logo
Inside Russia, calls for peace come with conditions — and Kremlin talking points

Inside Russia, calls for peace come with conditions — and Kremlin talking points

Yahoo3 days ago

Following the second round of direct peace talks with Ukraine, the Russian side leaked its proposal on how to end its war — effectively a demand for Ukraine's surrender.
Yet, if the intentions of the Kremlin are no secret — continue the war until a political or military victory — getting information on what people in Russia think of their country's war and the prospects for peace is a more complicated endeavor.
While those based in Russia interviewed by the Kyiv Independent share a desire for peace, they are no supporters of Ukraine and its sovereignty.
Despite speaking on condition of anonymity and with the ability to freely express their views, Russians inside the country spoke along the official Russian lines — accusing Ukraine of stalling the negotiations or even arguing that there will be no peace as long as Ukraine remains an independent country.
These views are in line with polls conducted in Russia, which some believe are untrustworthy.
Around 64% of the respondents in Russia favored peace talks, according to a poll by the independent Russian pollster Levada Center published on June 2.
However, a majority of respondents (73%) believe that Ukraine should make concessions prior to a ceasefire. Only 18% think that Moscow should agree to a ceasefire and then resolve all other issues.
Read also: 5 Ukrainian regions, ban on NATO, limits on Kyiv's army — Russian media publishes Moscow's official peace demands
The Kyiv Independent interviewed people with different backgrounds and views, including those who have a track record of being opposed to Russian President Vladimir Putin's regime. They spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.
One of them, a 40-year-old photographer, used to attend rallies against Putin.
Yet the photographer's past opposition to Putin did not make her a supporter of Ukraine, nor did it mean she acknowledged her country's faults. In a conversation with the Kyiv Independent, the photographer expressed nostalgia for the Soviet Union and said that she believes there will be no peace until former Soviet republics are reunited under the Kremlin's wing.
"Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus would unite into one country," she said. "And then there would be no more problems. And all the foreign agents would get kicked out."
She also argued that "recognizing all the (occupied) territories as part of Russia is a done deal."
Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's Crimea peninsula in 2014. The Kremlin also announced the illegal annexation of Ukraine's Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts in 2022 despite only partially controlling them.
According to a document leaked after the second round of talks with Ukraine, Russia is demanding the official recognition of all these annexations.
Additional demands include Ukraine's neutral status, a ban on the country's NATO bid and other possible military alliances, and an official end to Western arms supplies and intelligence sharing with Ukraine.
According to a source in the Ukrainian President's Office, the Russian delegation effectively showed it doesn't want a peace settlement and is simply buying time to prolong the war.
President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly stated that Kyiv would not recognize any of the occupied territories as Russian.
Read also: Who is Vladimir Medinsky? The Putin aide leading Russia's delegation at Ukraine peace talks
Unlike the photographer, a Russian official who previously worked with Putin's aide Vladimir Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation during the Istanbul talks, was more ambivalent.
He opposed Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 but has grown more skeptical of Kyiv's position since then and accused Ukraine of stalling the negotiations.
The official shared his personal opinion. He is not connected to the actual talks.
He told the Kyiv Independent that "any negotiations are a good thing."
"It's a step forward," he said. "It's better than a demonstrative refusal to negotiate. I agree with (U.S. President Donald) Trump that people shouldn't be dying. Enough already."
He argued, however, that an unconditional ceasefire is currently "technically and politically impossible" because it would be to "Ukraine's advantage."
He accused Ukraine of disrupting the talks, saying that it had not sent a proper negotiating team to Istanbul. Ukraine has sent a delegation headed by Defense Minister Rustem Umerov to Istanbul, while Russia has sent a low-level delegation headed by Medinsky.
The official claimed that Ukraine "got carried away and deceived itself with their own propaganda" and "put too much faith in their (Western) partners," the points often mentioned by Russian state TV.
Putin did not attend the Istanbul peace talks despite an invitation from Zelensky to meet him face-to-face. Ukrainian and Western observers have argued that Russia is disrupting the peace negotiations.
The official, who used to work with Medinsky in a field unrelated to negotiations, went on to praise him as a manager and negotiator.
Read also: As Russia refuses to accept ceasefire, will Trump pressure Moscow?
An IT specialist living in Russia offered a third perspective, blaming neither Moscow nor Kyiv for the war.
"My attitude toward political events is similar to how I view developments on financial markets... or even like the weather," he told the Kyiv Independent. "In my worldview, what happens in all these spheres is the result of a sufficiently large number of actors and factors... rather than the result of malice, stupidity, or genius on the part of specific individuals."
He said he would be calm about any outcome of the peace talks.
The IT professional told the Kyiv Independent, however, that the war had had a negative impact on his life from a practical standpoint: salaries in the IT sector have dropped, there are fewer job opportunities, and there are major difficulties with accepting payments from abroad.
He also said that financially he can afford not to work but has to have a permanent job to defer potential mobilization.
"But in my view, neither peace nor a ceasefire in Ukraine would actually resolve any of the above problems," he said. "Once this episode of the confrontation ends, another one will just begin."
