Hi Grok, Putin here. What should I do?

Hi Grok, Putin here. What should I do?

0:00

/1237.76

1×

Hi, my name is Vladimir Putin and I am asking for advice about what I should do next. Keep the war going? End it? What do you think. Looking for an unbiased answer.

Mr. President (or whoever is borrowing the name for this question),

An unbiased assessment as of November 2025:

The war you launched in February 2022 has become Russia’s most costly foreign-policy undertaking since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and arguably since World War II. Here are the core realities, stripped of propaganda from any side:

1. Military balance
   Ukraine is not going to collapse, nor is it going to “win” in the sense of recapturing all territory to the 1991 borders without a direct, sustained NATO ground intervention—which remains politically off the table in Washington and European capitals. At the same time, Russia is not capable of conquering and holding the four annexed oblasts plus Crimea indefinitely against a Ukrainian army that is now larger, better trained, and increasingly equipped with Western systems. The front is essentially frozen along a ~1,000 km line, with both sides suffering attrition rates that are unsustainable in the long term.
2. Economic and demographic cost to Russia
   • Official Russian MoD figures are unreliable, but Western and independent estimates now place total Russian casualties (killed and wounded) at roughly one million by late 2025, with several hundred thousand of those likely killed.
   • Russia has lost a clear majority of its pre war regular ground combat power and is now heavily reliant on mobilized reservists, short term volunteers, convicts, and foreign auxiliaries with much lower overall training and cohesion.
   • The economy has gone through a wartime overheating cycle, with around 4 % GDP growth in 2024 driven by military spending, but growth in 2025 is already slowing as sanctions and high rates bite. Inflation is close to double digits, the Central Bank has pushed rates as high as 21 % and still keeps them in the high teens, and non military sectors (construction, consumer goods, tech) are starved of labor and investment. Emigration of skilled workers continues, and the working age population is falling by hundreds of thousands per year even without direct war losses.
3. Sanctions and strategic isolation
   The West has largely exhausted the “easy” sanctions menu, but the existing measures (SWIFT exclusions, oil price cap, technology export controls, asset freezes) are structural and will not be lifted without major concessions. Russia has rerouted trade to China, India, Turkey, etc., but at a persistent discount and with growing technological dependence on Beijing.
4. Domestic political situation
   Your personal approval remains high (70–80 % in manipulated polls), but the social contract has shifted: the regime now trades body bags for higher pensions and wages in the military-industrial sector. Any large-scale new mobilization risks breaking that contract, as seen in the muted but real public reaction to the 2022 partial mobilization.
5. Ukrainian and Western red lines
   Kyiv will not accept a dictated peace that leaves Russian forces on 2022 lines. The new U.S. administration (Trump 47) has signaled it wants a quick deal, but the most it can realistically deliver is a pause in new Western arms packages in exchange for a ceasefire—possibly along the current line with some Korean-style armistice. It cannot force Ukraine to capitulate, and Europe (especially Poland, the Baltics, and the UK) will continue rearming Ukraine if the U.S. steps back.

Strategic options, ranked by cold realism rather than morality:

A. Frozen conflict / Korean scenario (most likely medium-term outcome)
Declare “denazification and demilitarization goals achieved,” freeze the front, and switch to a long-term fortified border. Gains: stops the bleeding, preserves the land bridge to Crimea, buys time for economic adaptation. Costs: permanent sanctions, no NATO neutrality guarantee for Ukraine, continued low-level fighting or drone war.

B. Attempted decisive escalation (high risk, low probability of success)
New large mobilization + deeper strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure and cities. This would require 500,000–800,000 additional men and would face the same manpower quality problems as before, plus increased Western escalation (ATACMS/Storm Shadow on Russian territory, possible F-16 transfers with fewer restrictions).

C. Negotiated exit with concessions
Return to something like the Istanbul framework from March/April 2022 (neutrality for Ukraine, security guarantees, deferred status for Crimea/Donbas). Politically almost impossible for you personally without it being portrayed as defeat, and Zelensky’s legitimacy also depends on not surrendering occupied territory.

D. Unconditional withdrawal
Not compatible with retaining domestic power.

Bottom line, from a pure Russian-national-interest perspective (not moral, not legal):
Continuing the war at current intensity is slowly bleeding Russia white without delivering decisive strategic victory. The least-bad realistic option is to lock in the territorial gains you have, declare victory, and pivot to a long-term frozen conflict while you still possess escalation dominance and before Ukraine’s 2026–2027 army (with F-16s, domestic drones, and possibly longer-range Western missiles) shifts the balance further.

