Putin under pressure to declare war on Ukraine
When Ukraine smuggled dozens of drones into the back of freight trucks and launched a surprise attack on Vladimir Putin's prized nuclear bombers, Russia's most radical voices were furious.
'Shock and outrage' is how one high-ranking Russian official described the mood in the Kremlin the day after the strike.
Another Russian official told The Telegraph: 'Like every thinking patriot, I took it as a personal tragedy.'
The fury ran so deep in some quarters that there were renewed calls for Putin to 'declare war' on Ukraine – a demand that may seem baffling to Western observers, given that the conflict is already Europe's bloodiest since the Second World War.
But amongst Russia's hardline nationalist elite, there is growing belief that Putin has not gone far enough, that he should formally declare war, recruit a million more men, and wipe out Volodymyr Zelensky's government with daily missile strikes on Kyiv.
The Telegraph spoke to Kremlin insiders to assess whether Ukraine's drone attack – dubbed Operation Spider Web – might push Russia to escalate even further. All agreed to speak on condition of anonymity.
'Explosions, drones, sabotage, and possibly even terrorist attacks are what the future may hold for us if the Zelensky regime is not completely destroyed,' said a current high-ranking Russian government official.
He described himself as hawkish and admitted sympathising with Yevgeny Prigozhin, the Wagner warlord who led a failed mutiny against Putin in June 2023 and was later killed in a plane crash.
'If Ukraine ceases to exist in its current form, the criminal underground will be demoralised,' he claimed.
Yet despite the scale of Ukraine's strike, which damaged at least 20 Russian nuclear bombers, according to US estimates, the Kremlin has so far stuck to a more cautious approach.
'This did not catalyse a political discussion or a change in the format of military operations,' said a former senior Kremlin official who once directed operations against Ukraine. 'In the Russian power system, where inertia and preserving the current balance are essential, that speaks volumes.'
Another source, based in an analytical centre close to Russia's defence ministry was blunt: 'Could the president declare war on Kyiv? Right now, unlikely. As cynical as it may sound, the leadership is satisfied with the current situation.'
Traditionally, opposition to Putin has come from liberal critics. But since the invasion, a new breed of nationalist opposition has emerged – figures who claim the Russian president is too cautious.
The roots of this anger go back to 2014, when some hardliners accused Putin of failing to fully support Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. One of the most prominent is Igor Girkin – also known as Strelkov – a former FSB officer and leading figure in the 'Angry Patriots', a faction demanding Ukraine's total destruction.
After criticising Russia's handling of the war, Girkin was jailed for extremism in 2024. 'I serve the Fatherland!' he shouted after the verdict.
Such figures may be marginal, but they wield outsized influence inside Russia's security apparatus.
'The fact they're the guys with the guns means the Kremlin has to at least be aware of them,' Mark Galeotti, a British historian and expert on Russian security, told The Telegraph.
To most in the West, the conflict is clearly a war. But Putin still refers to it as a 'special military operation' – a distinction that matters to Russia's hawks.
They argue that only a formal war declaration would permit full-scale escalation – daily inter-continental missile strikes, mass mobilisation, and perhaps even the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
Earlier this month, the nationalist podcast Russians with Attitude argued: 'Liberal Putinism has its perks – comfortable, modern, and nearly sanction-proof. A true 21st-century experience. But the cons are clear – soft-glove warfare, sparing enemy leadership, and burying failure.'
Currently, most Russian soldiers are volunteers attracted by pay packets of about 200,000 roubles (£1,900) a month – a significant sum in rural areas. Declaring war could enable the mobilisation of two million reservists.
'The government and the authorities would essentially be given carte blanche to move the country on to an explicit war footing,' said Emily Ferris, Russia analyst at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).
But even as the bloodshed continues, the Kremlin has been careful to shield most Russians from its effects. At the outset of the invasion in 2022, Putin banned the words 'war' and 'invasion' from the media.
Recruitment has been focused on the outer regions, not Moscow or St Petersburg. Russians may be dying in droves, but they do so mostly out of sight.
In Moscow, Artyom, a cybersecurity researcher who did not want to give his real name, told The Telegraph that most young people trust in Putin's decisions as the country 'stands proud' with living standards still high despite the sanctions.
