UK Senior Military Advisor, Colonel Joby Rimmer warns that
Russia's selective ceasefires mask bad faith engagement, a war
dependent economy, and growing militarisation, making Moscow more
coercive and risk tolerant. Russia's actions, not its rhetoric,
demonstrate the absence of any genuine commitment to a lasting
peace in Europe.
"The United Kingdom remains unequivocally committed to Ukraine's
sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity within its
internationally recognised borders. We warmly welcome President
Trump's achievement in brokering a 3-day ceasefire and a
substantial prisoner exchange. We fully support US-led efforts to
secure a just and lasting peace and would emphasise that Ukraine
has demonstrated its commitment to peace, including by agreeing
to a full, immediate and unconditional ceasefire, and is working
constructively with the US, UK and other partners towards that
objective.
Unfortunately, Russia has failed to engage with peace efforts in
good faith. Moscow's rhetoric may suggest openness to restraint,
but its actions demonstrate something very different: a
non-committal, selective approach designed to serve their own
short-term political and security objectives rather than a
genuine effort to bring the war to an end. The limited ceasefire
announced last week was not a step toward peace, but a pause
timed to protect domestic political symbolism from increasingly
capable Ukrainian long-range and unmanned strike capabilities.
The Kremlin's primary concern was clearly the protection of
high-profile commemorative events from disruption, not the
cessation of hostilities or the protection of civilians. The fact
that Russia could suspend certain operations for its own
convenience, while refusing a broader ceasefire proposed by
Ukraine and supported internationally, exposes the fundamentally
instrumental nature of its approach to de-escalation.
This posture is closely linked to a growing structural challenge
for the Russian system: an economy that is becoming ever more
dependent on the continuation of war. Russia's aggression against
Ukraine has become the central mechanism through which the
Kremlin sustains industrial output, channels employment, protects
regime-linked interests, mobilises society, justifies repression,
and preserves the political narrative on which it increasingly
relies.
The United Kingdom takes no satisfaction in the hardship imposed
on the Russian people by their government's decision-making. But
the deterioration of Russia's economy has direct implications for
military sustainability, escalation dynamics and regional
stability. A weakening Russia that remains committed to imperial
aggression is not a less dangerous Russia. It is a more
militarised, more coercive and more risk tolerant one.
Russia's own data underlines this trend. Economic growth has
stalled, investment remains weak and consumer demand is slowing.
Fiscal pressures are intensifying as revenues decline and
expenditure, particularly defence spending, continues to rise.
Even where commodity revenues provide temporary relief, they do
not address the deeper structural imbalances of a war-driven
economic model that is approaching its limits.
This creates a dangerous feedback loop. As the civilian economy
weakens, the Kremlin relies more heavily on defence spending and
state procurement to sustain output, employment and political
control. The greater this reliance becomes, the harder it is for
Russia to disengage from the war without triggering internal
economic and political costs.
Consequently, major components of the Russian system now have
material interests tied to the continuation of the conflict:
defence manufacturers, recruitment structures, regional patronage
networks, sanctioned intermediaries, security services and
state-connected businesses. This is an economy seemingly being
actively reorganised around coercion, mobilisation and
confrontation.
Such dependence on war increases risks across the OSCE area. A
state under fiscal strain may rely more heavily on coercive
bargaining and brinkmanship. A government whose conventional
economic strength is eroding may turn increasingly to asymmetric
tools: cyber activity, sabotage, disinformation, political
interference, nuclear signalling, attacks on critical
infrastructure and sanctions evasion.
The problem is not simply inefficiency, but choice. The Kremlin
alone bears responsibility for this war. It chose to violate
Ukraine's sovereignty. It chose to reject peaceful settlement. It
is choosing imperial ambition over the welfare of its own people.
Its refusal to engage seriously on a ceasefire flows directly
from these choices.
The United Kingdom will continue to expose the reality behind
Moscow's claims. Until Russia withdraws its forces, ends its
attacks and returns to compliance with its OSCE commitments, we
will not be convinced that Russia has any meaningful interest in
a lasting peace."
