When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch
FOCUS: Russia-Ukraine War

After Major Setback In Ukraine, 7 Options For What Putin Could Do Next

Negotiate? Stall? Double down? The Russian leader suddenly finds himself in front of a situation that offers no obvious good choices. Doing nothing, however, is not an option.

​ Russia's President Vladimir Putin at a summit in Uzbekistan

Russia's President Vladimir Putin at a summit in Uzbekistan

Cameron Manley

In just one week, the war in Ukraine has made a full about-turn. Ukraine’s armed forces went from an apparent slow ceding of land to launching two hugely successful counter offensives around Kharkiv in the nation’s east, and in the south near the Russian-occupied city of Kherson.

As of Friday, Kyiv claims to have recaptured some 8,000 square kilometers of its territory, taking back in a matter of days what it took Russia months to originally conquer.

By now, there is no doubt that Russia is in serious trouble. President Vladimir Putin’s tentative encounter this week with Chinese President Xi Jinping, his most important potential international ally, only confirms that his options for reversing the recent battlefield defeats may be rapidly shrinking.

In his leadership spanning some 20 years, the Russian President has faced some troubling military situations: Islamist militants in Chechnya and the North Caucuses in 1999 proved to be some of his toughest antagonists. In that instance, he chose to escalate with more force. He also notably doubled down with success in Syria, after the U.S. had stepped back.

His invasion of Ukraine is of a different order, though, even if he continues to refer as a “special military operation.” His very leadership and legacy is riding on the outcome. So in the face of severe military setbacks, it begs the question: what will Putin do next? Here are seven possibilities:

Regroup, targeted counterattacks

Since Sept. 10, when Ukraine began making serious head-way with its counter offensives, the overwhelming narrative on Russian State TV has been that Russian troops are performing a "peregrupirovka" (перегрупировка), they are "regrouping’"prior to commencing a new attack.

Indeed, Russia desperately needs to stabilize its frontline and put a stop to Ukraine’s advance, and many of the Kremlin’s usual supporters are proposing increasingly violent tactics as a result.

On Wednesday evening’s state TV show 60 Minutes, military expert Igor Korotchenko said: “This is a new reality, which is why we should be acting quickly, harshly and uncompromisingly. First of all, we need to scale up our strikes against critical infrastructure in such a way that one region after the next, one district after another, Ukraine is plunged into darkness...’

Such comments on state TV are often followed by discussions of the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which independent observers nevertheless still consider mostly bluster.

Serious doubts are growing about whether Russia has the ground forces or sufficient equipment to launch a new offensive, given how many casualties it has taken and how much hardware has been abandoned or destroyed in its frantic fleeing from reoccupied territories.

Thus targeted strikes that destabilize the enemy and halt its momentum may make tactical sense, though is well short of a long-term strategy.

Mass mobilization

If Russia were to initiate a full-fledge new offensive, it would undoubtedly require more men and more equipment: it would need a national mobilization and the declaration of war to do so.

Putting the country on a full wartime footing would come with domestic political risks.

This, however, would mean overhauling the official messaging in Russia on Ukraine and moving away from describing it as "a special military operation" with limited goals of "denazifying" Ukraine, to an open-ended, full-scale war.

Putting the country on a full wartime footing would come with domestic political risks, notably the potential for public backlash against a forced draft. On September 13, Putin’s Press Secretary, Dmitriy Peskov,said that there was no discussion of a nationwide mobilization, though ominously adding “at the moment.”

The mobilization of Russia’s two million reservists is by no means a quick-fix solution: it would take months to have any substantive effect on Russia’s fighting strength on the front lines. At the current rate, they have weeks or even days to reverse the Ukrainian momentum, not months.

Wait for winter

Russia has famously taken advantage of winter in the past to defeat both Napoleon and Hitler, and Putin may well be hoping to bide his time and that by using energy as a weapon, he will manage to cause fragmentation of the West’s resolve during the cold winter months.

In response to the European Union’s ban of Russian coal and partial ban on Russian crude oil imports, Russia has sharply cut gas exports to Europe and threatens to ban all energy exports, a lever Putin has yet to pull. Towards the end of August, Reutersreported that Putin was aiming to “chokehold” Europe by withholding gas, and in so doing drain support for Kyiv.

\u200bRussian soldiers at a ceremony to commemorate victims of World War II held on Gulf of Finland

Russian soldiers at a ceremony to commemorate victims of World War II held on Gulf of Finland



By seeking a political solution, Vladimir Putin may try to cling on to the territory currently under Russian control, and salvage his presidency — and legacy.

The window on that, however, may quickly close as Ukraine digs in its heels, bolstered by its success on the ground. At the Yalta European Strategy (YES) forum on Sept. 10, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that for negotiations to take place, Russia would need to withdraw to the original border that was in place on Feb. 24, before the start of Russia’s invasion.

Since then, Zelensky has hardly seemed in the mood for negotiations. Last Sunday, after Russia lashed out against Ukraine’s recent gains with increased artillery and missile strikes launched from the Black Sea, hewrote on Telegram in response: "Do you still think we are one people? Do you still think you can scare us, break us, force us to make concessions?... Without gas or without you? Without you. Without light or without you? Without you. Without water or without you? Without you. Without food or without you? Without you."

When it comes to the negotiating table, Russia is also no longer coming as the powerful party: it is losing … badly. Russian liberal commentator, Maksim Kats,said that the only way Russia can try to regain its negotiating position is through "terror": “bombing of civilian infrastructure, public buildings and residential buildings … Putin cannot win on the front, but he can try to sow a reluctance in Ukrainian society to continue war.”

‘Accidents Happen’

Russia’s precedent when it comes to "accidents" and "mishaps" is certainly a cause for concern. Remember the Ukraine strikes on the Saky airbase near Crimea? They weresupposedly the result of "poor handling" of military equipment. Or, when both sides were accusing one another of firing on the Zaporizhiya Nuclear Plant, Dmitriy Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, said “accidents can happen.”

Russia’s precedent when it comes to ‘accidents’ and ‘mishaps’ is a cause for concern.

In the latter case, Russian forces have controlled the plant near the city of Kherson since March, turning it into a military base, and while rocket and artillery fire is not actually of primary concern, since the plant is heavily shielded, if the plant loses connection to the Ukrainian grid — which has already happened on multiple occasions — the reactors risk becoming unstable.

A false flag “accident” blamed on Ukraine looks like a real possibility, and risks escalating the state of war to another Chernobyl-level crisis. Such an event could force Ukraine to the negotiating table.

Resign, never say never

If he is ultimately a rational calculator, as some believe, Putin may also conclude that no good options are left — and resign. Unlikely, yes. But it is also undeniable that Putin has staked his leadership in the success of the war, no matter what he calls it. His decision to invade Ukraine cannot be undone

Local lawmakers in both St. Petersburg and Moscow have already called for Putin to be removed from power over his handling of the war. Municipal deputy Dmitry Palyuga from the Smolninsky District Council in St. Petersburgtweeted out a document calling on Russia’s parliament to remove Putin from power and charge him with high treason. State TV, the hot spot for Russian propaganda and fiery anti-Ukrainian rhetoric is also starting to show cracks.

Still the scenario for Putin calling it quits may itself carry more risks than sticking it out. Less than a month from his 70th birthday, the Russian leader has seen (from Serbia to Libya to multiple sub-Saharan African states) that deposed strongmen often end up dead or in jail.

Brezhnev 2.0

Former Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev had a string of military victories over the course of his premiership (Southeast Asia, Southern Africa, Nicaragua), though he went too far when he invaded Afghanistan in 1978. This war was considered a key factor in the unraveling of the Soviet empire and the subsequent collapse of the USSR.

Putin, after his own victories in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea and Syria, is now coming under serious fire in Ukraine. How he responds may decide if his Russia is to suffer a similar fate to his predecessor’s. Yet Putin the rational calculator might also take note that Breshnev's own personal destiny was to hold on to his leadership for life, before dying in office of natural causes — and leaving others to clean up his mess.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Israel-Palestine War

Why The U.S. Lost Its Leverage In The Middle East — And May Never Get It Back

In the Israel-Hamas war, Qatar now plays the key role in negotiations, while the United States appears increasingly disengaged. Shifts in the region and beyond require that Washington move quickly or risk ceding influence to China and others for the long term.

Photograph of U.S Secretary of State Antony Blinken  shaking hands with sraeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

November 30, 2023, Tel Aviv, Israel: U.S Secretary of State Antony Blinken shakes hands with Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

Chuck Kennedy/U.S State/ZUMA
Sébastien Boussois


PARIS — Upon assuming office in 2008, then-President Barack Obama declared that United States would gradually begin withdrawing from various conflict zones across the globe, initiating a complex process that has had a major impact on the international landscape ever since.

This started with the American departure from Iraq in 2010, and was followed by Donald Trump's presidency, during which the "Make America Great Again" policy redirected attention to America's domestic interests.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

The withdrawal trend resumed under Joe Biden, who ordered the exit of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in 2021. To maintain a foothold in all intricate regions to the east, America requires secure and stable partnerships. The recent struggle in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict demonstrates that Washington increasingly relies on the allied Gulf states for any enduring influence.

Since the collapse of the Camp David Accords in 1999 during Bill Clinton's tenure, Washington has consistently supported Israel without pursuing renewed peace talks that could have led to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

While President Joe Biden's recent challenges in pushing for a Gaza ceasefire met with resistance from an unyielding Benjamin Netanyahu, they also stem from the United States' overall disengagement from the issue over the past two decades. Biden now is seeking to re-engage in the Israel-Palestine matter, yet it is Qatar that is the primary broker for significant negotiations such as the release of hostages in exchange for a ceasefire —a situation the United States lacks the leverage to enforce.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest