Sergei Naryshkin, the director of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) and a member of the Russian Security Council, has categorically dismissed the possibility of freezing the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
In a recent statement, he emphasised that the war can only end with a “stable peace,” which he framed as essential not only for Russia but for Europe as a whole. However, the prerequisites he outlined underscore Moscow’s steadfast refusal to engage in meaningful negotiations without achieving its strategic goals.
Conditions for Peace
Naryshkin’s remarks reiterated Russia’s longstanding demands, including the incorporation of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia regions, and Crimea into the Russian Federation within their administrative borders. These demands align with conditions previously stated by President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials since the escalation of the war in February 2022. Such stipulations effectively negate the sovereignty of Ukraine, framing its existence as a fully independent state as incompatible with Russia’s vision of regional stability.
Framing the Root Cause
While Moscow typically avoids explicitly discussing the “root causes” of the war, Naryshkin suggested that resolving the conflict requires addressing these underlying issues. Observers interpret this as a veiled reference to Russia’s view of Ukraine as either a “historical Russian territory” or a subordinate state, akin to Belarus under Alexander Lukashenko’s regime. The Kremlin’s ultimate objective appears to be reshaping Ukraine into a satellite state, erasing its independent identity on the international stage.
Response to Western Peace Initiatives
Naryshkin’s statements also appear to pre-emptively counter potential peace overtures from the incoming U.S. administration. Analysts have noted that Russia views any Western attempt at negotiation as a sign of weakness, rather than a genuine effort to resolve the conflict. This mindset has been a recurring theme in Kremlin rhetoric, with officials portraying diplomatic overtures as evidence of the West’s diminishing resolve in the face of battlefield losses.
Such perceptions shape Moscow’s approach to negotiations, which are seen not as opportunities for compromise but as platforms to dictate terms. This uncompromising stance was evident in Putin’s recent conversations with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, where the Kremlin reiterated its unaltered demands from the early stages of the war.
Broader Geopolitical Accusations
Naryshkin’s comments extended beyond the Ukraine conflict, accusing Western intelligence agencies of destabilising Belarus in anticipation of its upcoming presidential elections. He also repeated claims about Western involvement in sabotaging the Nord Stream pipelines, framing these actions as part of a broader strategy to undermine Russia and its allies.
Moscow’s worldview, as articulated by Naryshkin, positions the Kremlin as the target of Western aggression not only within the former Soviet sphere but globally. This narrative reinforces the Kremlin’s portrayal of itself as a besieged power defending its sovereignty and regional interests against a hostile West.
Implications for Western Diplomacy
The unwavering nature of Russia’s demands presents significant challenges for Western policymakers, including the incoming U.S. administration. Former President Donald Trump, widely seen as favouring a negotiated settlement to the conflict, may face resistance from Moscow, which interprets his willingness to negotiate as an opportunity to extract concessions.
This dynamic underscores the fundamental disconnect between Western and Russian perspectives on the war. While Western leaders generally frame their efforts around ending the war and minimising casualties, Moscow views the continuation of hostilities as a legitimate means to achieve its territorial and strategic ambitions. This stark divergence complicates prospects for any constructive dialogue, let alone a sustainable resolution.
The Kremlin’s Calculations
Naryshkin’s statements highlight a consistent pattern in Russian diplomacy: raising the stakes in any potential negotiations. By reiterating maximalist demands, Moscow seeks to strengthen its bargaining position while dismissing Western initiatives as insincere or strategically naive. This approach reflects a deep-seated belief within the Kremlin that it can ultimately prevail, despite significant military, economic, and geopolitical pressures.
However, this strategy also carries risks. By doubling down on its hardline stance, Moscow may alienate even those Western leaders inclined to explore diplomatic solutions. Moreover, its insistence on uncompromising terms could prolong the war, exacerbating the already significant humanitarian and economic toll.
Strategic Outlook
Naryshkin’s remarks provide a clear window into Russia’s strategic mindset as the conflict enters its third year. The Kremlin remains committed to its vision of a post-war settlement that undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty and reasserts Russian influence over the region. Western policymakers must grapple with this reality, balancing the need to support Ukraine’s defence with the recognition that Moscow views negotiations as an extension of its broader campaign for dominance, rather than a path to peace.
Read also:
Johnson Warns of “Dreadful” Normandy Format’s Return After Scholz-Putin Call
