Why Putin’s Regime Structurally Requires Permanent War

The Structural Trap: Why the Russian Regime Now Requires Eternal War

For years, Western policymakers operated under a comforting assumption: that peace negotiations in Ukraine would eventually be possible once the costs of war became too high for the Kremlin. The logic was simple—reduce the military burden and the regime would seek an exit. However, a deeper analysis reveals a far more dangerous reality. The Russian state has evolved into what can be described as “Fortress Russia,” where conflict is no longer a strategic choice, but a structural requirement for survival.

When a regime transforms its internal stability to depend on external aggression, the traditional “carrot and stick” approach to diplomacy fails. To understand where This represents heading, we must look at the internal mechanics of power, the fragmentation of the elite, and the economic divide between Russia’s urban centers and its rural periphery.

The Architecture of Fear: Fragmenting the Elite

In any autocracy, the greatest threat comes from within the palace. Historically, leaders maintained loyalty through a balance of wealth and protection. However, the current Russian model has shifted toward systematic fragmentation. By removing the guarantee of physical and financial safety, the regime ensures that no single faction of the elite is strong enough to coordinate a coup.

We are seeing a pattern where even the most loyal allies are not safe. The case of gold magnate Konstantin Strukov—who funded military efforts out of his own pocket only to have his assets seized—serves as a warning. Similarly, the quiet removal of veterans like Dmitry Kozak demonstrates that political rank no longer provides immunity. When loyalty is questioned, the response is no longer a negotiated exit, but asset confiscation and judicial persecution.

This environment creates a “hostage” system. High-ranking bureaucrats are effectively under administrative arrest, with travel bans and the forced liquidation of foreign assets. In this system, resignation is treated as desertion during wartime, making the continuation of the conflict the only way to justify these extreme measures of control.

The Great Divide: Rural Gains vs. Urban Pain

To prevent mass unrest, the Kremlin has implemented a sophisticated socio-economic split. While the urban middle class in cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg bears the brunt of the war through austerity and surveillance, the impoverished rural periphery has become the war’s primary beneficiary.

The military-industrial complex has become a massive engine for localized growth in regions like Tatarstan and Siberia. In some areas, a soldier’s salary can exceed the local average by 15 times. With approximately 29% of the GDP now spent on the war, the regime has created an entire industrial ecosystem—from drone factories in Alabuga to artillery supply chains—that cannot survive in peacetime.

Conversely, the urban centers are facing a “historical betrayal.” The increase of the value-added tax (VAT) to 22% and the slashing of social spending from 38% to 25% have squeezed the middle class. To prevent these frustrations from organizing, the regime has deployed a digital panopticon, criminalizing VPNs and banning apps like WhatsApp, while imposing state surveillance tools on all devices.

Why the “North Korea” Model is Impossible

Some argue that Russia could simply freeze the conflict and become a hermit kingdom—a giant North Korea. However, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Russian elite and population. Unlike the North Korean nomenclature, the Russian elite’s wealth is built on petrodollars and global market access. They have assets to lose and places to move.

the Russian urban population remembers a world beyond total isolation. They view current surveillance and austerity not as a natural state, but as a deprivation of their quality of life. Even China, Russia’s primary partner, would likely find a totally collapsed, hermit-state Russia to be a strategic liability rather than an asset. A functional, albeit dependent, Moscow is far more useful to Beijing than a failed state on its border.

Redefining the Western Response: From Crisis to Containment

If the Russian regime requires eternal war to survive, the West must stop treating the situation as a temporary crisis to be “managed.” Instead, the strategy must shift toward permanent structural containment.

• Permanent Forward Presence: NATO must move beyond rotational deployments toward permanent, sovereign-based combat formations with deep logistics and integrated air and missile defense (IAMD).
• Strategic Autonomy for Europe: The EU must transition from a security consumer to a provider. This includes building a local defense-industrial base and potentially issuing “euro-defense bonds” to maintain a defense spend of 5% of GDP.
• Ukraine as a Structural Deterrent: Rather than viewing Ukraine through the lens of periodic aid packages, the West should treat a sovereign, armed Ukraine as a permanent strategic dilemma for the Kremlin.

By forcing the Kremlin to maintain a massive, expensive military posture on its own border, the West can exploit the internal contradiction of the Russian state: the regime cannot indefinitely fund both a global military economy and the costly repressive apparatus needed to keep its elites in line.

Frequently Asked Questions

What do you think? Is the West doing enough to build a permanent deterrent, or are we still operating on the outdated hope of a quick diplomatic solution? Share your thoughts in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for more deep-dives into global security trends.