Listening to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s narrative of the Ukraine war, one might think that Russia mistakenly found itself embroiled in a conflict, almost as if it was compelled to invade its neighbor. During a recent press conference at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin remarked that he had previously expressed to former U.S. President Joe Biden the importance of steering clear of conflicts, stating, “Conflicts, especially hot conflicts, must be avoided, and that all issues should be resolved through peaceful means.”
- Advertisement -
This assertion is a striking contradiction coming from the leader who initiated the largest conventional war in Europe since World War II.
Much like former U.S. President Donald Trump, Putin has spun a narrative suggesting the Biden administration bears responsibility for not preventing a war that Russia seemed intent on starting from the outset.
Trump has repeatedly claimed that the war would have been avoided had he remained in office. Now, Putin appears to concur with this hypothetical scenario. “Indeed, had Trump been the president, perhaps this conflict would not have happened. I fully acknowledge that possibility,” he stated at the same event in St. Petersburg, which has seen Western businesses largely absent since the onset of Russia’s invasion.
What Putin implies is that the Biden administration’s opposition to Russia’s demands for Ukraine’s subjugation differs from Trump, who might have pressured Ukraine to yield to Russian expectations.
Trump, for his part, attributes the blame to another former president, Barack Obama, for failing to address Russian aggression a decade ago. At this week’s G7 meeting in the Canadian Rockies, he claimed that the ongoing war in Ukraine would not have transpired had Russia still been a participant in the G8—an organization from which it was expelled after the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Despite his assertions about averting the war, Trump has failed to fulfill his promise to swiftly bring it to an end since returning to political office. This pledge always seemed unrealistic.
Credit goes to the U.S., with Turkey’s assistance, for facilitating two rounds of brief yet direct negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul last month. However, the talks remained at a minimal diplomatic level and yielded limited results.
Ukraine’s readiness to engage in talks has never been in doubt. In mid-March, President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed Ukraine’s willingness to accept a U.S. proposal for a 30-day unconditional ceasefire.
The primary obstacle to any cessation of hostilities has been Russia, which has consistently dismissed ceasefire proposals supported by the U.S. and Europe. The recent talks yielded some humanitarian progress, including large-scale prisoner exchanges, but substantial diplomatic breakthroughs remain elusive.
There have been discussions about a third round of negotiations, but Ukrainian officials report no communication from Moscow on the matter. The rhetoric from Russian leadership serves as a disheartening sign for any potential future meetings. Just yesterday, Putin repeated his sentiment that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people,” stating, “In that sense the whole of Ukraine is ours.”
This statement underscores Russia’s unwavering stance since the war began: it continues to disregard Ukraine’s sovereignty while claiming it does not seek Ukraine’s capitulation.
During previous talks, a member of the Russian delegation described the situation as “Russians killing Russians,” a concerning remark from Vladimir Medinsky, an ultranationalist historian who has previously questioned Ukraine’s legitimacy as a sovereign state. Appointing Medinsky to lead the Russian delegation signals Moscow’s lack of genuine intent to negotiate.
Peter Dickinson, editor of the Atlantic Council’s Ukraine Alert, commented, “The talks in Istanbul have demonstrated that Russia has no interest in pursuing peace and is driving maximalist demands.” Rather than pursuing diplomatic resolutions, Russia has escalated its missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities, with recent strikes resulting in numerous casualties.
“I think people in Kyiv are very alarmed about the rising number of attacks,” Dickinson noted, reflecting the growing anxiety among residents. “There’s a feeling that people are sitting ducks.”
In a twist of irony, Putin has expressed willingness to meet with Zelensky in a final phase of negotiations; however, this claim was quickly followed by a challenge to Zelensky’s legitimacy, echoing a long-standing Kremlin narrative. According to Russia, Ukraine should hold new presidential elections, despite Zelensky’s term officially ending in May 2024. This contradicts Ukrainian constitutional law, which prohibits elections during martial law, a condition in effect since the war initiated.
As Putin continues his counter-narratives and military offensives, Ukraine is steadfastly advocating for a ceasefire before discussing territorial matters. Zelensky traveled to the G7 summit with hopes of meeting Trump, but his efforts ultimately proved futile as Trump departed early to address escalating issues in the Middle East.
“As of now, no productive talks are possible,” said Oleksandr Kraiev, a foreign policy expert. He argues for a reassessment of strategies, suggesting that the West should consider sanctions against Russia’s trading partners, particularly China, to create increased pressure on Moscow to cease hostilities.
“The idea from the Ukrainian side is to find a new format that could change the pressure on Russia,” he explained, emphasizing the importance of Europe in this endeavor, especially in light of the Trump administration’s hesitation to enact further sanctions.
Yet, more than a month after European leaders issued an ultimatum to Russia, the momentum has faltered. Putin thwarted that ultimatum by proposing direct talks in Istanbul—an initiative that Trump endorsed.
The “Coalition of the Willing,” spearheaded by the UK and France, aimed to form a European peace monitoring force for a post-war scenario but has since gone quiet, likely awaiting the outcome of the NATO summit in The Hague, albeit with diminished U.S. support.
“The question now is how do you get Russia to be interested in peace?” Dickinson observed. He finds it “futile” to rely on U.S. intervention for breakthroughs, pointing to the necessity for Europe to step forward, though political will appears weak.
In conclusion, the path to resolution remains fraught with challenges, leaving many questions unanswered about the future of peace in the region.
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International – Monitoring
