of weakness by the authorities.
Beyond public sentiment, Putin must also weigh other strong factors in favour of prolonging the war. Among these are the strong influence of the rapidly expanded military-industrial complex and the unwillingness of hundreds of thousands of contract soldiers and their families to pass up what are by Russian standards huge sums of money made possible by the war, including payments for wounded and dead soldiers.
The timeline for a renewal of hostilities ranges from a month – if negotiations collapse – to as long as three and a half years, coinciding with the end of a potential Trump presidency. This assumes that Trump can reach an understanding with Moscow in exchange for significant concessions, such as lifting sanctions and the withdrawal of US forces from areas in Europe close to Russia. Trump himself seems to favour such moves.
