Putin’s strategic push for complete control of Donetsk

Moscow’s campaign to take the remainder of Donetsk is often framed as another bloody chapter in a grinding war. Yet the fixation on this region signals more than military ambition—it’s an effort to lock in long-term economic, political, and strategic advantages that could permanently shift Ukraine’s trajectory. For the Kremlin, Donetsk is not just a battleground; it is an anchor point for a post-war order in which Russia holds a decisive industrial and geographic advantage.

Donetsk has long been the industrial heart of eastern Ukraine. Its coal mines, steelworks, and heavy manufacturing complexes historically powered Ukraine’s economy and sustained export flows to both Europe and Russia. Before the 2014 conflict, much of its industrial output was intertwined with Russian supply chains, feeding Moscow’s own industrial base. By seizing full control now, Russia can reabsorb this capacity into its sanctioned economy, reducing reliance on vulnerable import routes while depriving Ukraine of a vital revenue stream. The move is as much about insulating Russia from Western economic pressure as it is about denying Ukraine the means to rebuild.

Geography compounds the strategic value. Holding all of Donetsk would secure Russia’s grip over the broader Donbas region, creating a deeper defensive buffer and making Ukrainian counteroffensives in the east far more complex. Such control would shorten Russia’s front lines, free up troops for other theatres, and provide a more defensible position from which to project influence toward central Ukraine. It would also allow Moscow to integrate Donetsk’s road and rail networks into its own logistics, reinforcing both military mobility and economic integration with occupied territories.

There is also a political calculus. The Kremlin has used occupied territories as platforms for political theatre—referenda, puppet administrations, and narratives of “self-determination” aimed at legitimising annexation. With the whole of Donetsk under its control, Russia could stage another referendum, as it did in Crimea, to present its occupation as an irreversible “will of the people.” Even if unrecognised internationally, such moves can be used domestically to bolster nationalist support and project an image of inevitable Russian permanence in the region.

From a broader strategic perspective, the push for Donetsk echoes other instances where Moscow has used partial control of contested regions to create lasting leverage. In Georgia, the retention of Abkhazia and South Ossetia has kept Tbilisi’s NATO ambitions in check for over a decade. In Syria, control of strategic cities like Aleppo has allowed Russia to influence post-war political arrangements and secure military footholds. In each case, the playbook is consistent: seize a high-value area, fortify it, integrate it economically and politically, and use it to shape future negotiations.

For Ukraine’s allies, the blind spot lies in underestimating the industrial dimension of the conflict. Much of the Western aid strategy focuses on sustaining Ukraine’s military resistance—providing advanced weapons systems, ammunition, and training. Yet without parallel efforts to protect or replace critical economic infrastructure, Ukraine could win tactical victories while suffering a strategic economic loss. A Ukraine stripped of its industrial backbone would face steeper challenges in post-war reconstruction, investor confidence, and fiscal independence.

The Gulf and European reconstruction pledges that have been floated could become pivotal—but only if they are designed with the risk of further territorial and industrial losses in mind. A reactive reconstruction strategy will not match Russia’s proactive annexation model. Instead, there needs to be a forward-looking approach: relocating industrial capacity westward, protecting transport corridors, and building redundancy into Ukraine’s energy and manufacturing systems.

In the immediate term, the battle for Donetsk remains a war of attrition. But over the long term, Moscow’s grip on the region could become the lever that dictates Ukraine’s economic stability and political options. Russia’s integration of Donetsk into its own administrative and economic systems would not only weaken Kyiv’s negotiating hand but also challenge the Western coalition’s ability to present a unified, credible path for Ukraine’s recovery.

The strategic message from the Kremlin is clear: territorial gains are being chosen for their economic and political utility, not just for military advantage. For Ukraine and its allies, this means that the fight for Donetsk is not merely about preventing another red line on the map. It is about safeguarding the economic pillars that will determine whether Ukraine emerges from the war resilient or diminished.

If Russia’s campaign succeeds, the precedent for industrial annexation in Europe will have been reset. Future conflicts could see resource-rich regions targeted first, with control of production capacity becoming as decisive as control of capitals. For now, Donetsk stands as both a frontline city and a test case—a measure of whether military resolve can match economic foresight in a conflict that is as much about shaping the peace as it is about winning the war.