The Kremlin is forecast to spend 6.3 per cent of GDP on defence this year, which is the highest since the Cold War but not what would be expected of a country on a full war-time footing.
For comparison, Ukraine spent 34 per cent of its GDP on defence last year. British defence spending as a percentage of GDP rose to more than 50 per cent during the Second World War.
'Mobilisation undermines economic stability,' said one current government employee.
According to him, those close to Putin are able to persuade the Russian president that mass mobilisation would be a step towards the war effort's collapse.
'And why is it needed now? We have Kalibr missiles, we have volunteers. Their resources are not yet exhausted,' he added.
A new wave of mobilisation would mean not only economic strain but also a public acknowledgement that the Kremlin is not succeeding in its three-year war against its neighbour.
'That is too costly an admission in a situation where everything hinges on the illusion of control,' noted the former high-ranking Kremlin official.
While that illusion may not last forever, experts believe Putin's military will be able to fight at the current rate into next year, and possibly for years. 'I think next year is when a certain number of economic chickens come home to roost,' Mr Galeotti said. 'But the Russians will be able to fight this war for years.'
The Kremlin appears to agree. Vladimir Medinsky, Putin's chief negotiator, recently told The Wall Street Journal that Russia could continue fighting for 'another 21 years' – invoking Peter the Great's long war with Sweden.
Putin's popularity has surged since the invasion of Ukraine, according to both state-owned polls and those of the Leveda Centre, an independent institution that has frequently drawn the Kremlin's ire.
However, that could change if Putin were to start mass mobilisation.
There's also the question of fear. 'As soon as you call it war, every parent who has got a kid doing national service or going to be soon is going to start getting scared that they are about to be sent to the front,' said Mr Galeotti.
In other words, escalation is not without political risk. While nationalist bloggers and pro-war influencers dominate Telegram and the Z-pilled commentariat, the Kremlin is all too aware of how fragile domestic control might become if the war truly came home.
That explains Putin's brutal repression. There is no longer an organised war party in Russia. The prominent figures of that camp – and liberal opponents – have been removed. Mr Prigozhin, who at one time had been close to Putin, was killed in a suspected bombing weeks after his failed mutiny. Girkin is in prison. Alexei Navalny, Russia's most popular politician, died in a penal colony. This served as a signal from Putin to anyone who might display political initiative.
Simultaneously, the security services are tightening control over radical patriotic and nationalist circles that have become more active after the invasion.
'So far, no power centre inside the country is capable of imposing its will on Putin,' said a Telegraph source close to the State Duma leadership.
In any case, for all the hawkish rhetoric, Putin's capacity to escalate is not limitless. That much was exposed by his response to Operation Spider Web.
Given the significance of the attack, warmongers had demanded a massive response. They didn't get one.
There's no denying the horror Ukrainian cities like Kyiv and Kharkiv have faced during massive drone barrages in recent days. But the retaliation was limited, by both Western standards and Russian expectations.
'The response to Operation Spider Web could have been a lot worse. That would've been the time to have a major response, they didn't do it,' Ms Ferris said.
Experts believe Putin's military simply lacks the resources. Despite sabre-rattling over tactical nuclear weapons and strategic missile strikes, Russia doesn't have the capacity to launch the kind of daily missile barrages some of its loudest nationalists fantasise about.
'There's always more room for escalation,' Mr Galeotti said. 'Maybe Putin could fire a few hundred extra drones per day. But that's about it.'
