annexed territories

Russian President Vladimir Putin has once again broached the possibility of negotiations with Ukraine, a notable shift considering his previous hardline stance. This comes on the heels of a meeting with Russia’s Security Council, where Putin dismissed the relevance of any negotiations following Ukraine’s offensive in Russia’s Kursk region.

Putin’s latest statements indicate that any potential talks would only be feasible after resolving what he describes as the issue of “bandits” entering Russian territory—an apparent reference to Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region. This stance contrasts sharply with his earlier insistence that Ukraine must withdraw its troops from the annexed territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia before any negotiations could take place.

The inconsistency in Putin’s demands is stark. On one hand, he acknowledges the sovereignty of Russian territory as defined by internationally recognised borders, seemingly disregarding the status of the annexed Ukrainian regions that Russia claims as its own. This shift away from his previous precondition—Ukraine’s full military withdrawal from these regions—signals either a tactical retreat or an attempt to recalibrate Russia’s position in response to the ongoing conflict.

The Illusion of Peaceful Intentions

Putin’s talk of negotiations, however, appears to be more about creating the illusion of diplomacy rather than a genuine attempt to resolve the conflict. His public statements are likely aimed at multiple audiences: the domestic Russian populace, international observers, and Ukrainian society itself. By presenting himself as open to dialogue, Putin seeks to position Russia as a rational actor on the global stage, willing to pursue peace, while simultaneously justifying continued military actions as necessary for Russia’s territorial integrity.

This narrative is particularly useful for those in the international community advocating for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. It also resonates with critics of Western military support to Ukraine, who argue that such assistance only prolongs the war. In this context, Putin’s overtures for negotiations can be seen as a strategic move to appeal to these sentiments, especially among nations in the Global South that may be sympathetic to Russia’s claims or sceptical of Western interventions.

Propaganda and the Ukrainian Response

For Ukraine, Putin’s shifting narrative is seen as yet another propaganda tactic designed to sow discord and undermine morale. The suggestion that negotiations could have taken place if only Ukraine had not engaged in military actions in the Kursk region is a clear attempt to blame Ukraine for the lack of peace. This is reminiscent of Russia’s approach in 2019, when it accused the Ukrainian leadership of prolonging the war for political gain—a message that gained traction among some segments of the Ukrainian electorate at the time.

President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was elected on a platform that included promises of peace, now finds himself the target of a similar narrative, with Putin seemingly attempting to replay the same strategy. However, after two years of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the Ukrainian leadership and public are far more sceptical of Moscow’s intentions.

The Reality of Putin’s Goals

The underlying goal of Putin’s strategy remains unchanged: the occupation and annexation of as much Ukrainian territory as possible, ultimately aiming at the destruction of Ukrainian statehood. The recent intensification of Russian military actions, including assaults in the Pokrovsk direction and renewed attacks on Kyiv, underscores the fact that Putin is more focused on military gains than on genuine negotiations. His statements about talks appear to be more of a tactical diversion, meant to buy time and possibly reduce international pressure, rather than a precursor to real peace efforts.

Putin’s approach to the conflict is clear—where Russian forces can advance, they will, and where they cannot, they will attempt to devastate the region, turning it into an uninhabitable wasteland. This strategy of destruction is designed to force Ukrainians to flee their homes, thereby weakening Ukraine’s social fabric and state infrastructure.

Putin’s Diplomatic Façade: A Strategy to Mask Continued Aggression Against Ukraine

Putin’s recent statements about negotiations with Ukraine are laden with contradictions and should be viewed with scepticism. His primary objective appears to be the continuation of Russia’s military campaign, with diplomatic overtures serving as a cover for these actions. The likelihood of meaningful negotiations remains slim, as Russia seems more interested in achieving its territorial ambitions through force rather than through diplomatic compromise.

Until there is a significant shift in the military balance on the ground or a change in Russia’s strategic calculus, the prospect of real negotiations appears distant. Putin’s talk of diplomacy is less about finding a peaceful resolution and more about maintaining the façade of a statesman open to dialogue, while continuing his aggressive actions against Ukraine.