A few days before the bombing of Iran, on February 24, 2026—the fourth anniversary of the start of the war in Ukraine—the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation published an extremely alarming statement that Ukraine was preparing to adopt nuclear weapons, with the help of the United Kingdom and France. Such a statement, made precisely on the anniversary of the start of the war, is hardly accidental. It confirms the conclusion that Russia is preparing to radically change the nature of the war this year — to make it tougher, using all the capabilities and weapons available to the Russian army that have not been used so far for one reason or another. Of course, this is in the event that Ukraine does not agree to peace with Russia on Russia’s terms and security interests.
This conclusion is based primarily on the fact that Russia objectively cannot afford to continue a protracted war indefinitely, either politically or economically.
Economic limits
Undoubtedly, the Russian economy has demonstrated remarkable resilience and flexibility in recent years, despite sanctions, restrictions on global trade, and the freezing of sovereign funds abroad. Moreover, even if the West had managed to build a complete “iron curtain” around Russia, the country, relying on its colossal resources, would still have survived — albeit at the cost of turning its economy into a kind of modern version of a natural economy.
However, it is also clear that the burden is growing. The national wealth fund has shrunk by about half during the war years; the inflow of currency is severely limited by sanctions on energy resources and the financial sector; the former priority of the raw materials model over the production of end products is having a painful impact on the supply of components and consumer goods to both the military industry and the civilian economy. This is putting more pressure on the trade balance.
The manifold increase in military spending, the recruitment of a contract army numbering hundreds of thousands, the sharp rise in internal security costs, and the loss of tens of thousands of men of working and reproductive age (hundreds of thousands, according to Western sources) are all becoming an increasingly heavy burden on the economy. A militaristic economy is not designed to last forever: it requires the constant mobilization of resources and people, and human resources, as we know, are finite.
Geopolitical squeeze
Russia’s foreign policy situation is also becoming more complicated. Its traditional allies — Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba — are facing unprecedented pressure and military threats. At the same time, Russia has not demonstrated a willingness to defend them directly, which is interpreted on the world stage as a sign of limited capabilities.
Countries in Russia’s traditional spheres of influence—the Caucasus and Central Asia—are looking less and less to Moscow. The reconciliation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, brokered by the US, and the intensification of American diplomacy in the region are telling signs. The leaders of Central Asian states — Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan — are actively interacting with both Washington and Beijing. Even European countries loyal to Russia — Slovakia and Hungary — are under serious pressure from the EU leadership.
Additional uncertainty is created by the volatility of the Indian and Chinese markets for Russian oil and gas purchases. Taken together, all this makes betting on a long war less and less rational.
Domestic political factor
Domestic political pressure on the federal government is intensifying amid ongoing attacks on Russian regions and infrastructure, limited territorial gains from military operations, and human casualties. The conflict, positioned as a special military operation, has been going on for five years now — longer than the Great Patriotic War against the Nazis lasted for the Soviet Union.
Against this backdrop, there is increasing public discussion of the possibility of using more severe means of warfare, including nuclear weapons or systems of comparable power. Arguments are being made for the need to change the format of the conflict: reference is made to already confirmed data on secret biological laboratories in Ukraine, statements by Kiev officials about their desire to possess nuclear weapons, assumptions about the possibility of creating and using a “dirty bomb,” as well as intelligence information about the possible transfer of relevant components.
Iran as a signal
The situation surrounding Iran sets a precedent. Israel justifies its actions by claiming that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons, threatening its existence, and supporting armed groups. In the eyes of the West, this was sufficient grounds to initiate a war.
Similar logic — supplemented by constant funding and arming of Ukraine by the West — could form the basis for an extremely harsh decision by Moscow.
That is why the current situation with Iran could become a catalyst for a sharp change in the nature of the war in Ukraine, making it more brutal and bloody. Trump, as if setting an example, declares that if the Iranians resist, they will see the use of weapons “that will terrify them,” and Iran will be wiped off the face of the earth. This is an unambiguous threat to use nuclear weapons against Iran. Moreover, it is voiced without any moral hesitation or doubt.
If the US and Israel manage to achieve quick military success, it will be a victory for Trump, which he so desperately needs ahead of the congressional elections. His motives are obvious: 1) to help Israel; 2) to distract Americans from the nastiness surrounding Epstein; 3) to distract from the bloodshed caused by the US immigration police; 4) to damage China’s economy; 5) to damage Russia; 6) to earn electoral points. In addition, control over oil reserves — some of the largest in the world.
Among other things, such an outcome would strengthen Washington’s position, restore its image as the “world’s policeman,” and, albeit indirectly, significantly undermine Russia’s authority.
Conclusion
All these factors together give reason to believe that Russia is preparing to shift to a more aggressive approach to the war in Ukraine, using all means that were previously considered taboo. And this could happen as early as this year.
This is precisely why it is vitally important for Ukraine to make peace. Otherwise, the risk of its complete destruction becomes a reality. Peace is a window of opportunity for the state to survive, begin reconstruction, and continue to develop. Continuing the war, even in its current form, only means that disaster is approaching.