Factors Influencing the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Analysis indicates President Vladimir Putin assesses the diplomatic situation as favorable to Russia, citing improved relations with the United States and battlefield gains.

Analysts have identified key Russian demands: Ukraine cedes control of the remaining 20% of Donetsk, international recognition of all occupied territories as Russian, a significant reduction in Ukraine's military capabilities, and a permanent exclusion of Ukraine from NATO.

Potential Scenarios and US Role

One scenario involves US President Donald Trump potentially advocating for a ceasefire that could include territorial concessions by Ukraine and may lack comprehensive security guarantees. Trump has previously suggested a potential disengagement from the conflict, stating, "sometimes you have to let people fight it out."

Such a disengagement could include withholding critical US intelligence utilized by Ukraine for drone detection and targeting Russian energy facilities. Another possibility is a continuation of the conflict, with Russian forces making gradual advances in eastern Ukraine. The Trump administration's updated national security strategy has characterized Russia as no longer an "existential threat" to the US and has called for re-establishing "strategic stability" with Russia.

These developments raise questions regarding potential shifts in Russia's stance and alternative actions by Ukraine, European nations, and China.

European Contributions

European nations are currently preparing for a potential ceasefire, forming a "coalition of the willing" to establish an international military force aimed at deterring future Russian incursions and providing financial aid for Ukraine's reconstruction. Some officials suggest Europe should also prepare for a prolonged conflict, advocating for both immediate support (e.g., drones and funding) and long-term provisions for a 15-20 year engagement with Russia.

Additional European actions could include expanding the European Sky Shield Initiative to protect western Ukraine from aerial threats. Proposals also exist for deploying European troops to western Ukraine to patrol borders, thereby freeing Ukrainian soldiers for frontline deployment. Many such proposals have been declined due to concerns about escalating the conflict.

Keir Giles, a senior consulting fellow at Chatham House, contends that fears of escalation are unfounded, noting existing Western military presence and the feasibility of Sky Shield deployment without direct engagement with Russian aircraft. Giles asserts that decisive Western military presence and resolve are necessary to deter Russian aggression. This approach, however, presents political challenges in Western Europe.

Analysts generally do not anticipate significant Ukrainian territorial gains in the near term, focusing instead on slowing Russian advances and increasing the costs for Russia. Some Western diplomats suggest that Russian generals may be misrepresenting the battlefield situation to President Putin, contributing to a narrative of exaggerated Russian gains to pressure Ukraine towards peace negotiations. According to Thomas Graham in Foreign Affairs, Russia has gained approximately 1% of Ukrainian territory this year, incurring over 200,000 casualties.

Fiona Hill, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, argues that a key factor for Putin is the perception that Ukraine is losing, despite Ukraine possessing what she describes as Europe's most capable military and having significantly impacted Russia's forces.

Economic Sanctions and Russia's Economy

Russia's economy faces challenges, with 8% inflation, 16% interest rates, slowed growth, rising budget deficits, declining real incomes, and increased consumer taxes. A report by the Peace and Conflict Resolution Evidence Platform indicates the Russian war economy faces sustainability challenges. The authors state that Russia's economic capacity to finance the conflict has substantially decreased since 2022. However, these economic conditions have not demonstrably altered Kremlin strategy, partly due to businesses circumventing restrictions, such as using unregistered vessels for oil transport.

Tom Keatinge, director of the Centre for Finance and Security at Rusi, points to convoluted Western sanction messaging and numerous loopholes. He predicts Russia will circumvent recent US sanctions on Lukoil and Rosneft by re-labeling exported oil. Keatinge suggests that a full embargo on Russian oil and robust secondary sanctions on purchasing countries would be more effective in impacting Russia's war economy.

Sanctions also have the potential to influence Russian public opinion. A state-run VCIOM survey in October indicated that 56% of respondents felt "very tired" of the conflict, an increase from 47% the previous year. Nevertheless, Kremlinologists generally agree that much of the Russian public continues to support the current strategy.

Frozen Russian Assets

The European Union is considering utilizing approximately €200 billion (£176 billion) in frozen Russian assets to establish a "reparation loan" for Ukraine. The latest European Commission proposal aims to raise €90 billion (£79 billion) over two years, an amount Kyiv officials anticipate receiving. However, the EU has not yet reached a consensus on this initiative.

