Editorial | The Strategic Quagmire: Why Russia Is Prolonging the Ukraine War
By the Editorial Board
More than three years into the Russia-Ukraine war, the world continues to grapple with a haunting question: why hasn’t Russia, with its overwhelming military superiority, brought the conflict to a decisive end? Ukraine, though resilient and bolstered by Western aid, remains battered. Major cities lie in ruin, its economy has shrunk drastically, and millions have been displaced. From a purely military lens, the odds have long been in Moscow’s favour. Yet, the war drags on.
This apparent paradox is not born of Russian incapability, but of calculated intent.
A War of Attrition, Not Annihilation
Russia has not miscalculated its military capacity. Instead, it has chosen a war of attrition over a war of conquest. A prolonged campaign allows Moscow to drain Ukraine’s military resources, inflict sustained psychological pressure on its population, and gradually reduce Western public support for Ukraine’s cause. The Kremlin believes it can outlast both Kyiv’s resistance and the West’s attention span.
Controlling the Escalation Ladder
A full-throttle military offensive to “finish off” Ukraine would almost certainly raise the risk of direct NATO intervention or massive Western retaliation. By maintaining a calibrated level of intensity, Russia avoids triggering thresholds that could internationalise the conflict beyond its control. This war is being fought not just in trenches but on the escalation ladder—step by step, move by move, just below the point of no return.
Political Objectives Trump Military Gains
Putin’s war is not about land alone. It is about identity and influence. His goal is to dismantle the notion of Ukraine as a sovereign, Western-integrated democracy. A swift victory would not erase that idea. But a long, exhausting conflict could discredit it—painting Ukraine as unstable, unviable, and too costly a partner for the West. It is a psychological war as much as a territorial one.
Domestic Consolidation through Perpetual War
For the Kremlin, the war serves a powerful domestic function. It has created a rally-around-the-flag effect, suppressing internal dissent and boosting nationalistic fervour. A prolonged conflict offers a continuous narrative of victimhood, resistance, and greatness—central to Putin’s leadership mythology. Ending the war could force Moscow to face difficult post-war questions at home, including reconstruction, economic fatigue, and reintegration of battle-hardened veterans.
Strategic Disruption of the West
This conflict is also about geopolitics. By keeping Ukraine in limbo, Russia forces NATO to remain entangled, expends U.S. and European resources, and delays the pivot to Asia. It also tests the unity of European nations—many of whom face domestic backlash over rising defence spending and energy costs. The longer the war continues, the more frayed Western unity becomes, or so the Kremlin believes.
Weaponisation of Time
Russia is weaponising time as a force multiplier. The longer the war lasts, the greater the war-weariness among Western democracies governed by electoral cycles. Moscow is betting that political changes in the West—especially a shift in U.S. leadership or weakening of European resolve—could result in waning support for Kyiv. In contrast, Putin faces no such term limits. He is prepared to wait out his adversaries.
Creating a “Frozen Conflict” Trap
By drawing the war into a long stalemate, Russia may be attempting to turn Ukraine into a de facto “frozen conflict” zone—similar to Transnistria, South Ossetia, or Donbas before 2022. Such unresolved conflicts sap a country’s sovereignty and deter foreign investment and institutional progress. In this model, Ukraine remains locked in instability, unable to join NATO or the EU, forever under Russia’s strategic shadow.
The Energy and Grain Gamble
Russia has used the war to manipulate global energy and food supplies, leveraging its control over oil, gas, and grain exports. A prolonged war maintains global economic uncertainty and inflationary pressures, which Moscow uses as bargaining chips in negotiations with countries across Africa, Asia, and even parts of Europe. A short war would relinquish this coercive advantage.
The Perils of Prolongation
This strategy is not without risk. Russia faces severe economic sanctions, increasing diplomatic isolation, and a costly drain on military and human resources. Morale among conscripts is fragile. Domestic discontent, though suppressed, simmers beneath the surface. Yet the Kremlin appears confident it can manage these pressures better than the democratic governments backing Ukraine.
What Lies Ahead
Russia’s protracted campaign is not a sign of weakness but of hybrid strategic thinking—where time, ambiguity, and exhaustion replace traditional notions of victory. The international community must understand that in this war, Russia is not looking for a swift win, but for a slow, corrosive shift in the geopolitical balance.
For countries like India—treading a fine line between strategic autonomy and principled diplomacy—this underscores the need to engage both East and West thoughtfully, without being pulled into reactionary alignments.
The tragedy, thus, lies not in Russia’s inability to end the war—but in its deliberate choice not to.
Published by the Editorial Board of Think Sentinel, committed to informed, balanced analysis in a rapidly polarizing world.