He added that "the key indicator of readiness to end the confrontation is the willingness of all parties to agree on the legal status of the disputed territories."
"We're nowhere near that," he continued.
Read also: 'There we go again' — For war-weary Europe, Trump-Putin call yet another signal to 'wake up'
In contrast with those based in Russia, Russian political exiles living abroad put the blame squarely on Putin, although they did not blame the Russian people in general for continuing to wage it.
"(Putin is) continuing the war while dragging out these endless negotiations — talks about talks, meetings for the sake of more meetings — hiding everything behind vague, meaningless language, all while keeping the war going," Russian opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza told the Kyiv Independent.
Kara-Murza survived poisoning attempts by Russia's Federal Security Service in 2015 and 2021, according to Bellingcat, Der Spiegel, and The Insider.
He was jailed in Russia in 2023 for criticizing Russia's invasion of Ukraine and released and sent abroad in 2024 as part of a prisoner exchange with the West.
Kara-Murza also said that "Putin is playing Trump brilliantly — because if you just listen to the tone of Trump's statement, it was filled with admiration and enthusiasm after a conversation that, once again, was absolutely meaningless in substance."
He was referring to Trump's statement after a phone call with Putin on May 19, during which the Russian president again rejected an unconditional ceasefire. Trump said the call "went very well" and once again refused to impose sanctions against Russia.
Kara-Murza argued that Trump and Putin get along because "they have the same kind of authoritarian mindset, they share the same psychological profile."
"I think Trump really wanted to rule the way Putin does — without checks and balances, without a parliament, without opposition, without an independent press," he added. "Even people who were present at their meetings during his first term have said that Trump, in Putin's presence, was like a rabbit staring at a boa constrictor. So I think Trump genuinely admires Putin — personally and sincerely — and wants to be like him."
Kara-Murza is skeptical about the prospects for peace under Putin.
"I'm convinced that no lasting, long-term — let alone just — peace can exist or will exist as long as Putin's regime remains in power," Kara-Murza said.
He said that "the only real way to stop this war is a democratic Russia."
"Only when Russia has a normal, legitimate, freely elected government that respects its own laws and the rights of its own citizens will it begin to respect civilized norms of international behavior and return to its internationally recognized borders," Kara-Murza added.
In contrast with Kara-Murza, Russians inside the country who spoke on condition of anonymity were more ambivalent about Putin's role, often blaming Ukraine or both sides.
At the same time, Kara-Murza does not extend the blame for the war to Russia as a whole. In 2024, he criticized the sanctions imposed against Russia, saying that only individual sanctions against Putin's inner circle were appropriate.
Read also: 'Conditions for Ukraine's surrender' — Why Putin's demands for ceasefire make no sense
Another Russian opposition figure, former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov, is on the far end of the spectrum — he is one of the few Russians who unequivocally support sanctions against Russia and call for Ukraine's victory.
He told the Kyiv Independent that "Putin wants to use negotiations to buy time, to normalize his status as a legitimate leader instead of an invading war criminal, and to distract and sideline Ukraine's allies from taking stronger action against Russia."
"Putin's impossible demands have not changed," he added. "He's not offering any concessions, and Trump isn't asking Russia to make any. Despite Putin ignoring European and American deadlines for a ceasefire, the only pressure Trump applies is against Ukraine."
Kasparov also said that "until there is real pressure via military aid to Ukraine and crippling sanctions on Russia… Putin will have no interest in ending the war."
"As I have said from the start, the only real peace is Ukrainian victory," he added.
Kasparov said that Trump "is working together with Putin to pressure Ukraine into surrendering so he can claim to be a peacemaker."
"Trump gave a deadline (for a ceasefire), Putin ignored it," he added. "In their phone call, Putin spouted a bunch of garbage about plans and frameworks, and Trump just said it was all fine."
Read also: Can Russia sustain its war effort as ruble plummets, inflation soars?
Arkady Moshes, a Russian-born researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, argued that "there is nothing to talk about" as far as Russian-Ukrainian talks are concerned.
"(Russia) is playing for time," he said. "They only agreed to imitate their participation in the negotiations because America wanted it. They want to give Trump a chance to say to his audience that he has already brokered something."
He also said that Putin "is interested in continuing the warfare."
"He's still driven by the thinking that Russia has material advantages over Ukraine," Moshes added. "So Putin still plays for victory and not a draw."
He said Russia's maximalist demands and unwillingness to compromise show that it is not interested in peace.
"This is the plan, that you come to the talks, put forward maximalist demands, and then blame the other side for not agreeing," Moshes added.
After deadly Russian missile and drone attacks in May, Trump expressed strong disapproval of the latest escalation.
"I'm not happy with Putin," he told reporters on May 25, adding on Truth Social that the Russian president has gone "absolutely" crazy.
So Trump "faced the wall" and "had to make choices" — either to impose sanctions on Russia or not, Moshes said.
But instead of actually imposing sanctions, Trump just threatened to do so without taking any action, he added.
"Putin is not afraid of these kinds of threats," Moshes said. "He would be afraid of sanctions, but not of threat of sanctions."
Read also: 'Trump doesn't know how to deal with gangsters' — US lets Ukraine down, once again
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Russian missile and drone attacks across Ukraine kill 4, injure around 50
Russian missile and drone attacks across Ukraine kill 4, injure around 50

