In a recent diplomatic engagement spanning three days, U.S. special envoy Jared Kushner reported “meaningful progress” in peace negotiations involving Ukrainian and Russian leaders. However, there remains a noticeable absence of **public indications** that Russia is willing to amend its position sufficiently to facilitate a resolution to its ongoing conflict with Ukraine. Both President Vladimir Putin and his main negotiator have conveyed uncompromising stances, particularly regarding territorial disputes and modifications to the established European security framework.
The Donbas and Beyond
For an extended period, Russian authorities, including President Putin, have insisted that the complete acquisition of the Donbas region—comprising Donetsk and Luhansk—is a non-negotiable condition for any peace accord. The conflict in the Donbas initiated in 2014 following the Russian annexation of Crimea, with Moscow exerting control over parts of Donetsk and Luhansk prior to the extensive invasion of Ukraine that commenced in February 2022.
Currently, Russian forces occupy nearly all of Luhansk and about 80% of Donetsk. Despite this, they have struggled to overcome critical defensive positions within the region, notably the cities of Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, amidst prolonged fierce combat. Putin has reiterated that military force will be utilized if diplomatic channels fail to yield results, while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy remains steadfast, asserting that his administration will not cede any territory gained through the sacrifices of Ukrainian soldiers.
Moreover, Russia’s territorial aspirations extend beyond Crimea and the Donbas; in September 2022, Moscow claimed control over the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhya, and Kherson regions. While Russian forces occupy significant parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhya, they do not control the regional capitals, having been expelled from Kherson in November 2022.
Mixed Messages on Borderlands
Contradictory signals have occasionally emerged from Russia regarding its willingness to accept partial control of Kherson and Zaporizhzhya, or perhaps to withdraw from them in a peace agreement. Nevertheless, during a November 12 meeting in the Kremlin with Kushner and U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, Putin made it clear that Kyiv’s discussions about “gray zones” were met with a hardline rejection. “For us, there is only one line of demarcation: the line of the state border,” he stated, implying a refusal to recognize any borders except those asserted by Russia since 2022.
This notion contradicts internationally recognized borders established following the Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991. Within Russian state media, chief negotiator Vladimir Medinsky echoed this sentiment, declaring that territories marked by the Russian flag must remain Russian. He highlighted plans to extend a “security zone” along Ukraine’s state border, suggesting that ceding these areas is off the table.
Despite some hinting at possible flexibility from both parties during the Abu Dhabi talks, the tone from Moscow has remained strikingly inflexible, affirming hardline positions that leave little room for negotiation, as noted by Samuel Charap from the Rand Corporation.
A ‘New, Modern Yalta’
While Russian officials have not specified their desires concerning discussions on a revamped European security architecture—now a key topic in U.S.-led negotiations—there are indications that Moscow aims to reshape its geopolitical standing in Europe. Kushner has alluded to a broader framework beyond Ukraine itself, suggesting a “big, beautiful agreement.” This pursuit by Russia to redefine European security arrangements traces back to Putin’s early tenure and reflects a desire to reclaim influence lost after the Cold War.
Medinsky ominously referred to aspirations for a “new, modern Yalta and Potsdam,” invoking historic conferences where powers determined post-war boundaries in Europe. As hopes mount for a summit involving Putin, former President Donald Trump, and Chinese President Xi Jinping later this month, concerns are rising that such discussions may lead to a “redistribution of spheres of influence” in the region.
Stipulated Restrictions on Troops
Clarity about Russia’s negotiating terms can be partially gleaned from demands articulated in draft treaties sent to Washington and NATO back in December 2021, which predated the full-scale invasion. These stipulations sought to reverse several outcomes of the Cold War, including an end to NATO’s eastward expansion and restrictions on military activities in Ukraine and neighboring countries.
While the current negotiation positions of Russia remain somewhat ambiguous compared to the 2021 demands, aspirations for a collective defense pact and bilateral agreements with NATO nations have been discussed. Analysts suggest that Russia favors bilateral dealings to exploit divisions among European nations rather than negotiating through NATO or the EU.
Continued insistence by Russian representatives that Ukraine must be permanently barred from NATO membership casts further uncertainty on the prospects for a peaceful resolution. Putin has affirmed that any post-agreement deployment of Western troops in Ukraine would be perceived as a legitimate target, signaling an immediate resumption of hostilities.
Discussion about this post