Belgium, which holds the majority of these assets, has expressed concerns about potential legal actions from Russia; the Russian Central Bank recently initiated legal proceedings against Belgian bank Euroclear in a Moscow court. Belgium conditions its agreement on explicit sharing of legal and financial risks among EU members. France also harbors reservations, citing its own national debt and concerns that exploiting frozen assets could impact Eurozone stability. EU leaders are scheduled to discuss this matter further at a summit in Brussels on December 18, though success is not guaranteed. Disagreement also persists regarding whether the funds should support Ukraine's immediate solvency or long-term reconstruction.

Ukraine's Conscription Policies

Ukraine possesses the second-largest army in Europe and advanced military capabilities, yet it faces challenges in defending an 800-mile frontline. After nearly four years of conflict, soldier exhaustion is prevalent, and desertion rates are increasing. Recruitment efforts are challenged by individuals avoiding conscription or leaving the country.

Ukraine could expand its conscription laws, which currently apply to men aged 25 to 60. Kyiv's strategy to manage demographic challenges, including a low birth rate and a significant diaspora, aims to preserve its future population. Some external military figures express surprise at Ukraine's current conscription age. Fiona Hill notes that Ukraine's policy reflects lessons from history, particularly the demographic impact of World War One on European empires.

Strikes, Diplomacy, and US Policy

Increased long-range missile capabilities could enable Ukraine to intensify strikes within Russian territory. This year, Ukraine has augmented air strikes on targets in occupied territories and the Russian Federation. Ukrainian military commanders reported hitting over 50 fuel and military-industrial infrastructure facilities in Russia during the autumn. Alexander Gabuev of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center indicates that these strikes led to fuel shortages and rationing in some Russian regions, with Ukrainian drones hitting over half of Russia's 38 major refineries by late October.

Mick Ryan, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, states that deep strikes, while militarily significant, are insufficient alone to compel Russia to negotiate or conclude the conflict. Dr. Sidharth Kaushal of Rusi suggests that while deep strikes damage Russian infrastructure and deplete air defenses, they could also be counterproductive by reinforcing the Russian leadership's narrative of an independent Ukraine posing a military threat.

A diplomatic resolution remains a possibility, with some analysts suggesting a negotiated settlement could allow both sides to perceive a favorable outcome. Such a deal might include a ceasefire along the line of contact, demilitarized zones, and no formal territorial recognition. This approach would necessitate intensive US engagement with Russia, involving negotiating teams and leveraging US influence to facilitate agreement. Thomas Graham argues for the US to deploy its "formidable psychological leverage" over Russia, emphasizing the role of the US, and specifically Donald Trump, in validating Russia as a great power and Putin as a global leader.

China's Potential Influence

China represents a significant factor in the conflict. President Xi Jinping maintains a notable relationship with President Putin. When Xi cautioned against Russian nuclear weapon threats earlier in the conflict, Russia's stance on nuclear threats subsequently aligned. Russia's military production is also significantly dependent on China's supply of dual-use goods, such as electronics and machinery. If Beijing were to determine that the ongoing conflict no longer served China's interests, it could exert substantial influence on Kremlin decision-making.

Currently, the US has not signaled intentions to encourage or compel China to pressure Moscow. The question remains whether President Xi would independently choose to apply such leverage. China's present position appears to benefit from US distraction, divisions among transatlantic allies, and a global perception of China as a source of stability. However, an escalation of the conflict, disruption of global markets, or the imposition of US secondary sanctions on China for its consumption of Russian energy could alter Beijing's calculus.

Analysts suggest that Putin currently believes his position is advantageous and that time is on Russia's side. They predict that a prolonged conflict will lead to declining Ukrainian morale, increased allied divisions, and further Russian territorial gains in Donetsk. Putin stated last week, "Either we liberate these territories by force of arms or Ukrainian troops leave these territories." Fiona Hill comments that Putin's position is unlikely to change unless there is a leadership transition, as he assumes the conflict will continue to develop to Russia's advantage.