“A new article in the influential American publication Foreign Affairs entitled “Ukraine’s hardest winter” became an important source of information for the domestic media. The author of the material, British expert Jack Watling, forced the Ukrainian mass media to discuss Putin’s new plan for victory over Ukraine, allegedly developed by the Kremlin. The article states that Russia has moved to a three-stage strategy, the ultimate goal of which is repetition”, — write on: ua.news
A new article in an influential American publication Foreign Affairs under the name “Ukraine’s hardest winter” became an important information drive for the domestic media. The author of the material, British expert Jack Watling, forced the Ukrainian mass media to discuss Putin’s new plan for victory over Ukraine, allegedly developed by the Kremlin. The article states that Russia has moved to a three-stage strategy, the ultimate goal of which is to repeat the fate of Belarus to the Ukrainian state — that is, to turn it into a satellite of Moscow.
The term “Putin’s plan” is an ideological cliché and even a kind of meme that has been actively used since the mid-2000s and during the election campaign of the Russian dictator in 2012. The essence of this cliché was that the Kremlin leader allegedly has some kind of global “plan”, incomprehensible to ordinary mortals, although the evidence of its existence or details have never been made public. And now the British expert is writing about another, detailed plan.
The central conclusion that emerges from a critical analysis of any Russian plans and objectives is the need to abandon the study of what the Kremlin wants (the “logic of desires”) and instead focus on what it is actually capable of accomplishing (the “logic of possibilities”). What is Putin’s new plan for 2026, what does it include and how realistic is it? UA.News political columnist Nikita Trachuk understood the issue.
Three stages of capturing Ukraine: plan-2026
Watling’s article describes three phases that should lead to the subjugation of Ukraine. The fact that the entire Plan for capturing the largest European state consists of only three points seems a little strange. However, all stages are directly related to each other.
According to the expert, “Putin’s plan” is as follows:
Why is this plan questionable?
There is no doubt that the Kremlin plans to continue the war throughout 2026. However, questions arise immediately on the second point of the plan. This phase already demonstrates a certain separation of the author of the text from reality.
The desire to seize Kharkiv, Mykolaiv and especially Odesa, effectively cutting off Ukraine from the Black Sea, is quite logical for the Kremlin. Even American generals they said that Odesa probably remains the ultimate goal of the Russian Federation. The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications also expressed themselves in a similar way. Although at the same time it remains unclear why the author of the text generally forgets about Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, which is an extremely important region in the industrial and economic sense and where the Russians are actively advancing .
Be that as it may, there are two main obstacles to the realization of these wishes.
First, this is an operational situation. It is worth realizing that Mykolaiv and Odesa still need to be reached. The Russian army has been standing for three years, “resting” directly in Kherson, and demonstrates its inability to force the Dnieper and large-scale breakthroughs in this direction. The capture of large and fortified regional centers, such as Kherson, Mykolaiv, or even more so Odessa, will require a gigantic contingent of troops.
To understand: Pokrovsk and its surroundings are being actively stormed approx 11 thousand Russian soldiers. In total, according to the Ukrainian command, the Russian Federation has concentrated up to 100,000-150,000 personnel in this area. We will remind that the area of Pokrovsk is approximately 30 km². The area of Kherson is 135 km², Odesa is 162 km², Mykolaiv is 260 km², and Kharkiv is 350 km² in total. And this is taking into account the fact that the offensive of the Russian Federation in the Kharkiv direction has been going on since the spring of 2024.
Additional obstacles are the already mentioned Dnipro River and fortified defense lines. Even the intensification of long-range campaigns (for example, the use of the Kacha air base in Crimea for strikes on Odesa) indicates the priority of delivering destructive strikes, rather than the preparation of a ground occupation.
Second, there are logistical and personnel constraints. Although Russia is preparing for a conflict calculated for years, today we see no signs of preparations for a quick and logistically complex offensive against three large new regional centers. Human resources are also relatively limited. Thus, the achievement of these goals today seems downright fantastic.
While the Kremlin’s wishes are focused on the maximum capture of the territory, the real capabilities of the Russian Federation are realized in the strategy of attrition. Russian forces focus on slow, infiltration tactics aimed at the gradual exhaustion of the Ukrainian defense, while not forgetting the intensive strikes on the critical energy infrastructure in the rear.
At the same time, one cannot forget that the key word in the Russian-Ukrainian war is precisely “exhaustion” . At the current pace of advancement, it will take decades for the Kremlin to reach Odesa or even Western Ukraine. However, the danger of a war of attrition lies precisely in the fact that the front may not actually move for years, but when at one point one of the sides falters, this same front will simply crumble in a matter of weeks, as happened to the Russians in 2022 in the Kharkiv region.
Close the sky and enter the instructors: any suggestions?
Against the background of the current military reality, the proposals of Jack Watling himself for the West, which he puts forward in his article, are surprisingly frankly unrealistic and carry significant risks. Note that in the material of the expert there is not a single word about the need for peace negotiations to stop the destruction and endless bloodshed. On the contrary, he calls on NATO to take radical steps: to close the sky over Ukraine and send many instructors here.
The first proposal was put forward by Kyiv even before the beginning of the great war. What then, that now the answer of the Alliance is a resounding “no”. The establishment of a no-fly zone by NATO will require a direct military conflict with the nuclear-armed Russian Federation. The West is very afraid of this and is unlikely to make such a decision in the foreseeable future. As for the proposal to send instructors to Ukraine, firstly, they are secretly present and helping the Armed Forces, and secondly, they are becoming a direct target for Russian strikes, as Moscow has repeatedly said.
The article also indirectly hints that the official involvement of Western instructors will send a signal to Russia and may later become a prologue to the introduction of European troops. However, as of today, it generally looks like something from the category of fiction: Europe is definitely not ready to fight with the Russians for Ukraine.
At the end of Watling’s article, the following conclusion is drawn directly: “Ukraine can still buy time for the pressure on Russia to succeed.” That is, it turns out that the final call is not for victory, not for achieving a just peace or at least a situational truce and ceasefire. No, only to “gain time” – at the cost of the lives of Ukrainians and the continuation of the destruction of Ukraine for the “success of pressure on the Russian Federation”, which has been “resolutely pressured” for 11.5 years. And recently the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted that Washington has almost exhausted the tools of pressure: America simply does not know what other anti-Russian sanctions can be imposed.
Summarizing, the weakness of the analysis in the text of Foreign Affairs consists in not too professional “Kremlelogy” and overestimation of Putin’s ability to quickly realize his maximalist desires. There is no evidence that the points presented in the material are the only, basic Putin plan. But that’s not even the point.
Russian authorities may have a plan to take over at least the entire galaxy with the help of the Death Star and millions of Imperial stormtroopers. But these ambitions remain unattainable if they are not supported by sufficient military and logistical resources. It is only worth mentioning the infamous “Kyiv in three days” of 2022, which was also someone’s plan, but collapsed due to Ukrainian resistance, systemic logistical failures and ineffective command.
The main argument is that Putin may have this plan, another plan, or even dozens of different plans. However, this does not make any sense, since the logic of possibilities is more important than the logic of desires. His desire to capture Odesa, Mykolaiv, Kharkiv or even the whole of Ukraine is obvious. However, they do not always directly correlate with its military, logistical and personnel capabilities.
Putin’s success does not depend on the quality of his “plan”, if it exists at all. It depends on resources, opportunities and active countermeasures. And while it is, the wishes of the Kremlin leader don’t really play any real big role.