West may aid Russia’s victory via talks, misjudging war as territorial, not political, analyst says

The fundamental Western misunderstanding of Russia’s goals in Ukraine could enable Moscow’s victory through peace negotiations, according to Anders Puck Nielsen, military analyst from the Royal Danish Defense College. For Russia, the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war is primarily about achieving political control over Ukraine, rather than pursuing territorial gains.

In his video, Nielsen warns about a key Russian objective in the war often overlooked by the Western politicians:

“The most important thing to understand about the war in Ukraine is that it’s not a war about territory. It is by far the biggest misconception about the war that it’s a conflict over who gets to keep the most territory once the war is over,” he emphasizes.

Political control, not territory

According to Nielsen, Putin’s 2022 invasion aimed to replace Ukraine’s leadership rather than pursue territorial conquest, seeking to bring Ukraine back into Russia’s sphere of influence.

“The goal was to achieve regime change in Ukraine and to insert a government that would be more favorable to Russia and that would be under Putin’s control,” he explains.

Nielsen argues that the Russo-Ukrainian war is “really about political influence over all of Ukraine.” While Ukraine would remain formally independent, it would effectively revert to being part of Russia’s so-called “near abroad,” where Moscow maintains extended political influence, dictating policies to Kyiv.

Although a planned quick blitzkrieg has devolved into a years-long war of attrition, Russia’s fundamental motivation and primary goal remain unchanged.

“It’s still about political influence over all of Ukraine,” Nielsen says.

Destabilizing Ukraine

The analyst stresses that Russia would never accept a peace deal solely focused on keeping occupied territories.

“If Russia gets to keep the territories that they have occupied, but the rest of Ukraine becomes a part of the Western community, and it turns into a prosperous European country with strong security guarantees against Russian influence, then from a Russian perspective that means they lost the war,” he notes.

Another point is that “Russia doesn’t need to occupy the rest of Ukraine to achieve its goals.”

Winning through negotiations

According to Nielsen, Russia’s path to victory lies in persuading Western countries to push Ukraine into a destabilizing peace deal that will make Kyiv vulnerable to Russian influence over Ukrainian politics in the future.

He warns that Western negotiators might overlook crucial details while focusing on stopping the fighting, inadvertently giving Russia its desired political influence over Ukraine.

“Because most people in the West, they don’t understand these dynamics, there is a good likelihood that Russia can achieve its goals in the war by simply persuading the West to give them what they want,” Nielsen warns, adding that Western negotiators may just assume that “these are the unimportant details as long as the fighting just stops.”

Nielsen states that many of the peace plan ideas currently being discussed in the West effectively give Russia everything it wants, as they would leave Ukraine politically destabilized and in an unsustainable position.

Russia much closer to both victory and defeat than it seems

The fact that Ukraine might become politically destabilized and left in an unsustainable position after the negotiated ceasefire means that “Russia is much closer to winning the war than many people in the West realize,” according to the analyst.

Notably, Nielsen points out that Russia is simultaneously “much closer to losing the war than many people in the West realize.“

He says that the “pervasive idea” that Moscow has “endless resources and can continue fighting forever” is a major obstacle to the West developing a sustainable strategy for Ukraine’s victory.

The analyst says that “things can actually go both ways right now,” and predicts 2025 will be more decisive than 2024, saying,

“I think 2025 is going to be the year when it becomes obvious that Russia is running out of resources and that they can’t sustain the war at the current level.”

Nielsen warns that Russia’s victory might go unnoticed by the West, as it would be achieved via peace talks.

“They’re going to win it in a way where we don’t notice that they’re winning because they’re going to achieve their goals at the negotiating table,” he explains.

The analyst outlines several ways peace negotiations could undermine Ukraine:

• Without robust security guarantees or NATO membership, Ukraine would face an impossible choice between maintaining an unsustainably large military or remaining vulnerable to new Russian attacks.
• Constitutional issues regarding occupied territories could trigger a political crisis, as Ukrainian law prohibits territorial concessions.
• Halting war crimes prosecutions could create significant internal tensions.

Nielsen warns that many Western peace proposals inadvertently align with Russian objectives.

“Many people still think that Ukraine has basically already won because they have managed to fend off the initial Russian invasion. But that’s very far from the case because the Russian war aims are much more sophisticated than just conquering the territory,” he emphasizes.

Ceasefire on 20 January?

Nielsen suggests Russia might make tactical moves when Donald Trump takes office:

“I would not be totally shocked if Russia declares a ceasefire on January 20th as a kind of good faith token and a present to Donald Trump,” adding this would allow Trump to claim he achieved peace in Ukraine within 24 hours while shifting blame to Ukraine if fighting continues.

Nielsen argues that negotiations at this stage present a promising opportunity for Russia to “achieve their war goals of forcing Ukraine into political submission” and preventing it from integrating as a strong member of the Western community. He also suggests that it “might be difficult for Ukraine to explain to the West why it’s not necessarily a good idea” to accept a proposed deal, as many in the West misunderstand the true nature of the war.

Related: