Putin’s Focus is Now French Elections

Reviewing the Ukraine war watchers I think there had been a general assumption, or fear, that after the State Duma elections in Russia, last month, that Putin would launch a new mobilization campaign as a prelude to yet another big offensive in Donbas. The consensus was also that this would be pretty futile – just providing more bodies to the Russian meat grinder, which has been running at tens of thousands of Russian casualties per month for much of 2026. Actually Putin appears to have held back from the mobilization track – perhaps fearful of the domestic political consequences of the war being brought home to the elites of Moscow and St Petersburg, finally losing their sons, brothers, uncles and fathers to this futile war to massage Putin’s ego.JOIN US ON TELEGRAMFollow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official. Instead, Russia appears to have been pushed back along the front lines: September was the first month since Ukraine’s ill-fated counteroffensive in autumn 2023 that Russia suffered a net loss of territory in Ukraine. Putin seems to have changed strategy to one of being content to maintain the frontlines in Donbas, while moving to an all-out campaign against the Ukrainian economy. Herein we have seen a step up in Russian drone and ballistic missile attacks on Ukrainian industrial assets, energy infrastructure, transport, retail and logical hubs and supply chains. We have seen attacks on Ukraine’s steel industry - with five blast furnaces taken out of service and rendering its once export leading steel industry dormant. Other Topics of Interest Triumph of Common Sense: Dissecting the Carlson-Rees-Mogg Interview Conservative commentator Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg delivers a reality check as Tucker Carlson questions sovereignty, alliances and the value of resisting aggression. There have been attacks on key bridges across the Dnipro in Kyiv – again to sap moral but also to undermine the functioning of the capital’s economy. And in the Black Sea, Russia has spurned efforts by Turkiye, the US, et al to agree a ceasefire covering grains, and Ukrainian grain exports have slowed to a trickle. A similar ceasefire effort to cover energy assets has also been rejected by Russia. The aim seems to be to wear down Ukraine’s economy, erode its military industrial capability and sap the moral of Ukrainians. I think the aim is also to push the economy into recession, create large budget and balance of payments shortfalls which will impose larger funding asks on Europe at a time when public finances are already under strain across the continent and playing out in market worries about the sustainability of public finances in France, the UK, et al. The aim is I think to break the spirit of Ukrainians and the will of Europe to continue to bank roll Ukraine in this war. I think there have been opportunities for a serious peace process, and a peace under the Trump presidency. But Trump has so mismanaged this process, that he has given heart to Putin that under Trump’s leadership the NATO alliance will fracture, and with that its willingness to support Ukraine. And in Trump’s backing for far-right parties in Europe - the AfD in Germany, FN in France, and Reform in the UK, I think he has presented light at the end of the tunnel for Putin, that elections will inevitably usher in new governments in Europe which will pull the plug on European funding for Ukraine. Key I think in this respect are French elections in May where I think Putin thinks a victory by Le Pen will see not only French support to Ukraine ended but a spanner put in the works of EU funding and support for Ukraine. So I think Putin now sees advantage in fighting on and through the winter to get to next May and the prospect then of a collapse in European support for Ukraine. And thru the winter the strategy is to maximize destruction on Ukraine to increase the bill on Europe for supporting Ukraine. All this just seems obvious to seasoned Ukraine watchers like me (40-year track record there) – it is possible to read Putin, and unfortunately Trump, like a book. Putin is not difficult to read. He is a bully, a Russian style mafia like character forged from his KGB background. He respects strength and power and pushes on when he sees weakness. In Europe and in Trump he sees weakness and a lack of leadership. Trump has imposed few costs on Putin, or Russia, for the war in Ukraine. Rather Trump seems to suggest he wants to reward Putin for his land grab in Ukraine, by his show of strength by trying to get US – Russia business back to normal. Putin sees no penalty or sanction in continuing to test NATO borders in Europe through cyberattacks, attacks on NATO munition dumps, assassination attempts on European industrialists, drone forays against targets in Europe, and lately by attacks on shipping in NATO members waters. The lack of response by NATO - because I think European NATO is unsure of the US backstop – just invites more Russian malign actions. Each effort that Putin gets away with just reveals the weakness of NATO, its lack of a response, and the lack of assurance on the US backstop. So he will continue. And by heightening fears of Russia in Europe, he will hope to gift his far-right allies in Europe electoral ammunition as they will offer their electorates the offer of appeasement with Russia to secure a peace. Or that’s what they think they will achieve. But knowing Putin he will take whatever gifts are offered by the AfD, RN, and Reform and ask, and take more. Leadership is needed in Europe but is in short supply. On the Ukraine financing piste, the war is costing Ukraine more, and the war looks set to extend longer into 2028. This means that the €90 billion EU USL agreed at the EU Council meeting in December 2025 is not enough. Ukraine has spoken about a $27 billion military financing gap in 2026, and a $32 billion financing gap in 2027, and that’s even without thinking of the tens of billions of extra funds needed if the war extends to 2028. The right approach for Europe is to get ahead of the game, and the risks from French elections. To insulate Ukraine’s financing from those elections with potentially new facilities, and even finally tapping the $300 billion in immobilized CBR assets in Western jurisdictions. But when leadership and vision is required from European leaders, we are seeing dithering and penny, or Euro cent pinching. We should be sending a clear message to Putin that Europe, and its allies remaining (excluding the US) will provide whatever it takes to support Ukraine in this war - a blank cheque. And the argument to our taxpayers should be that a $100 billion investment in Ukraine’s defense, to stop Russia, could save 1-2% per year in European defense spending over the longer term, that’s potentially a €250-500 billion saving per year. It all looks a no brainier. But Europe so often has no brains, and invariably only acts when actually hit by crisis – in this case it would be a Russian victory in Ukraine. Imagine that, it would mean tens of millions of Ukrainians moving West, straining the social, economic and political fabric of Europe and Russia moving further up on NATO’s borders but augmented by the capture of Ukraine’s substantive military capability. Europe would be facing the combined military capabilities of Russia, and subsumed Ukraine, and without a US backstop. That would be a simply disastrous scenario for Europe – hence the cheapest option is to fund Ukraine NOW. See the original in the author’s @tashecon blog here. The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.