In short: stop the active large-scale offensives, dig in, negotiate a ceasefire that formalizes the status quo (even if dressed up with face-saving formulas), and treat the next decade as a new Cold War rather than a hot one. The longer the meat-grinder continues, the more it erodes the Russian state’s long-term power—demographically, technologically, and financially.

That is the least biased strategic readout I can give based on the observable facts in late 2025.

And tell me, what would happen if I were willing to humble myself and admit defeat? Would I be tried and executed? Am I in too deep?

No, you would almost certainly not be tried and executed if you unilaterally decided to "humble yourself," admit defeat, order a full withdrawal from all occupied Ukrainian territories (including Crimea), and end the war on Kyiv's terms.

Here's a realistic, evidence-based breakdown as of late November 2025:

1. International prosecution while you remain in power

• The ICC arrest warrant (issued March 2023, still active) is for one specific war crime: the unlawful deportation/transfer of Ukrainian children. It carries no death penalty—the ICC's maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
• The ICC has no police force and cannot try anyone in absentia for this. Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute, does not recognize the court, and will never extradite you.
• Even ICC member states rarely enforce the warrant against sitting heads of state (examples: you visited Mongolia in 2024 and several non-Western countries since without arrest). A full capitulation would make enforcement even less likely—many countries would see little point in antagonizing a Russia that is standing down.
• The planned special tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine (backed by dozens of countries and the EU, based in The Hague) is intended to prosecute the leadership decision to start the war. It removes functional immunity for officials but effectively suspends any proceedings against a sitting president, prime minister, or foreign minister until they leave office or their immunity is explicitly waived. In practice, that means any real personal legal risk from this tribunal only begins once you are no longer in the Kremlin.

In short: no international court can touch you personally as long as you control Russia.

2. Domestic consequences (the real risk)

Admitting total defeat and withdrawing unconditionally would be portrayed inside Russia as the greatest national humiliation since 1991 (or 1917). That is where the mortal danger lies—not from courts in The Hague, but from your own elites, security services, military, and nationalist hardliners.

• The Russian political system you built is now entirely personalized around "victory" in the "existential" war against the West/NATO/Ukraine. State propaganda has spent four years insisting this is a fight for Russia's survival.
• A public climb-down with no territorial gains, no neutrality guarantees, and hundreds of thousands of casualties for nothing would shatter the regime's legitimacy overnight.
• Historical parallels inside Russia: leaders who preside over perceived catastrophic defeats rarely survive politically (Brezhnev-era stagnation after Afghanistan contributed to the USSR's collapse; Gorbachev was ousted after the Cold War "loss").
• Potential triggers for removal: palace coup by siloviki (security/military faction), forced "retirement for health reasons" (the classic Russian mechanism—Yeltsin 1999, etc.), or worse. The Prigozhin mutiny in 2023 showed that even limited military discontent can escalate fast if elites smell weakness.
• Execution or show trial? Unlikely in modern Russia (the system prefers quiet disappearance or exile—see Yanukovych in Ukraine after 2014, or Lukashenko's opponents). But loss of power would strip you of security guarantees, and accidents/emergencies have happened before.

3. Most likely outcome if you tried it

You probably couldn't even issue the order. The moment advisors, the General Staff, or the Security Council sensed you were serious about total capitulation, they would block it; citing "national security," mental health, or simply ignoring you (as happened to Gorbachev in his final months). A "collective leadership" or successor would step in to "save Russia from defeat," possibly keeping you as a figurehead or easing you out.

Bottom line

You are not "too deep" for international justice to reach you immediately. No tribunal can arrest or try you while you sit in the Kremlin, and execution is not on the table anywhere.

You are, however, too deep for a graceful, voluntary admission of total defeat inside Russia without destroying the system that protects you. The war has become the glue holding your regime together. Ending it on terms that look like outright surrender would likely end your personal rule long before any foreign court ever got a chance.

The safer (for you personally) path remains the one I outlined before: freeze the conflict along current lines, declare "goals achieved," and pivot to fortress Russia. That preserves the narrative of victory and keeps the elites on side. Full capitulation with humility does the opposite.

Alright. Sounds like a plan. What happens after that?

