Russian President Vladimir Putin is positioning himself for a decisive year on the battlefield and beyond, with Western analysts warning that his ambitions could extend far past Ukraine as global diplomatic calculations shift. Experts fear the Kremlin believes the conditions are aligning for a bold escalation designed to pressure NATO, fracture European unity, and secure a legacy-defining victory for the Russian leader.
Former diplomat Tim Wilsey of King’s College London said the moment is unusually favourable for Moscow, as Ukraine fights to hold the line and Europe scrambles for cash, troops, and long-term resolve. “I expect Vladimir Putin to have a good year in 2026,” he told The Sun, warning that Putin has not enjoyed similar momentum in years and understands how to convert battlefield optics into strategic leverage.
Wilsey argued the current trajectory could allow Putin to secure a peace settlement on terms favourable to Moscow. “There is a really good chance that Putin will get a favourable deal, favourable to him, and that he will trumpet it domestically as a triumph,” he said, even if ordinary Russians understand the toll paid in blood. The concern, experts warn, is that such a deal would freeze, rather than end, the conflict, allowing Putin to reset, rearm, and resume offensives later.
Wilsey suggested Russia’s armed forces would need time to rebuild after sustaining significant losses. “I think he’s going to need time to recover. The Russian army is in a dreadful state and it’s going to take a while to recover. My bet is three years. I don’t think for a moment that Putin’s project is finished.” He predicted that a lull in open warfare would usher in a more covert phase of confrontation involving sabotage, political influence, cyber-operations, and targeted assassinations.
Wilsey noted that Russia has tightened its grip in parts of the former Soviet sphere and believes Moldova is highly vulnerable. Even Ukraine, he said, may face further pressure as Russia “start nibbling away at the edges of Ukraine just to see how strong these so-called assurances are actually going to be.”
One flashpoint drawing mounting concern is Narva, an Estonian border city with a majority Russian-speaking population and symbolic value for Moscow. “The one I’ve always thought is very dangerous is Narva, which has an 80 per cent Russian population,” Wilsey warned. “Do we really believe that the United States is going to go to war for one town in Estonia? I’m not sure I do anymore.” Analysts note that Putin has repeatedly questioned Narva’s status and suggested it is historically Russian territory, triggering alarm across NATO.
Foreign policy analyst Alan Mendoza of the Henry Jackson Society said the outcome of the war may hinge less on Moscow than on Washington. “Much of what will happen to Vladimir Putin in 2026 depends on what Donald Trump decides,” he argued, citing fluid negotiations and multiple possible endgames. Mendoza warned that Trump could either apply pressure by backing Ukraine “to the hilt” or withdraw American focus, giving Putin effectively free rein. “There could be an outcome where Trump does the right thing … But there could also be the worst outcome of all, which is that he withdraws his interest in the whole process and allows Putin carte blanche to do what he wants going forward with Ukraine.” He said much of the current diplomatic manoeuvring is aimed at influencing Trump’s eventual stance.
The Kremlin has begun projecting confidence, with Putin declaring late last year that Russian forces hold the “strategic initiative.” In public comments, he cast Kyiv as the obstacle to peace while insisting that Russia is “ready and willing to end this conflict peacefully” under terms he previously outlined. Mendoza and other analysts argue such rhetoric is designed to frame coercion as diplomacy and to shape negotiations that freeze, rather than stop, the conflict.
Diplomatic talks have accelerated, with negotiators in Berlin reportedly resolving significant portions of a prospective settlement, including a European-led peacekeeping force to secure a ceasefire line. Zelensky said Ukraine may abandon NATO membership ambitions in exchange for “Nato-like guarantees,” acknowledging that “the question of land and territory is probably the most difficult” issue. However, analysts warn that the emerging plan risks granting Russia many of its objectives while creating the illusion of a stable deal.
Wilsey argued Europe is moving too slowly at a precarious moment and warned that Putin could emerge from the year with a reshaped map and a fractured Western alliance. In his view, “it’s not necessarily what he does,” but rather how the West responds, that will determine whether 2026 becomes a turning point in Russia’s favour.
