Kenneth Glad
Debate over a possible pause in fighting has sharpened as analysts warn that a ceasefire may not calm the war’s underlying pressures. Instead, some argue it could shift strain inward, reshaping the balance between Moscow’s domestic stability and Kyiv’s military leverage.
Latvian military analyst Jānis Slaidiņš made the comments in a recent media appearance, warning that the Kremlin’s greatest vulnerability today is not Ukrainian firepower itself, but the cumulative internal stress the war is generating inside Russia.
In his commentary on Latvian television, Slaidiņš argued, according to media outlet LA.LV, that Ukrainian strikes have triggered consequences Russia struggles to manage: fuel shortages, price increases and growing regional tension. These effects, he said, pose a deeper threat to the Kremlin than battlefield losses.
According to Slaidiņš, such social strain erodes confidence in Moscow’s control and exposes weaknesses that cannot be easily offset by propaganda or repression.
He suggested this internal instability is precisely what President Vladimir Putin fears most, as it challenges the regime’s ability to maintain normalcy while prosecuting a prolonged war.
Ceasefire dilemma
Slaidiņš warned that a truce could reverse that dynamic. He said a pause in fighting would give Russia an operational reset, allowing it to repair damage, accumulate resources and prepare new attacks.
Rather than locking in Ukrainian gains, a ceasefire could dilute their impact by reducing strain on Russia’s overstretched systems.
From Kyiv’s perspective, he argued, time becomes a strategic variable that increasingly works in Moscow’s favour if hostilities are frozen rather than resolved.
Slaidiņš also addressed Russia’s campaign against Ukraine’s energy network, saying Moscow’s use of infrastructure coercion had failed to produce decisive leverage or force political concessions.
If energy strikes were halted or lost effectiveness, Russia would forfeit one of its remaining tools for shaping the tempo of the war, he noted, though that effort could be redirected elsewhere if time allows.
Broader targeting questions
Slaidiņš discussed why Ukraine has focused on energy facilities rather than transport corridors, bridges or logistics hubs. He noted that such targets carry strategic weight but are harder to disable quickly.
He pointed out that Russian pro-war bloggers have openly questioned why certain transport links remain intact, reflecting unease inside Russia about vulnerabilities beyond the power grid.
Contextual analysis from Western and NATO-linked assessments has similarly warned that ceasefires without political settlement risk entrenching conflicts rather than ending them. In that sense, Slaidiņš’s view aligns with broader concerns that pauses can stabilise aggressors more than defenders.
His conclusion is that without sustained pressure, Russia’s internal strains may ease faster than the war itself.
Sources: LA.LV
