Why Vladimir Putin Still Prefers War in Ukraine
As of mid-January 2026, the Russia-Ukraine war enters its fourth year with no immediate end in sight. Despite intensified U.S.-led diplomatic efforts under President Donald Trump—including meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, direct talks with Russian officials, and proposals for security guarantees—the conflict grinds on. Russian forces continue slow advances in eastern Ukraine, particularly in Donetsk, while conducting large-scale drone and missile strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure. Ukraine maintains defensive positions and launches long-range operations into Russian territory.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently signaled that he prefers to prolong the war rather than accept a negotiated settlement that falls short of his core demands. Recent analyses from think tanks like the Atlantic Council, Carnegie Endowment, Institute for the Study of War (ISW), and media outlets such as The Guardian and Foreign Affairs highlight several interconnected reasons for this stance.
Unyielding Maximalist Objectives
Putin has not wavered from the invasion’s original goals, often described as the “demilitarization” and “denazification” of Ukraine—terms widely interpreted as neutralizing Ukraine’s military capacity, removing its current leadership, and installing a pro-Russian government. He also insists on full control over annexed territories, including Crimea and the four oblasts (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson). Kremlin statements repeatedly frame these as non-negotiable “root causes” of the conflict, rooted in Putin’s view of Ukraine as an inseparable part of Russia’s historical and cultural sphere. Any compromise that preserves Ukraine’s sovereignty, Western alignment, or military strength is seen as unacceptable.
Confidence in a War of Attrition
Putin appears convinced that time favors Russia. Despite enormous casualties and economic strain, Moscow has adapted by boosting defense production, recruiting through incentives, and weathering sanctions. Analysts note that Russian forces hold the initiative in attrition warfare, exploiting Ukraine’s manpower shortages and Western fatigue. Putin believes sustained pressure will eventually force Kyiv’s capitulation or a favorable diplomatic outcome. Recent escalations, such as the use of advanced missiles like the Oreshnik, serve to intimidate the West and deter deeper involvement.
Domestic Political Imperatives
Ending the war without a decisive “victory” poses risks to Putin’s regime. The conflict has centralized power, justified repression, and enriched loyal elites through a war economy. A premature settlement could expose the true scale of losses—hundreds of thousands of casualties—and provoke backlash from ultranationalists who form a key support base. Putin has tied his legacy to “restoring” Russian greatness and reversing post-Soviet decline. Peace short of total success might undermine his authority, whereas prolonged fighting sustains control through propaganda and mobilization.
Rejection of Compromise Proposals
U.S. initiatives under Trump have included territorial concessions, restrictions on Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, and limited security guarantees. However, Putin has rebuffed or stalled these, demanding more concessions while pursuing battlefield gains. Recent incidents—such as unsubstantiated claims of Ukrainian strikes on Putin’s residence—appear designed to disrupt talks and portray Ukraine as the aggressor. Kremlin officials insist no ceasefire is possible without addressing “root causes,” and Putin has ruled out foreign troops or robust Western-backed guarantees for Ukraine.
Ideological Conviction
At its core, Putin’s approach reflects a deep-seated belief that Ukraine’s independence and Western orientation threaten Russia’s identity and security. He frames the war as an existential struggle against a “decadent” West, viewing compromise as capitulation. This ideological lens makes rational bargaining difficult from his perspective.
In essence, Putin continues the war because he calculates that Russia can prevail through endurance, and a settlement on less than maximal terms would jeopardize his power, legacy, and vision for Russia. Only significant military reversals, economic collapse, or internal instability might shift this calculus—none of which have occurred yet. As 2026 unfolds, the war’s trajectory depends on whether external pressures can fundamentally alter Putin’s assessment of costs and benefits. For now, the grinding stalemate persists.
About The Author
