From the outset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, two competing currents shaped the corridors of power. One faction in Moscow spoke of a narrow, professional military operation aimed at keeping the conflict off the broader social radar and preserving a sense of normalcy in daily life. The other pressed for full mobilization and extraordinary measures to mobilize the economy and society in service of the war effort.
For months, Vladimir Putin clung to the first option, but the recent battlefield setbacks in Ukraine compelled a strategic shift toward recruiting a larger number of troops—roughly 300,000 reserves. It was a difficult decision, according to Crisis Group analyst Oleg Ignatov, who observed from Moscow until exile forced by tightening laws against dissent. The annexation of occupied territories has largely functioned as a pretext to justify mobilization, signaling an escalation toward a broader war that will involve wider segments of society.
The Russian Army does not fully control a single territory. In four Ukrainian regions, referendums conducted under pressure by occupying authorities concluded with results framed as confirmations of integration into the Russian Federation, with varying degrees of reported support between 88 and 99 percent. Donetsk, Lugansk, and other parts of Donbas, along with southern areas such as Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, were cited in discussions of this process. Yet such moves have drawn criticism from numerous countries, including some that remain publicly wary of the annexation, even if they do not oppose every gesture. The annexation is viewed by many as a step that will not necessarily alter immediate military dynamics but could reshape the political status of the territories involved and alter international perceptions of legality and sovereignty.
Experts emphasize that Putin’s objective is to shift the war’s narrative, presenting the occupied regions as inseparable from Moscow. Analysts like Nicolás de Pedro of the London-based Statecraft Institute describe the move as an attempt to alter the legal and political framework surrounding these areas. The Kremlin, experts note, may seek to bolster the credibility of its military actions by signaling a readiness to defend broader territorial claims, including through the possible use of force if territorial integrity is perceived as threatened, as Putin indicated in recent statements.
Nuclear threats as a strategic signal to Europe
In the eyes of observers, the nuclear option remains a dangerous symbolic tool more than a practical plan. The aim is to pressure Kyiv and its supporters to return to negotiation under conditions favorable to Moscow, even as Ukrainian forces regain ground in Kharkiv and continued operations in Donbas reveal resilience and solid international backing from Washington and London. The overall trajectory suggests that the path forward remains uncertain, with Western alliances maintaining a firm stance while Moscow weighs its next moves in a bid to salvage political objectives.
Despite the talk of escalation, there is a belief in Moscow that annexation could resolve some internal frictions. Soldiers who previously refused to serve under the defense of Russian lands may feel newly bound by the claim to defend a larger sense of territorial sovereignty. Analysts argue that this could boost morale if troops perceive a direct link between their duties and securing newly claimed territories. Yet, challengers point out that demographic and logistical constraints could limit the effectiveness of such a strategy, and that broader resistance at home continues to test the regime’s grip on social order.
Time, many observers say, is not on Moscow’s side. The mobilization of reserves—an extraordinary step not seen since the early days of a historic conflict—has driven hundreds of thousands to depart abroad to avoid conscription. Letters of mobilization have reached older and more vulnerable populations, raising concerns about who is being called to serve and the societal impact of such measures. Analysts highlight that there are no explicit time limits or occupational restrictions, which the Defense Ministry is using to cast a wide net in recruiting efforts. The potential for domestic unrest remains an ever-present constraint on policy decisions.
In recent days, some commentators on national television have speculated about dramatically larger numbers, suggesting a wave of up to one million could be mobilized—far beyond what officials have publicly announced. Commentators warn that the longer the conflict lasts, the greater the strain on social peace inside Russia. The mounting pressures on society are evident, and observers caution that the regime faces a delicate balance between sustaining military effort and maintaining internal coherence.