Ever since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Kremlin propagandists have regularly mooted nuclear strikes on NATO states. But the Valdai Discussion Club, which counts the Russian president as an enthusiastic annual participant, usually sticks to milder proposals.
The core task of Valdai analysts has been to rationalize the Kremlin’s aggression while simultaneously trying to soften such tendencies and give them a more respectable veneer. In return, Putin has regularly repeated narratives crafted by the think tank.
Valdai Discussion Club program directors Timofey Bordachev, Ivan Timofeev, and Andrey Sushentsov published a report at the end of September titled Doctor Chaos, or How to Stop Being Afraid and Love Disorder. Its prescription was bleak.
“A deal on Ukraine, even if it were reached, would hardly resolve existing contradictions,” they wrote. “Relapses are practically inevitable.”
The “realistic goal” of future wars will “not be total defeat, but the constant correction of the current situation using all means at hand, and the situational negotiation of more favorable conditions for the immediate future,” they wrote.
Their vision represents “a renaissance of 18th-century great power practices,” which were “replete with bloody wars,” they said. Peace agreements would be mere pauses during which the sides would immediately prepare for a new conflict with the goal of “maintaining the balance.”
This definition chimes with Putin’s notion of the “ideal war” necessary for the survival of his regime. That would involve permanent conflict using small forces and allowing him to control its course.
The Valdai report is the first time high-ranking analysts have openly referred to such a model as “a necessity for peaceful development.” And hawkish military experts close to the Ministry of Defense have eagerly rushed to support the Club’s position.
The Military Review website wrote that modern warfare is about “strangulation” and attrition of the enemy. While the standard propaganda line has been that the West dreams of destroying Russia, military analysts now declare that the West needs only Moscow’s political defeat.
Building on this idea, they recommend harsher and more aggressive hybrid warfare against Western countries while simultaneously “finishing off” Ukraine. It’s worth noting in passing that Russian hybrid warfare against Europe became far more activist in September and October, when Germany’s Chancellor Merz stated that Russia was “no longer at peace” with the continent.
Despite Kremlin-aligned analysts now proclaiming a policy of permanent hybrid war on the West, official propaganda continues to deny its existence. RIA Novosti, the state-run media outlet, called the evidence of Russian drones in NATO airspace an “insane lie” and dismissed it as an example of “information warfare” by the West to portray Russia as an enemy.
The propagandists claim Danish authorities are frightening their own people with stories of drones in their airspace, and such stories will lead to “disunity, uncertainty, and fear.”
However, radical nationalist websites not only admit the Kremlin was behind the drone incursions but also boast of the consequences. It seems Putin has opted for a hybrid stand-off while simultaneously trying to avoid a direct clash with NATO.
But aggressive provocations, especially if they increase in intensity, could trigger a full-scale war. And it is one Russia is ill-equipped to fight.
Economists note that in the 2026 budget, military expenditure is scheduled to be 4.4% lower than in 2025. Once increasing costs are considered, this equates to a real-terms reduction in spending of nearly 10%.
But they also note spending on other agencies responsible for “national security” and “law enforcement” has grown from 3.5 trillion to 3.9 trillion rubles, suggesting a smaller fall in spending when the military, law enforcement, and security services are combined.
Even so, their main takeaway is that Putin’s war economy has reached its limits and it will be impossible to significantly increase military spending even by raising taxes.
The name of this CEPA contributor has been withheld to shield him/her from retribution by dictatorial or authoritarian regimes.
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
War Without End
Russia’s Shadow Warfare
CEPA Forum 2025
Explore CEPA’s flagship event.
