Prolonged Conflict, Enduring Power Struggle, and a Reshaped Global Order
As the war between Russia and Ukraine enters 2026, it has clearly moved far beyond a conventional military confrontation. What began as a regional war is now reshaping state structures, economic systems, alliance politics, and the foundations of global security. The debate about a “new threshold” no longer refers to a sudden battlefield breakthrough, but rather to the normalization of a permanent geopolitical conflict.
From Rapid Maneuver to Strategic Attrition
In its early phase, both sides sought decisive victories through rapid military advances. Those expectations have now vanished. The frontlines have largely stabilized, while fighting continues through high-intensity but limited territorial gains.
Ukraine has reoriented its military doctrine toward depth and precision. Long-range drones and guided strikes increasingly target not only frontline positions but also Russia’s logistics networks, energy infrastructure, and defense-industrial facilities. The objective is not immediate territorial recovery, but to gradually erode Russia’s capacity to sustain the war.
Russia, by contrast, relies on artillery dominance, manpower reserves, and defensive consolidation. Rather than large-scale offensives, Moscow prioritizes holding territory and exhausting Ukrainian forces. Military analysts increasingly describe the conflict as a 21st-century war of attrition, combining World War I–style endurance with advanced drone warfare, electronic warfare, and AI-assisted targeting.
Moscow: War as a Regime, Not a Policy
For the Kremlin, the war is no longer a temporary foreign policy crisis. It has become a defining feature of state governance. Defense spending has reached historic levels, while the economy is being restructured around sustained military production.
Russian President Vladimir Putin consistently frames the war as a “historical and existential struggle” against the West. This narrative serves multiple domestic purposes:
Justifying prolonged economic hardship
Normalizing long-term mobilization
Further narrowing political opposition and civil society
In this sense, the war has become a catalyst for deeper authoritarian consolidation, embedding emergency governance into Russia’s long-term political system.
Kyiv: Institutionalized Resistance
For Ukraine, the war is no longer solely about territorial defense; it is a struggle for national survival. Kyiv combines military resistance with continuous diplomatic engagement aimed at keeping the conflict at the center of the global agenda.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly warned Western leaders:
“A frozen conflict would only give Russia time to rearm.”
Ukraine’s strategy rests on three pillars:
Sustained Western military assistance
Expanded air defense and long-range strike capabilities
Continued economic and political pressure on Moscow
Rather than seeking a short-term ceasefire, Kyiv prioritizes durable security guarantees that would prevent future Russian offensives.
The West and NATO: Support Without Escalation
Western governments and NATO continue to support Ukraine militarily and financially, while carefully avoiding direct confrontation with Russia. NATO’s eastern flank has been significantly reinforced, yet political debates within the alliance are intensifying.
In both the United States and Europe, signs of “war fatigue” are becoming more visible, raising questions about the scope and longevity of support. At the same time, the rapid expansion of defense-industrial capacity across Europe suggests that Western capitals increasingly view the conflict as a long-term structural challenge, not a temporary crisis.
Global Implications: A Regional War With Systemic Consequences
The consequences of the Russia–Ukraine War extend far beyond Eastern Europe:
Europe’s security architecture has been fundamentally transformed
Energy markets face persistent volatility
Global rearmament trends have accelerated
Long-term bloc confrontation between Russia and the West has deepened
In this context, the war is widely seen as a definitive marker of the post–Cold War order’s collapse, signaling a return to sustained great-power rivalry.
What Does the “New Threshold” Mean?
Experts increasingly agree that the new threshold is defined not by sudden military escalation, but by structural realities:
The disappearance of any expectation of quick victory
The permanence of war economies on both sides
Diplomatic solutions pushed into the medium or long term
The normalization of low-intensity but continuous conflict
Conclusion: A Permanent Conflict Environment
The Russia–Ukraine War has evolved into a prolonged power struggle that is reshaping the global order. The central question is no longer how the war will end, but how it will redefine international politics. European security, international law, and the future of great-power relations will all be shaped under the shadow of this conflict.
In this sense, the war stands as one of the defining thresholds of the 21st century—not merely a regional confrontation, but a structural turning point for the global system.