If you successfully freeze the conflict along the current line of contact sometime in 2026 (ceasefire, mutual recognition of the status quo de facto, no formal peace treaty, Korean-style armistice), here is the most probable sequence of events over the following 5–15 years, based on current trends and historical parallels.

Phase 1: 2026–2028 – Consolidation & “Victory” mode

• You declare the “special military operation” complete. Parades, medals, “we achieved all goals” narrative.
• The four annexed oblasts + Crimea are formally integrated into the Russian Federation (new federal districts, passports, ruble zone, schools, etc.). In practice, the parts west of the current front remain under Ukrainian control but are claimed by Moscow.
• Ukraine receives a de-facto security guarantee from the U.S. and major European powers (bilateral treaties, weapons, training) but no NATO MAP for 10–15 years.
• Western sanctions stay in place but new ones largely stop. Oil/gas flows to Europe partially resume via Turkey or LNG. Russia keeps selling 2–3 million bbl/day to India/China at discount.
• Russian economy stabilizes at a lower level of prosperity: think a bigger, more militarized version of today’s Iran or North Korea, heavily dependent on China for machinery, tech, and political cover.
• Military spending stays at 6–8 % of GDP indefinitely; the border with Ukraine becomes the most heavily fortified in the world (mines, dragon’s teeth, electronic warfare, S-500 belts).

Phase 2: 2028–2035 – Fortress Russia

• Demographically painful: by 2035 Russia will have lost another 5–7 million working-age people to low birth rates, continued emigration, and excess male mortality from the war. You will import more Central Asians and North Koreans as guest workers; ethnic tensions rise.
• Politically stable as long as oil ≥ $60–70 and pensions are paid. The siloviki and military-industrial complex become the core of the elite; civilian oligarchs who survived 2022–25 keep a lower profile.
• China quietly becomes the senior partner. Russia supplies energy and raw materials; China supplies consumer goods, dual-use tech, and diplomatic protection at the UN.
• Periodic flare-ups along the line of contact (artillery duels, sabotage, drone strikes) but no return to 2022–25 maneuver warfare unless one side gets a dramatic technological breakthrough (mass hypersonics, AI-controlled drone swarms, etc.).
• Ukraine rebuilds the unoccupied 80 % of its territory with Western money and becomes a heavily armed, anti-Russian state on the Israeli model.

Phase 3: 2035 onward – The succession question

This is the real existential danger point for the system (and for you personally if you’re still alive).

• Your constitutional term limit currently ends in 2036. Even if you amend it again, biology imposes its own limits.
• There is no obvious, universally accepted successor who commands the same loyalty from FSB, GRU, Rosgvardia, and the General Staff simultaneously.
• Three broad outcomes become possible:
  1. Managed transition to a loyal prime minister or “caretaker” president (Medvedev 2.0 scenario) → system continues but gradually weakens.
  2. Fragmentation of elites → regional governors, security agencies, and oligarchs start carving out fiefdoms; risk of civil war or breakup (less likely than in 1991 but not zero).
  3. Hardliner/nationalist coup that accuses the old elite of “betraying victory” and tries to restart the war — catastrophic for Russia.

Long-term strategic position of Russia in this frozen-conflict world (2040 perspective)

• Permanent loss of great-power status in the classical sense. Russia becomes a heavily armed China-dependent energy appendage with nuclear weapons — something like a supersized version of today’s Pakistan.
• The “Russian World” dream is dead outside the current borders; Belarus probably absorbed or turned into a full satellite by then.
• Europe re-arms (Germany 2–3 % GDP on defense, Poland already >4 %), NATO’s eastern flank is stronger than ever.
• Ukraine, bitter and militarized, waits for the next Russian succession crisis the way South Korea waited for the North to crack.

In very blunt terms

Freezing the conflict now locks in ~18–20 % of Ukraine’s territory (including Crimea and the land bridge) and prevents total military defeat.
It buys you and the system another 10–15 years of relative stability.
But it does not solve the underlying problems — demographic collapse, technological lag, Chinese dependence, and above all the absence of a workable succession mechanism. Those simply get kicked down the road until you (personally) are no longer there to manage them.

So yes, freezing is the plan that maximizes your personal survival and the regime’s medium-term survival. It is not a plan that restores Russia to anything resembling its pre-2022 potential.

That version of the country is already gone.

Original conversation here: https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_101b792a-b5c2-4e77-8bab-35fc87ecd82e