Los Angeles Times

time42 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Russian missile and drone attacks across Ukraine kill 4, injure around 50

KYIV, Ukraine — Russia bombarded six regions of Ukraine in one of its largest aerial attacks of the three-year war, Ukrainian officials said Friday. The nighttime assault lasted for hours and killed three emergency responders in the capital Kyiv as well as another person in a northwestern city, according to authorities. The barrage included 407 drones and 44 ballistic and cruise missiles, Ukrainian air force spokesperson Yurii Ihnat said. Ukrainian forces said they shot down about 30 of the cruise missiles and up to 200 of the drones. Some 50 Ukrainian civilians were injured across the country, emergency services said. The latest Russian attack came hours after U.S. President Donald Trump said it might be better to let Ukraine and Russia 'fight for a while' before pulling them apart and pursuing peace. Trump's comments were a remarkable detour from his often-stated appeals to stop the war and signaled he may be giving up on recent peace efforts. Ukrainian cities have come under regular bombardment since Russia invaded its neighbor in February 2022. The attacks have killed more than 12,000 civilians, according to the United Nations. 'Russia doesn`t change its stripes,' Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said. Zelensky, as well as the Ukrainian Interior Ministry and the general prosecutor's office, said three emergency workers were killed in Kyiv while responding to the Russian strikes. 'They were working under fire to help people,' the Interior Ministry said in a statement. The war has continued unabated even as a U.S.-led diplomatic push for a settlement has brought two rounds of direct peace talks between delegations from Russia and Ukraine. The negotiations delivered no significant breakthroughs, however, and the sides remain far apart on their terms for an end to the fighting. Ukraine has offered an unconditional 30-day ceasefire and a meeting between Zelensky and Russian leader Vladimir Putin to break the deadlock. But the Kremlin has effectively rejected a truce and hasn't budged from its demands. 'The Kremlin continues efforts to falsely portray Russia as willing to engage in good-faith negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, despite Russia's repeated refusal to offer any concessions,' the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank, said late Thursday. Putin said in a phone call with Trump earlier this week that he would respond to Ukraine's daring long-range attack on Russian air bases on Sunday. Russia's Defense Ministry claimed it had aimed at Ukrainian military targets with 'long-range precision weapons' and successfully struck arms depots, drone factories and repair facilities, among other targets. Putin, who denounced the Ukrainian government as 'terrorist' after the weekend attacks on Russian air bases and railway bombings that Moscow blamed on Ukraine, promised a response to the air base assault. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Friday that 'all that is being done by our military daily is a response to the actions by' Ukraine. Friday's barrage fits into a pattern of Russian attacks throughout the war. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said the attacks demonstrated key differences between Russia and Ukraine. 'The difference … is that Ukraine hits legitimate military targets—such as aircraft equipped to bomb our children. Russia targets residential areas, civilians, and critical infrastructure,' Sybiha wrote on X. 