Next week, we will mark a significant milestone: 25 years since Vladimir Putin secured his first election as the President of Russia.
Over this quarter-century, Putin has managed to outlast five U.S. presidents, four French presidents, three German chancellors, and eight British prime ministers. Clearly, his tenure has been marked by persistence and resilience.
As we reflect on this period, it’s crucial to note that three years post his full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and despite the barrage of Western sanctions aimed at crippling his war economy, Putin’s primary objective remains unchanged: he seeks Ukraine’s capitulation.
As the Russian leader himself has articulated, “The choice is stark: either you stand firm, or you let the chance slip away.”
His other unwavering demands still linger: an end to NATO membership aspirations for Ukraine (a concession made by the Trump administration even before negotiations began), the demilitarization of Ukraine’s armed forces, and full annexation of four eastern Ukrainian provinces, an assertion introduced last June.
Interestingly, Putin appears more emboldened than ever. As Russian forces advance deeper into eastern Ukraine, pushing the remaining Ukrainian brigades out of Kursk, his latest communication with U.S. President Donald Trump emphasized a striking new demand: an end to all Western military aid and intelligence support for Ukraine.
This insistence is both stubborn and unrealistic, effectively leaving Ukraine to fend for itself in the face of invaders—precisely what the Kremlin aims for.
The readouts from their recent telephone conversation hinted at a cooperative tone, with Putin raising issues beyond Ukraine, such as the Middle East, signaling his desire to reaffirm Russia’s position on the global stage.
“If negotiation cannot secure peace, what other course remains?” lamented a keen observer of the geopolitical chessboard. Despite President Trump’s initial bravado suggesting a swift resolution to the war, it seems it’s Putin, not Trump, who is steering the dialogue.
During their call, Putin granted only a modest concession—a temporary 30-day pause in Russian aerial attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Yet, even this commitment appears to be rapidly forgotten, as Russia continued its drone strikes on power sites and residential areas soon after.
How has Putin managed to define the agenda thus far? A significant factor is a U.S. administration that has exerted pressure on Ukraine instead of Russia to conclude the war. Coupled with Trump’s eagerness for a prompt resolution, Putin finds himself in a favorable negotiating position.
As a seasoned negotiator, he remains patient, having sustained Russia’s military operations for three continuous years without deviation.
Laurie Bristow, a former UK ambassador to Russia, offered insight in Foreign Policy, stating that Trump’s approach invites “maximalist demands” from Putin, allowing him to negotiate from a position of strength. Trump’s impatience for a deal could well play into Россия’s hands.
Projecting strength is a maneuvre Putin employs with masterful finesse. Just last week, he donned combat fatigues during a visit to Russian commanders in the Kursk region— a stark contrast to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who consistently meets with his troops in the field. Such a move reinforces Putin’s image as a war leader, suggesting a level of confidence in Russia’s advancing military position.
Putin’s new demands, whether made directly or echoed by senior negotiators like Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, are strikingly aggressive. His recent assertion for the easing of Western sanctions and a presidential election in Ukraine is particularly absurd, considering elections are prohibited under martial law, which has been in effect since the invasion began.
Witold Rodkiewicz, a noted Polish expert on Russian foreign policy, explained to RTÉ News, “The Russians are not interested in negotiating terms of peace. They are only interested in negotiating the terms of surrender.”
Interestingly, Russia continues to dismiss the possibility of European peacekeepers being deployed to Ukraine, a demand typically articulated by Lavrov rather than Putin himself.
This dual strategy of conducting negotiations while waging war simultaneously has become a hallmark of Russian tactics. Trump’s proposal—calling for a comprehensive ceasefire before negotiations—was effectively rebuffed by the Russians, who are determined to maintain their battlefield advantage.
Putin’s claims about a potential ceasefire allowing Ukraine to mobilize and rearm only serve to illustrate the precarious balance of power; the temporary truce would likely enable Russia to consolidate its gains rather than facilitate meaningful discussions.
What has brought Putin to this advantageous position is not merely Trump’s management; it is his own adeptness at negotiation coupled with a clear understanding that the West is hesitant to engage directly. Rodkiewicz refers to Putin’s “escalation dominance,” underscoring how Western leaders have historically aimed to avoid actions that could escalate into nuclear threats.
However, recent statements from French President Emmanuel Macron, declaring Russia a “threat” to Europe, demonstrate a shift in the dialogue recognizing the potential severity of Putin’s actions. The Kremlin, while also fearing a doomsday scenario, has not shied away from using indirect nuclear threats to undermine Western resolve. Throughout the conflict, Putin has framed his escalations as defensive reactions to Western aggression.
His rationale for invading Ukraine—underscored by a belief that NATO continues to threaten Russia’s influence—remains set against the backdrop of historical tensions. Igor Gretskiy, a Russian foreign policy expert, emphasized that Putin employs tactics reminiscent of Soviet strategies, understanding that “Putin constantly reminds the West that Russia is a nuclear power.”
As negotiations continue, it is imperative that the West presses for substantive dialogue rather than allowing Russia to set the terms of engagement. Europe retains a vital asset in the form of economic sanctions against Putin’s regime, which could be wielded effectively to foster a more genuine negotiation process.
Failure to counter Putin’s aggressive stance will come at a cost to Europe—not just politically, but potentially in security ramifications, as evidenced by his continuing demands tied to NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe.
In Putin’s eyes, addressing the “root causes” of conflict means rolling back NATO expansions that Eastern European governments pursued democratically. Yet, it’s essential to remember that nations must have the autonomy to determine their own alliances and futures—a sentiment echoed by Gretskiy, who believes the key to successfully negotiating with Putin lies in the West’s ability to challenge his bluffs effectively.
“The West possesses the military industrial capability; what is required now is the political will,” he asserted.
As we navigate these complex waters, it’s essential for the international community to remain vigilant, proactive, and united in addressing the evolving situation with clear strategies and resolve.
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international – Monitoring.