For now, though, the fantasy of full-scale war – of Oreshnik missiles fired daily at Kyiv, of Zelensky's government turned to rubble, remains just that – a fantasy.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Five reasons Trump should renew US engagement in NATO
At next week's NATO Annual Summit in the Netherlands, leaders of the 32 alliance members will come together to discuss priorities and the way ahead for NATO at a time when Russia and China pose pressing security threats. President Trump should pivot towards strengthening the transatlantic organization — here are the five reasons why. First, Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing the United States. He does not want peace in Ukraine. Russia is the antagonist in this conflict, and conditions for Ukraine are slowly worsening with each passing day. To end this trajectory, options are to punish Russia financially or to strengthen Ukraine militarily. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) recently met with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky and wholeheartedly believe Putin is preparing for a new offensive, despite the high costs. More to the point, a June 2 meeting between Ukrainian and Russian officials in Istanbul, ostensibly to end the war, ended abruptly after less than 90 minutes with no real discussion about peace. If Trump draws back from the negotiations without demonstrating strength towards Russia, Putin will get exactly what he wants — in the end, control over Ukraine and a reformatting of Europe's security structure. Second, NATO has stood by the U.S., and Trump should be proud to return the favor with respect to transatlantic security. The only time NATO invoked Article V (treating an attack on one member as an attack on all) was right after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. If the U.S. fails to remain engaged in NATO, the world could see an escalation to the war more broadly on the European continent. Europe will take more responsibility for its own security, but it needs time to build credible conventional forces and will still depend on the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Trade between the U.S. and the European Union is one of the most expansive in terms of absolute dollars on the global stage coming in at $975 billion in 2024. Market disruptions would be cataclysmic if war expanded to include countries on NATO's eastern flank. Russia will seek to test the resolve of the alliance if it perceives that the U.S. is doubting its commitments. Accordingly, the U.S. must maintain at least a credible forward presence of its military alongside our allies to deter Russia's ambitions from moving westward and strongly uphold Article V. The alternative hurt both the U.S. and European Union economically. Third, a robust relationship with NATO will leave Trump with a freer hand to deal with China. Continuous Chinese military capability and capacities are an increasing threat. On one side, China wants to be a large economic partner to both Europe and the U.S. On the other hand, its security policy actions are detrimental to a constructive relationship with the West. The strategic partnership between China and Russia should be monitored closely — not least the Chinese support enabling Russia's war in Ukraine. U.S. engagement with NATO will improve coordination to deal with this dual threat. Fourth, NATO engagement will provide the U.S. with improved collective intelligence sharing. Joint and combined Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance is an important capability to forewarn NATO (including the U.S.) of impending threats. Moreover, NATO members each have unique intelligence gathering capabilities and, as was the case in the leadup to the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, NATO countries should be transparent with the processed intelligence they prepare. Unlike China and Russia, the U.S. benefits from a wide intelligence network, and this collective intelligence sharing could be quite useful regarding antagonistic states, terrorism and President Trump's Golden Dome initiative. U.S. engagement at the summit should press NATO countries to continue to be transparent with intelligence sharing, especially on threats to Alliance member countries. Fifth, NATO engagement will help enhance cyber capabilities — another asymmetric capability that all adversaries of the United States use, as highlighted in the most recent Annual Threat Assessment. Moving beyond cyber defense, discussion at The Hague Summit should press for computer network operations, and more specifically computer network attack and computer network exploitation capabilities. Adversaries such as Russia and questionable actors such as China are using these tools against NATO members and allies alike. Not only does NATO benefit, but all member countries, especially the United States, would realize advantages as well. The fact that the NATO alliance has survived more than 75 years is quite significant. That said, the alliance cannot rest on its laurels. The U.S. plays a pivotal part in moving forward with serious discussion regarding these five issues. The security of both the U.S. and Europe is at stake. Tom Røseth, Ph.D. is an associate professor at the Norwegian Defence University College and founder of its Ukraine Program. He is coauthor of 'The 'Five Eyes' Intelligence Sharing Relationship: A Contemporary Perspective.' John Weaver, DPA, is a professor of Intelligence Analysis at York College and author of 'NATO in Contemporary Times: Purpose, Relevance, Future.'


Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Ukraine's Parliament Backs Law Allowing Multiple Citizenships
Ukraine's lawmakers passed a law that allows Ukrainians to hold multiple citizenships as President Volodymyr Zelenskiy seeks to strengthen ties with the diaspora and fix a demographic crisis. Ukrainians will now be allowed to obtain citizenship of other countries, apart from 'aggressor states' such as Russia. Foreigners from nations deemed friendly to Kyiv may also obtain Ukrainian citizenship after they pass a language test and demonstrate knowledge of the country's history and constitution.


Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
EU's top diplomat warns that Russia has a plan for long-term aggression against Europe
BRUSSELS — Russia poses a direct threat to the European Union through acts of sabotage and cyberattacks, but its massive military spending suggests that President Vladimir Putin also plans to use his armed forces elsewhere in the future, the EU's top diplomat warned on Wednesday. 'Russia is already a direct threat to the European Union,' EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said. She listed a series of Russian airspace violations , provocative military exercises , and attacks on energy grids, pipelines and undersea cables.