'Putting Ukraine and Russia on equal footing is unacceptable.' In Russia, air defenses shot down 10 Ukrainian drones heading toward the capital early Friday, Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said. Flights at Moscow airports were temporarily suspended during the night as a precaution. Ukrainian drones also targeted three other regions of Russia, authorities said, damaging apartment buildings and industrial plants. Three people were injured, officials said. Russia's Defense Ministry said that air defenses downed 174 Ukrainian drones over 13 regions early Friday. It added that three Ukrainian Neptune missiles were also shot down over the Black Sea. Ukraine struck airfields and other military targets in Russia, such as fuel storage tanks and transport hubs, the Ukrainian General Staff said. Also, a locomotive derailed early Friday in the Belgorod region after the track was blown up, Belgorod Gov. Vyacheslav Gladkov said. Russia has recently accused Ukraine of sabotaging the rail network. In Kyiv, multiple explosions were heard for hours as falling drone debris sparked fires across several districts, said Tymur Tkachenko, head of the Kyiv City Administration. He urged people to seek shelter. Fourteen-year-old Kyiv resident Vitalina Vasylchenko sheltered in a parking garage with her 6-year-old sister and their mother after an explosion blew one of their windows off its hinges. 'I heard a buzzing sound, then my dad ran to me and covered me with his hand, then there was a very loud explosion,' she said. 'My whole life flashed before my eyes, I already thought that was it. I started having a panic attack ... I'm shocked that I'm alive.' Ukraine's human rights chief, Dmytro Lubinets, called for a strong international response to Russia's latest overnight attack, saying the assault violated basic human rights. 'Russia is acting like a terrorist, systematically targeting civilian infrastructure,' Lubinets wrote on Telegram. 'The world must respond clearly and take concrete steps, including condemning the aggressor's actions.' Authorities reported damage in several districts in Kyiv, and rescue workers responded to damage and fires at multiple locations. In Solomyanskyi district, a fire broke out on the 11th floor of a 16-story residential building. Emergency services evacuated three people from the apartment. The attack caused a blackout in some areas, and more than 2,000 households on Kyiv's eastern bank were without power, the Kyiv City Administration said. Elsewhere, 10 people were injured by an aerial attack on the western city of Ternopil, regional governor Viacheslav Nehoda said. The strike damaged industrial and infrastructure facilities, left parts of the city without electricity, and disrupted water supplies. Three people were also injured in Ukraine's central Poltava region. Russia also targeted the western Lviv and Khmelnytskyi regions, and the northern Chernihiv region. Arhirova and Stepanenko write for the Associated Press.

It's Reigning Men, That's the Problem
It's Reigning Men, That's the Problem

Bloomberg

time42 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

It's Reigning Men, That's the Problem

This is Bloomberg Opinion Today, an iron-pumping circuit of Bloomberg Opinion's opinions. Sign up here. Poland's new populist president Karol Nawrocki — a former boxer — admits to joining a free-for-all football fan melee back in 2007. That more than qualifies him for the ranks of world leaders enamored of physical strength and thuggish joys, says Adrian Wooldridge. Among them, Adrian lists Russia's Vladimir Putin, India's Narendra Modi, China's Xi Jinping, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Belarus's Alexander Lukashenko. Lionel Laurent says the US State Department might just call them America's ' civilizational allies ' since Donald Trump shares their preoccupation with athletic prowess.

Golden Dome dangers: An arms control expert explains how Trump's missile defense threatens to make the US less safe
Golden Dome dangers: An arms control expert explains how Trump's missile defense threatens to make the US less safe

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Golden Dome dangers: An arms control expert explains how Trump's missile defense threatens to make the US less safe

