In a particularly troubling recent escalation of rhetoric, Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened the unthinkable. First, he demanded that his administration be included in talks surrounding Ukraine’s future security arrangements. As the violent conflict continues, it exposes the depths of Putin’s elaborate machinations and intransigent positions. He rarely refers to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by name, preferring to refer to the “Kyiv regime.”
Putin’s unwillingness to meet Zelenskyy face-to-face on these terms has bemused pundits and wallpapered official Washington. Tatiana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, touched on the crux of it. She pointed out that, despite his constant calls for talks, Putin has never agreed to a meeting with Zelenskyy unless there are “thoroughly elaborated conditions.” This would, in practical terms, mean Zelenskyy agreeing to Russia’s demands for a negotiated end to the war.
Earlier this year, Putin expressed that Zelenskyy lacked the legitimacy necessary to sign any agreements, stating, “You can negotiate with anyone, but because of his illegitimacy, he has no right to sign anything.” This sentiment underscores Putin’s broader strategy of delegitimizing the Ukrainian leadership while asserting Russia’s claims.
The context around these remarks eerily reminds us of past interactions between the two leaders, especially when Trump initially called for a ceasefire. The new geopolitical climate has called into question the terms under which these high-stakes negotiations would play out. Alexei Mukhin, a nationalist commentator, noted that “simply put, Putin only sees value in a meeting with Zelenskyy if it ends with a capitulation.” This view leads to the conclusion that any deal would have to be based on Ukraine surrendering large swaths of territory.
Moscow has still demonstrated concrete interest, if not willingness, to get involved in talks on security guarantees for Ukraine. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov emphasized this point, stating, “To discuss security guarantees seriously without [Russia] is a road to nowhere.” His remarks illustrate a larger Russian strategy to present themselves as the most important power broker in any post-war talks.
With no end in sight, the Kremlin seems to be setting the stage for a long war, and we can expect this trend to continue. Recent media reports strongly suggest the Kremlin is already preparing tax hikes and spending cuts in other areas to keep defense spending as high as expected. At the same time, these measures underscore Russia’s determination to fund its war indefinitely in the face of increasing economic headwinds.
Additionally, no signal has been given by the Kremlin signaling a desire or readiness to engage in substantive negotiations with Kyiv. Or most recently, their claims that Zelenskyy didn’t merit serious engagement have made the hope of peace talks even harder. The Kremlin’s threat to escalate military action in response to the deployment of European forces to Ukraine further complicates the situation.
This is apparently one explanation as to why Putin is reluctant to meet with Zelenskyy. This reticence might be due to outside pressure, including Trump’s previous commitments to greet Russian heads of state. Overall, this development creates a precarious situation for Putin as he reconciles domestic and international pressure on him to do something in Ukraine.
The brutal and destructive conflict that rages on in Ukraine today remains a source of great international alarm and outrage. With Russia and Ukraine firmly entrenched, the future of negotiations does not look promising. Analysts warn that, without dramatic changes to either party’s position, sustainable peace could continue to be just out of reach.