Ahead of a possible resumption of talks with Ukraine and the United States, the Kremlin shows no willingness to revise its war aims. Instead, Russian leaders continue to present the situation on the battlefield as a gradual move towards victory. They seek to convince Ukraine and its partners that further resistance will only weaken Kyiv’s position. This rhetoric aims to create the impression that time is on Moscow’s side and that territorial concessions are becoming increasingly unavoidable.
However, the results on the battlefield do not match the scale of Russia’s demands. Despite retaining its ability to launch offensive operations, Russian army is making slow progress, mainly in limited areas of the front. Sustaining this pace requires a constant supply of personnel, major financial spending, and growing use of the country’s economic resources. Russia continues to exert military pressure, but the cost of doing so keeps rising.
This gap between Russia’s ambitions and its actual results shapes the Kremlin’s current strategy. Moscow is not abandoning its military campaign. Instead, it seeks to use diplomacy to secure political gains that it has failed to achieve by military means. In this approach, negotiations serve to turn military pressure into an argument for territorial and political concessions from Ukraine.
Russia’s Military Results Fall Short of Its Demands
To maintain the impression that victory is inevitable, the Kremlin exaggerates the results of its offensive. Statements by Russian military and political leaders regarding the capture of settlements are often made before Russian forces have established actual control over them, or may not correspond to reality at all. This propaganda tactic presents local battlefield gains as signs of a systemic collapse of Ukraine’s defences and seeks to convince audiences that further resistance will not change the final outcome.
In reality, sustaining the offensive requires growing resources from Russia. At the current rate of losses, recruitment under contract makes up for the loss only partly. A large share of new recruits replaces those killed or wounded rather than adding to the forces available for further operations. To maintain recruitment levels, regional authorities have to increase payments, involve intermediaries, and use various forms of covert pressure to push people into military service.
The economic burden is also becoming harder to bear. Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries put additional pressure on the domestic fuel market. They also force Moscow to spend significant funds on restoring and protecting its energy infrastructure. As oil and gas revenues decline and the budget deficit grows, the Russian government increasingly relies on borrowing and tax revenues to finance the war. This allows it to maintain military spending by drawing on the resources of the civilian economy.
Personnel and economic constraints have not yet deprived Russia of its ability to advance, but they make further gains increasingly costly. This gives the Kremlin an incentive to find other ways to turn military pressure into political results. The systematic destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure remains one of such tools.
Strikes on Infrastructure as a Continuation of Military Pressure
Alongside its ground operations, Russia continues to attack Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure. As winter approaches, strikes on energy facilities are becoming particularly important. They aim to cause economic damage and disrupt the daily lives of the population, the work of businesses, and the operation of public services.
Moscow seeks to bring the consequences of the war directly into the daily lives of Ukrainians. Cold weather, power cuts, damage to homes, and growing pressure on aid services are intended to increase public fatigue and put domestic pressure on Ukraine’s leadership. The Kremlin expects that the cumulative effect of these humanitarian problems will gradually weaken public support for continued resistance and make concessions in negotiations more politically acceptable.
However, the destruction of energy infrastructure does not change the balance of forces on the battlefield or bring Russia closer to meeting its territorial demands. Its purpose is to compensate for limited military results by putting pressure on the civilian population.
Attempting to secure maximalist demands through negotiations
Despite its diplomatic activity, Moscow has not changed its demands. It insists that Ukraine withdraw its forces from the territory of four regions, including areas that the Russian army has never controlled. It also demands that Ukraine abandon its NATO membership plans and significantly limit its defence capabilities. In practice, the Kremlin is seeking more than an end to hostilities. It wants to change Ukraine’s territorial status quo and strategic position in Russia’s favour.
This also explains Moscow’s refusal to agree to an unconditional ceasefire. Russian leaders have no interest in stopping the fighting before their main political demands are met. The continuation of the war remains their main means of pressure. A ceasefire without prior concessions from Kyiv would deprive the Kremlin of its negotiating leverage and force it to reach an agreement without any guarantee that it would secure the results it seeks.
At the international level, Moscow is seeking to change the format of negotiations. Its priority remains direct talks with Washington, which would allow the future of Ukraine to be discussed as part of a broader agreement between Russia and the United States. This approach reflects the Kremlin’s familiar logic of dividing the world into spheres of influence. Under this logic, the interests of smaller states become a subject of negotiations between major powers.
The possible inclusion of China in a trilateral format involving Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping would also serve Moscow’s interests. It would allow Putin to break out of international isolation and present the war against Ukraine as part of a broader geopolitical deal. However, this scenario faces several constraints. Beijing does not seek direct responsibility for resolving the war, while the priorities of the Trump administration do not necessarily match the Kremlin’s demands. Domestic political factors in the United States also limit Moscow’s options, particularly the position of Congress on sanctions against Russia and continued support for Ukraine.
Moscow’s diplomatic activity therefore does not guarantee either a reduction in international pressure or acceptance of its terms. Under these conditions, negotiations remain primarily a way for the Kremlin to use the international situation to secure concessions that Russia has failed to achieve on the battlefield.
