Russia Signals Endless War as Oil, Politics and Security Pressures Mount Globally

(WASHINGTON, DC) – Russian officials signalling no deadline for a peace agreement reflects a strategy to prolong the war in Ukraine while projecting confidence, according to political analyst Jason Jay Smart in an interview on War and Politics 24.

Smart said statements by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that there is no timeline for a deal are intended to show that Moscow is in no hurry and does not need to make concessions. He added that this messaging contrasts with conditions on the ground, where Russia faces pressure both on the battlefield and in its domestic economy, alongside growing political strain within the Kremlin.

He said it is increasingly likely that internal dynamics are affecting the ability of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin to govern effectively, although official messaging continues to portray stability.

Comments by Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov about readiness for talks without offering a framework or timeline should not be taken as evidence of genuine intent, Smart said. He argued that Russia has not seriously pursued a negotiated settlement and is instead seeking to delay the end of the war.

According to the analysis, Moscow’s objective has shifted from early ambitions such as capturing Kyiv, which Smart said is no longer realistic, to extending the conflict in the expectation that Western support for Ukraine will weaken. He said Russia believes reduced military aid could allow it to regain momentum, although it is currently losing ground in some areas.

Smart said Lavrov’s assertions that Russia will achieve its battlefield goals lack credibility. He noted that the foreign minister is not directly involved in military planning and was reportedly not fully informed ahead of the full scale invasion in 2022. He described Lavrov’s role as largely communicative rather than strategic.

He added that Kremlin messaging is coordinated but targeted at different audiences. Lavrov’s statements are aimed at international media, while Putin and Peskov focus primarily on domestic audiences, presenting the war as progressing successfully. Other figures, including Dmitry Medvedev, are used to deliver more extreme rhetoric to specific segments of the population.

Smart said Russia faces growing vulnerabilities, particularly in its ability to defend its vast airspace. He noted that the country’s size makes comprehensive air defence difficult, a weakness recognised since the Soviet period. He pointed to repeated Ukrainian strikes and acts of sabotage targeting rail infrastructure, which carries about 78 percent of Russian military transport.

He said Moscow’s routine characterisation of Ukrainian strikes as terrorism reflects a consistent narrative rather than a new escalation. He added that responsibility for the war lies with Russia, which launched the invasion.

Smart said the Kremlin continues to shift blame for the lack of peace onto Ukraine for both domestic and international audiences. He noted that while Russian officials frequently speak of peace, there is little evidence of concrete steps towards achieving it.

Rising oil prices are unlikely to significantly strengthen Russia’s war effort, he said. Despite fluctuations, Russia remains constrained by price caps and structural challenges. He said the country requires oil prices of about 59 US dollars per barrel to balance its budget, while European Union measures limit revenues.

He added that Russia relies heavily on black market sales, where buyers are unlikely to accept higher prices even if global markets rise. He said the Kremlin prioritises maintaining long term clients to ensure steady liquidity rather than seeking short term gains that could undermine those relationships.

Smart said recent easing of pressure on Russian oil markets by the United States is unlikely to alter the overall trajectory of the war. He pointed to Russia’s widening budget deficit and warned of mounting stress in the banking sector, raising the risk of broader financial instability.

He said increased costs linked to sanctions enforcement, including higher insurance, transport risks and legal action against vessels in the shadow fleet, are further reducing net revenues from oil exports.

On Ukraine’s position, Smart said the country is increasingly exporting expertise in drone warfare, reflecting its frontline experience. He described this as a potential source of geopolitical influence, particularly in regions seeking to develop counter drone capabilities.

He warned that the risk of drone based attacks extending into Europe is immediate, citing repeated violations of European airspace by Russian drones. He also referenced environmental damage in Moldova linked to strikes near the Dniester River.

Smart said global developments, including tensions in the Middle East and around the Strait of Hormuz, could indirectly affect Ukraine by diverting attention and military resources, particularly air defence systems, which are already in short supply.

He said transatlantic unity is under strain as priorities diverge between the United States and Europe, particularly in relation to Middle East conflicts. He warned that shifting focus could reduce support for Ukraine.

Energy pressures alone are unlikely to force Western governments into compromise with Moscow, he said. However, he expressed concern that security challenges within Europe could redirect attention and resources away from Ukraine.

Smart said Ukraine’s decision to resume repairs on the Druzhba pipeline under European Union pressure reflects political dynamics within the bloc, including domestic considerations in countries such as Hungary ahead of elections.

He said discussions about extending a French nuclear deterrent to European allies could gain traction over time, although inclusion of Ukraine is unlikely in the short term. He added that the United States currently appears to lack a clear position on the issue.

Smart said Russian objections to such proposals are likely to remain rhetorical. He argued that Moscow has limited capacity to influence sovereign decisions by other states and should be viewed within that context.