Greece (Brussels Morning) Russia’s long-term objectives in Ukraine, as articulated by President Vladimir Putin and echoed by Moscow’s ideological establishment, go far beyond battlefield gains. At the heart of the Kremlin’s strategic vision lies a bid to reshape Ukraine’s political, cultural and geopolitical orientation, if not to fracture the country outright, then to pull it decisively back into Russia’s gravitational field.
The scenarios Not a win-win deal
For years, influential political theorists and senior policymakers in Moscow have advanced the notion that Ukraine constitutes an inseparable extension of the broader Russian and Slavic civilizational space. In their view, Kyiv is not merely a neighbouring capital but a foundational pillar of Russia’s historical identity.
This ideological framework, rooted in imperial nostalgia and a selective reading of shared history, fuels the Kremlin’s insistence that Ukraine cannot be allowed to drift toward the West. To relinquish this claim, they argue, would be to forfeit something they consider inherently and historically Russia’s, a legacy to which they believe they are entitled.
The scenarios
Putin’s ideal end state remains ambiguous by design. In the most expansive interpretation, the Kremlin might prefer a Ukraine fragmented into pliant, semi-autonomous entities or even territories absorbed directly into the Russian Federation. But even a less maximalist scenario would satisfy Moscow so long as it preserves, reinforces and ultimately institutionalizes a distinctly “Russian” identity across Ukrainian society.
This emphasis on cultural and historical unity has become increasingly explicit in Putin’s recent messaging. As highlighted in coverage from Reuters, the Russian president has urged his domestic authorities to “galvanize” a shared Russian identity not only within Russia but across territories under Moscow’s influence. He has repeatedly pressed the argument that Ukrainians and Russians form a single, indivisible people, an argument intended to delegitimize Ukraine’s separate national consciousness and, by extension, its Western aspirations.
The geopolitical implications are straightforward. Moscow’s end goal is to halt Ukraine’s westward turn, foreclose any future NATO membership, and reverse the country’s political integration with the European Union. Whether through coercion, negotiation or protracted pressure, the Kremlin seeks to secure Ukraine’s place within Russia’s strategic orbit. For Putin, Ukraine aligned with Washington and Brussels is not merely undesirable, it is intolerable.
In short, the Kremlin’s vision is not just about territory. It is about identity, influence and the power to define the historical narrative of an entire region. And in that contest, Russia shows no willingness to step back.
Not a win-win deal
From Moscow’s vantage point, the emerging U.S.–European proposal to end the war in Ukraine offers both tantalizing opportunities and significant shortcomings, making it partially but not fully aligned with the Kremlin’s long-stated ambitions.
On the one hand, any framework that halts Ukraine’s westward integration, constrains its military capabilities, and codifies limits on future NATO membership directly advances core Russian strategic goals. The Kremlin has long sought to arrest what it views as an artificial separation of Ukrainians and Russians culturally, linguistically, historically and a peace settlement that freezes the conflict on terms favourable to Moscow could be marketed domestically as confirmation of Russia’s “civilizational claim” over the broader Slavic world.
Territorial recognition, explicit or de facto, would further strengthen Putin’s narrative that Russia has restored lands unjustly removed from its orbit. Yet Moscow is unlikely to be fully satisfied by a plan that leaves a sovereign Ukrainian state free to pursue deeper ties with the EU, preserves a politically resilient government in Kyiv, or fails to institutionalize the “unity of identity” Putin demands.
The Kremlin’s ideological circle considers Ukrainian nationhood a Western-constructed obstacle, not a parallel identity to be tolerated indefinitely, and anything short of lasting control whether territorial, political, or cultural risks being seen by Russian hardliners as merely an interim pause rather than a strategic victory.
In essence, a diplomatic settlement that stops the shooting but does not decisively reverse Ukraine’s post-2014 orientation may meet Moscow’s minimum requirements for a cease-fire, but it will not fulfil the maximalist vision that has animated the Kremlin’s narrative since the beginning: a Ukraine firmly, permanently, and unquestioningly within Russia’s sphere of influence.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
Brussels Morning is a daily online newspaper based in Belgium. BM publishes unique and independent coverage on international and European affairs. With a Europe-wide perspective, BM covers policies and politics of the EU, significant Member State developments, and looks at the international agenda with a European perspective.
