Dr. Yusuf Molaei, a university professor and international affairs expert, continued in an interview with the Foreign Relations Strategic Council website: On the other hand, the provision of the first G7 loan from frozen Russian assets has broken the boundaries of the economic dispute between the West and Moscow. Under such circumstances, the future of the war is moving towards a “protracted and time-consuming battle,” and red lines are being redefined.

From U.S. Intelligence Assistance to Changing the Rules on the Battlefield

The analyst said: “The direct entry of the United States into the intelligence phase of the war, meaning providing targeted data to Kyiv for attacks on Russian refineries, energy transmission lines, and power plants, signifies crossing a traditional red line; because until now, Washington had tried to maintain an indirect role.”
He noted: “Although America uses the term ‘non-offensive intelligence support,’ this level of cooperation could push Russia towards unpredictable reactions, because Moscow had previously warned that any U.S. intelligence or military involvement in attacks deep into Russian territory could lead to an escalation of the conflict and even the war’s expansion beyond the region. Now we are observing a change in the nature of the war from a military classic to a hybrid war centered on intelligence, energy, and economics.”
This analyst added: “This new approach was designed to pressure Moscow to return it to the negotiating table, but in practice, it backfired. Russia, by adopting a policy of asymmetric response, is attempting to demonstrate that its deterrent tools extend beyond the geography of Ukraine. Therefore, Washington has unintentionally entered a stage that will be more difficult to control than before.”

The Battle of Wills After the Inconclusive Alaska and Washington Meetings
Molaei emphasized: “Following the inconclusive political talks at the Alaska meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and the failure of the Washington meeting to create consensus between America and its European allies, the Ukraine war has transformed from a ‘tactical conflict’ into a ‘battle of wills.'”
He said: “When diplomatic efforts prove ineffective, political will replaces rationality. Moscow and Kyiv, with Western support, no longer desire a ceasefire, and both have concluded that stopping at this stage would mean accepting a relative defeat. Therefore, continuing the war until the outlined goals are achieved is part of the new strategy of both sides.”
He added: “The Ukraine war is no longer solely confined to military geography but has become a competition of prestige. For Russia, this war is part of rebuilding its geopolitical identity in opposition to the West. For the West, maintaining the credibility of the global liberal order depends on continued support for Ukraine. The battlefield is not just about land, but also about meaning and the power of narrative.”
According to Molaei, “The result of such a situation is that any ceasefire proposal or peace dialogue faces complete distrust; the current war of attrition is the result of the common language between Moscow and the West being called into question. This is the battle of wills; a war in which the logic of compromise has given way to the logic of elimination.”

G7 Loan: Crossing Russia’s Economic Red Lines
Simultaneously with field developments, the G7’s decision to provide a $26.5 billion loan to Ukraine from the interest on frozen Russian assets has added a new dimension to the East-West economic confrontation. Molaei described this move as “potentially transformative, but high-risk” and said: “For the first time since World War II, the financial resources of a country involved in a conflict are not only frozen but used for the benefit of the opposing side; a decision that crosses international norms regarding the ownership of sovereign assets.”
He added: “Russia has described this action as state theft and warned that in response, it will seize Western countries’ assets within its own territory. Thus, a second kind of economic war is taking shape, turning the financial and energy fronts into part of the Ukraine war.”
According to Molaei, “This loan goes beyond financing the war and sends a message to Moscow that the Western financial system is ready to use unconventional tools to contain Russia, but in return, it increases distrust in the global financial system. Countries that keep their reserves in Western banks are now asking: if their relations with Washington or Brussels sour, will their assets remain safe?”
He continued: “This loan symbolizes crossing Russia’s economic red lines and shows that the war has transcended the military dimension and entered the structure of the global economy; a situation that will complicate trade wars and currency battles.”

Diplomacy at the Boiling Point
Despite the escalation of conflicts and both sides crossing political and military red lines, Molaei believes that “one can still speak of diplomacy at the boiling point; a situation that arises during the most critical junctures of wars.”
He explained: “When all parties reach a point where continuing the war yields no gains and the costs exceed the benefits, the path for negotiations opens; that same diplomacy at the boiling point, when no red lines remain and rationality enters the arena to prevent collapse.”
Molaei added: “The Ukraine war is also on the verge of such a stage; Russia is facing economic pressure and accumulated sanctions, and Ukraine is in a state of attrition regarding infrastructure and human resources. Western support has also diminished due to public opinion fatigue and the energy crisis in Europe. These conditions could push the parties towards forced negotiations.”
He emphasized: “Returning to diplomacy requires credible mediation; perhaps the role of China, Turkey, or India will be decisive in this regard. Otherwise, in the absence of a new diplomatic mechanism, the risk of the war expanding into new domains, including cyber, energy, and space, is likely.”
Molaei concluded with a warning: “Recent developments should not be viewed solely within the framework of U.S.-Russia confrontation, but rather analyzed within the context of changing international order. U.S. intelligence assistance, the G7 loan, and Russia’s reactions are signs of the global system transitioning from ‘mutual deterrence’ to ‘mutual pressure’; a situation that will shape the future of the Ukraine war and power relations in the twenty-first century.”