Putin May Reconsider His War Plans: Three Factors That Could Stop the Kremlin

Russia continues to press forward on the front lines, but even massive losses are not forcing the Kremlin to abandon its plans. To change Vladimir Putin’s calculations, Ukraine must not only halt the occupiers’ advance but also strike at the very thing that allows Russia to continue the war.

David Sharp, a military analyst from Israel, explained to Channel 24 which three factors could force the Kremlin to reconsider its objectives, why strikes against the Russian economy must become more devastating, and how U.S. threats to restrict the transfer of intelligence and weapons could affect Ukrainian operations.

Three factors that could force the Kremlin to stop

Changing weather conditions and the end of summer traditionally alter the course of hostilities. The absence of leaves on the trees (the so-called “green cover”) and the rough terrain of autumn significantly complicate logistics, conditions on the battlefield, and opportunities for covert movement.

Although it objectively becomes more difficult to advance under such conditions – and easier to defend – the Russian army’s strategy and tactics remain unchanged.

The occupiers’ main goal is the complete capture of the Donetsk region.

The enemy continues its tactics of constant pressure and searching for weak spots in the Ukrainian defense, attempting to encircle fortified areas, as is happening around Dobropillia and Kostiantynivka. Despite massive losses and the failure of its initial plans to seize significant territories before winter, Vladimir Putin continues to operate according to the same old logic. As long as the Russian economy has some resilience and the regime remains unthreatened, the Kremlin believes it can accomplish its minimum objectives within a year to a year and a half.

To change this paradigm and prove to Putin that his plans are unfeasible, a combination of three critical factors is necessary.

First, a complete stalemate must emerge on the front lines. Slow enemy advances do not constitute a defeat for Moscow if officials there believe that objectives can be achieved over a longer period of time. The Russian leadership must see a complete lack of prospects for an offensive on the horizon for many months or years to come.

Second, the Kremlin must become fully convinced that no strikes on the rear or actions on the front lines will force Ukraine to make concessions.

Third, effective and devastating strikes against the Russian military-industrial complex and economy must serve as the key trigger. To achieve this, the effectiveness of the attacks must increase significantly, which requires the use of ballistic and cruise missiles.

More on Trump playing into Putin’s hands: watch the video

Reliance on U.S. intelligence: why these threats shouldn’t be ignored

Given the need to intensify strikes on Russian rear areas, reports of U.S. threats to halt the supply of weapons and intelligence in the event of continued attacks on Russian oil refineries pose a serious challenge. Although open-source intelligence is sufficient to determine the coordinates of oil refineries, organizing a successful strike requires much more detailed information.

For drones or missiles to penetrate the enemy’s layered air defense system, complex flight paths must be plotted to bypass obstacles. This is where the role of U.S. satellite intelligence, human intelligence, and electronic signals intelligence becomes critical.

The importance of this intelligence cannot be fully compensated for by domestic capabilities alone or with the assistance of European partners. Intelligence from the U.S. plays a decisive role not only at the strategic level but also at the tactical level – from obtaining real-time information during offensive operations to early warnings of Russian bomber takeoffs and ballistic missile launches. The loss of such a resource could deal a critical blow to Ukraine’s defense capabilities.

How should Ukraine proceed?

In a situation where partners use arms supplies and intelligence as leverage, Ukrainian leadership is forced to make a difficult choice between standing up for its principles and preserving critically important support.

The practice of a tacit embargo or withholding aid is a standard tool of American diplomacy, one that has been used repeatedly even against close allies such as Israel. This is the harsh reality of international relations, where every country is guided by its own interests.

Public criticism or accusations of weakness directed at the U.S. administration are unlikely to change Washington’s policy, but they may provoke further irritation and lead to new restrictions.

For example, Donald Trump's current statements regarding the energy truce and purchases of Russian fuel are driven solely by pre-election interests – the desire to lower diesel prices a few weeks before the vote.

For Russia, the economic benefit from this is negligible (about $150 million), but it is an important step toward breaking out of isolation. After the election, this factor may lose its relevance, and attitudes toward strikes on oil refineries may change.

Under these circumstances, it is important for Kyiv to act as pragmatically as possible: to informally explain to its partners why they are wrong, but to avoid steps whose cost to national security could prove too high, Sharp believes.