As the conflict between Russia and Ukraine continues to escalate, Vladimir Putin’s approach to the war remains static, fueling concerns over his intentions and strategy. The Russian President operates without significant checks from domestic institutions or public opinion, which allows him to maintain his maximalist demands despite the realities on the battlefield. He refuses to come to the table for real negotiations. By not agreeing to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, he’s signaling that he can afford to wait for a favorable resolution without altering his objectives.
Putin’s war strategy has not evolved since Ukraine successfully thwarted his initial blitz on Kyiv, which aimed at a swift takeover of the capital. He thinks that he can get what he wants without the use of military power. Rather, he seeks to weaponize stories to win Ukraine more than just territory. Putin controls and defines a narrative that plays to his advantage. In so doing, he hopes to legitimize his actions, and he challenges the world to contradict his assertions.
The Kremlin’s narrative-building efforts have found plenty of fertile ground among useful idiots such as Donald Trump and members of his administration. Most recently, Trump has proposed that any Israeli-Palestinian peace deal needs to be negotiated directly between the two parties. He stated, “the conditions for [the peace] will be negotiated between the two parties, as it can only be.” This formulation reveals a remarkably anti-Putin perspective. To gain leverage and strengthen his position, he strategically frames the conflict.
Yet, in the face of ever-increasing proof of his battlefield failures, Putin continues to ignore and refuse to modify his war objectives. His maximum demands go far beyond an armistice, calling for complete demilitarization of Ukraine, substantial territorial concessions, and a regime change in Kyiv. Such conditions are characteristic of an uncompromising attitude that fails to demonstrate any flexibility to negotiate. As many analysts argue, Putin’s greatest political limitation is his elite inner circle. They imply that no outside pressure could ever influence his decision-making.
Aside from his unyielding demands, Putin has turned down invitations to meet with Zelenskyy, time and time again. This refusal indicates an unwillingness to engage in substantive negotiations or real efforts toward a ceasefire. Instead, he seems happy to continue to work in an environment of domestic political impunity, where no one can really hold him accountable. He thinks he has time on his side. This approach allows his government to bide its time, waiting for conditions to shift in favor of Russia’s goals.
Putin’s obsession with Ukraine is personal. He views it as an existential prize on his quest to reclaim Russia’s lost glory. Historical grievances and narratives about the sanctity of Russian territorial integrity play well with his domestic audience deepening his political cover. As a result, he remains unbothered by the international scorn and sanctions. In its place, he spreads a lie that casts Russia as the wronged defending itself from infringement on its interests.
Observers note that Putin’s “Plan B” appears simplistic: he speaks with confidence while hoping for luck to turn in his favor. While this approach would largely avoid the danger of inciting a protracted war as Ukraine fights on and rebuilds its defenses, it is problematic in some significant respects. Behind that smokescreen stands Putin’s dark, dangerous—and yes—desperate future as he desperately holds on to his original war aims. With little to oppose him, both Russia and Ukraine are living with the consequences of his decision making.