Putin says "no" to ceasefire, "yes" to talks with Zelensky: What does he really want?

Source: The Independent
Translation: Telegrafi.com

Vladimir Putin's press conference, at two o'clock on Sunday morning, was not his next volley in the psychological battle to shape global perceptions of who really bears the blame for Russia's war against Ukraine.

Russia was ready for peace talks in Turkey on Thursday, Putin said, without any preconditions. This means there will be no ceasefire as a precondition for the talks.

Volodymyr Zelensky tempered Putin's anger by saying he was ready to break the Ukrainian taboo on negotiations with the Kremlin as long as Russia continues to hold occupied territory. In his televised address, he even said: "We are ready to end the war."

This was a major concession to the occupier, but it came with a demand that Putin accept a 30-day ceasefire – a demand that was also mentioned by the four European leaders with whom Zelensky had already met.

By declaring that he would meet him in Istanbul and challenging Putin to face him face to face for the first time since 2019, Zelensky was making a challenge. But the move could backfire on either leader.

High-level meetings can unblock the stalemates that prevent hostile states from reconciling opposing interests, because only the people at the top of the political pyramid can take the risk of unpopular decisions. But, in general, these talks only work when so-called “sherpas” have spent hours narrowing down the areas of disagreement so that the heads of state can sign an essentially pre-prepared agreement.

History offers lessons on the power – and danger – of leadership diplomacy. One need only recall Henry Kissinger’s secret trips to Beijing to prepare for President Nixon’s dramatic visit to Mao’s China in 1972. This ended successfully for both leaders, despite their apparent ideological animosity.

On the other hand, a decade earlier, an unprepared (from the American side) meeting between John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev prompted the Kremlin to place nuclear missiles in Cuba, because Khrushchev came away from the meeting with the wrong impression of Kennedy's statesmanship.

They were meetings between rivals whose forces did not directly fire on each other. If a meeting between Putin and Zelensky actually happens, it will be an extension of the war that is taking place on the ground.

Perhaps the presidents of Russia and Ukraine will talk seriously about peace. More likely, they will wage a war of words to strengthen support in their countries, blaming each other for all the suffering.

Putin's aggression may seem like a clear crime to us – so what's the point of discussing it?

Even if the talks do happen – which is by no means certain – the risk of failure is high. The breakdown of talks, accompanied by mutual accusations, could serve both leaders politically, giving them the opportunity to blame the other side and leave strengthened in their positions. After all, Zelensky, surely, and perhaps Putin too, would not want to be seen by their own soldiers behaving friendly with the enemy commander.

Putin’s offer of talks is likely to appeal to several audiences. Domestically, it reassures the Russian public that their leader is ready for peace, hindered only by the stubbornness of Ukraine and the West. Internationally, it sows doubt among war-weary Ukrainians, suggesting that peace is possible—if only Zelensky would negotiate.

Now, there is a third target for Putin's public diplomacy: Donald Trump. The Kremlin treated the European leadership with disdain, but Trump is another matter entirely. The need to keep the American president happy is as much on Zelensky's mind as Putin's.

While Putin aims to divide Americans from Europeans, Zelensky is fully aware that, alone, even a united Europe cannot replace the power and influence of the United States.

Trump's insistence that Ukraine talk to Russia has disoriented the strong Starmer-Macron-Merz-Tusk approach. Zelensky must hope that, if Putin shows up to negotiate, his skills as a public communicator will give Ukraine victory in the propaganda war.

To paraphrase the Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz: negotiations are simply war by other means – not a magic bullet to end it. /Telegraph/

(Mark Almond is director of the Crisis Research Institute, Oxford)