
The Alaska talks collapse in late 2025 was the inflection point: Putin moved from a negotiation hedge to a war-economy budget the moment he concluded no acceptable US-brokered deal existed. The three-year defense spending plateau ($190B–$200B annually through 2029) is not a contingency — it is the plan. This forces a reframing of the Ukraine conflict away from a decisive-phase timeline and toward a grinding attrition model where Russian industrial capacity and manpower replacement become the binding constraints, not political will or budget room.
The deficit doubling creates a secondary vulnerability: Moscow has already exhausted reserve drawdowns and is now dependent on gold sales and domestic borrowing to fund the gap.
Putin has formally shifted from a negotiated-exit posture to a prolonged-conflict fiscal framework.
The Alaska talks failure in late 2025 triggered the budget reallocation in January 2026; the sustained $190B+ annual baseline through 2029 signals Moscow is now planning for a multi-year attrition war rather than a negotiated settlement. This forces NATO and Ukraine planners to assume Russia will not exhaust its willingness to fund the conflict on any timeline shorter than 3-4 years, which reshapes the calculus for Western aid sustainability and Ukrainian offensive capacity planning. The doubling of the budget deficit to $81 billion exposes Moscow's fiscal constraint: gold sales and domestic borrowing are the only levers left, meaning sanctions on the Central Bank and further commodity-export restrictions become the binding constraint on war funding by 2027.
What is the actual trajectory of Russia's gold reserves and domestic borrowing capacity? If gold sales and internal borrowing are covering the $37 billion deficit overage, how many quarters can Moscow sustain this without triggering ruble devaluation or a banking-system stress event?
Strategic intelligence, synthesized daily — with a public track record. Every call graded against what actually happened.