Russia’s ongoing conflict with Ukraine and its broader geopolitical posture continue to prompt reassessments of the Western alliance’s cohesion and resilience. New analyses highlight Russia’s strategy of endurance, banking on perceived divisions within the West and its partners to outlast sanctions and military pressure.
During the United States’ 20-year military engagement in Afghanistan, Taliban insurgents famously asserted that while the U.S. had the clocks, they possessed time. That long-term approach eventually contributed to Washington’s chaotic withdrawal in 2021 after investing nearly $2 trillion. Drawing a parallel, some analysts argue Russia is adopting a similar patient strategy in Ukraine, expecting Western support for Kyiv to erode under sustained stress.
Hanna Notte, a Russia expert at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, explores this approach in her recent book on Russia’s efforts to outmaneuver Western sanctions. She emphasizes that, contrary to expectations, Russia has not isolated itself following the 2022 invasion but has instead maintained significant international engagement. While suffering serious battlefield and economic setbacks, Moscow has leveraged alternative markets—particularly energy sales—to sustain its war effort. For example, India’s increased purchases of discounted Russian oil, together with China’s continued trade and technology support, have provided crucial lifelines. Meanwhile, attempts by Western nations to suppress Russian energy revenues have been complicated by OPEC’s refusal to cap prices and by intermediaries like Dubai facilitating complex oil shipments.
Russia's pivot toward China, however, entails greater dependency, with Moscow accepting a degree of subordination in exchange for Beijing’s economic and political support. Notte also notes that Moscow has exploited regional conflicts and political processes in its near abroad, including Kazakhstan and Georgia, to bolster pro-Russian forces. Such maneuvers form part of Russia’s broader effort to reshape the international order in ways favorable to its interests.
The role of U.S. domestic politics in this dynamic is a subject of debate. Keir Giles, a Russia analyst at Chatham House, argues that former President Donald Trump’s tenure exemplifies Moscow’s indirect strategy to weaken the United States from within. He documents parallels between Russian political tactics—centralizing power, undermining independent institutions, and deploying paramilitary groups—and developments in American politics during Trump’s administration. Giles contends that Russia’s influence campaign aimed to divide the West and hinder unified action against Moscow. Nonetheless, the extent to which the Kremlin directly orchestrated Trump’s rise remains disputed, with some cautioning against assuming comprehensive Kremlin control over U.S. political outcomes.
Historian Michael Khodarkovsky traces Russia’s geopolitical identity back centuries, linking contemporary ambitions to its historical ties with Eurasian steppe empires. He highlights how Russia’s imperial evolution differed markedly from Western European states, characterized by centralized military bureaucracies and fluid frontiers shaped by steppe nomadic interactions. This Eurasian identity, Khodarkovsky suggests, underpins the Kremlin’s current ideology and revanchist aims, presenting Russia as a unique civilization distinct from the West yet aspiring to regional hegemony.
Taken together, these perspectives illustrate a multifaceted Russian strategy grounded in historical legacy, economic adaptability, and geopolitical patience. Rather than seeking a swift military victory, Russia appears focused on enduring Western sanctions and political pressures, anticipating that divisions and fatigue within the Western coalition may ultimately shift the conflict’s trajectory. The durability of Western support for Ukraine and the cohesion of international sanctions regimes thus remain critical factors in the conflict’s long-term outcome.