The NYT explained why Putin refuses to end the war
Russian leader Vladimir Putin has rejected proposals to end the war without political concessions, according to The New York Times. The newspaper notes that the Kremlin continues to adhere to its own strategy, even though Moscow has not yet achieved its stated goals.
The publication notes that Putin has been trying for five years to force Ukraine to surrender by force, while Trump, after several weeks of military action against Iran, decided to focus on a ceasefire and negotiations.
Despite the differences in the scale and nature of the conflicts, both wars, according to the authors, demonstrate the limitations of military force as a tool for achieving political goals.
According to the NYT, citing sources close to the Kremlin, the Russian president views the war as his primary tool for exerting pressure on Ukraine and the West.
According to the newspaper’s sources, Putin believes that ending hostilities without prior concessions would deprive him of his leverage.
Last year, the Trump administration reportedly offered Moscow sanctions relief and economic cooperation in exchange for a ceasefire, but the Kremlin refused, insisting on the elimination of the so-called “root causes of the war”—in particular, Ukraine’s renunciation of NATO membership and the fulfillment of other Russian territorial and political demands.
At the same time, some experts in the U.S. believe that Trump gave up military pressure on Iran too quickly. Former General Jack Keane stated that Washington lost its leverage by agreeing to a cessation of hostilities.
“I really think we lost our leverage when we stopped the campaign. I would have preferred to negotiate while the war was still going on, because that’s when we have the upper hand. Isn’t that how Putin operates?” he said.
However, other experts point out that, unlike the Russian president, Trump has more opportunities to adjust his strategy.
Former U.S. Special Representative for Iran Robert Malley noted that the American president’s stated goals have changed repeatedly, making it easier for him to claim success.
The article notes that over the years of the war, Russia has suffered enormous human and economic losses. According to NYT estimates, between 350,000 and 450,000 Russian soldiers have been killed, and the country’s economy is under increasing pressure.
Despite this, Putin continues to demonstrate his willingness to continue military operations.
In late June, he stated that Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory would not change his plans.
“Given the catastrophic shortage of personnel, the Ukrainian Armed Forces apparently believe that this could be their salvation. But saving the Kyiv regime is not part of our plans,” Putin said.
According to the authors of The New York Times, both Russia’s war against Ukraine and the conflict surrounding Iran have demonstrated that even great powers cannot easily achieve political goals through military force alone.
At the same time, while Putin continues to take a hard line, Trump, on the contrary, has repeatedly changed his approach—from calls to destroy Iranian missiles to statements that “it would be a little unfair” to deprive Iran of ballistic missiles if other countries have them.
According to the NYT, it is precisely this difference in approach that has become one of the main distinctions between the two leaders, who currently find themselves in a difficult political situation, having failed to achieve their stated goals.
Earlier, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that Ukraine’s strikes on Russian fuel infrastructure have already yielded tangible results. According to him, a country that for decades profited from oil and fuel exports is now forced to seek opportunities to import energy resources itself.
Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has supported the idea of creating a network of small oil refineries in the country to increase fuel supplies to the domestic market.