President Donald Trump's idea of a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system carries a range of potential strategic dangers for the United States. Golden Dome is meant to protect the U.S. from ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, and missiles launched from space. Trump has called for the missile defense to be fully operational before the end of his term in three years. Trump's goals for Golden Dome are likely beyond reach. A wide range of studies makes clear that even defenses far more limited than what Trump envisions would be far more expensive and less effective than Trump expects, especially against enemy missiles equipped with modern countermeasures. Countermeasures include multiple warheads per missile, decoy warheads and warheads that can maneuver or are difficult to track, among others. Regardless of Golden Dome's feasibility, there is a long history of scholarship about strategic missile defenses, and the weight of evidence points to the defenses making their host country less safe from nuclear attack. I'm a national security and foreign policy professor at Harvard University, where I lead 'Managing the Atom,' the university's main research group on nuclear weapons and nuclear energy policies. For decades, I've been participating in dialogues with Russian and Chinese nuclear experts – and their fears about U.S. missile defenses have been a consistent theme throughout. Russian President Vladmir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have already warned that Golden Dome is destabilizing. Along with U.S. offensive capabilities, Golden Dome poses a threat of 'directly undermining global strategic stability, spurring an arms race and increasing conflict potential both among nuclear-weapon states and in the international arena as a whole,' a joint statement from China and Russia said. While that is a propaganda statement, it reflects real concerns broadly held in both countries. Experience going back half a century makes clear that if the administration pursues Golden Dome, it is likely to provoke even larger arms buildups, derail already-dim prospects for any negotiated nuclear arms restraint, and perhaps even increase the chances of nuclear war. My first book, 35 years ago, made the case that it would be in the U.S. national security interest to remain within the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which strictly limited U.S. and Soviet – and later Russian – missile defenses. The United States and the Soviet Union negotiated the ABM Treaty as part of SALT I, the first agreements limiting the nuclear arms race. It was approved in the Senate 98-2. The ABM Treaty experience is instructive for the implications of Golden Dome today. Why did the two countries agree to limit defenses? First and foremost, because they understood that unless each side's defenses were limited, they would not be able to stop an offensive nuclear arms race. If each side wants to maintain the ability to retaliate if the other attacks – 'don't nuke me, or I'll nuke you' – then an obvious answer to one side building up more defenses is for the other to build up more nuclear warheads. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviets installed 100 interceptors to defend Moscow – so the United States targeted still more warheads on Moscow to overwhelm the defense. Had it ever come to a nuclear war, Moscow would have been even more thoroughly obliterated than if there had been no defense at all. Both sides came to realize that unlimited missile defenses would just mean more offense on both sides, leaving both less secure than before. In addition, nations viewed an adversary's shield as going hand in hand with a nuclear sword. A nuclear first strike might destroy a major part of a country's nuclear forces. Missile defenses would inevitably be more effective against the reduced, disorganized retaliation that they knew would be coming than they would be against a massive, well-planned surprise attack. That potential advantage to whoever struck first could make nuclear crises even more dangerous. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the ABM Treaty in 2002, seeking to free U.S. development of defenses against potential missile attacks from small states such as North Korea. But even now, decades later, the U.S. has fewer missile interceptors deployed (44) than the treaty permitted (100). The U.S. pullout did not lead to an immediate arms buildup or the end of nuclear arms control. But Putin has complained bitterly about U.S. missile defenses and the U.S. refusal to accept any limitation at all on them. He views the U.S. stance as an effort to achieve military superiority by negating Russia's nuclear deterrent. Russia is investing heavily in new types of strategic nuclear weapons intended to avoid U.S. missile defenses, from an intercontinental nuclear torpedo to a missile that can go around the world and attack from the south, while U.S. defenses are mainly pointed north toward Russia. Similarly, much of China's nuclear buildup appears to be driven by wanting a reliable nuclear deterrent in the face of the United States' capability to strike its nuclear forces and use missile defenses to mop up the remainder. Indeed, China was so angered by South Korea's deployment of U.S.-provided regional defenses – which they saw as aiding the U.S. ability to intercept their missiles – that they imposed stiff sanctions on South Korea. Now, Trump wants to go much further, with a defense 'forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,' with a success rate 'very close to 100%.' I believe that this effort is highly likely to lead to still larger nuclear buildups in Russia and China. The Putin-Xi joint statement pledges to 'counter' defenses 'aimed at achieving military superiority.' Given the ease of developing countermeasures that are extraordinarily difficult for defenses to overcome, odds are the resulting offense-defense competition will leave the United States worse off than before – and a good bit poorer. Putin and Xi made clear that they are particularly concerned about the thousands of space-based interceptors Trump envisions. These interceptors are designed to hit missiles while their rockets are still burning during launch. Most countries are likely to oppose the idea of deploying huge numbers of weapons in space – and these interceptors would be both expensive and vulnerable. China and Russia could focus on further developing anti-satellite weapons to blow a hole in the defense, increasing the risk of space war. Already, there is a real danger that the whole effort of negotiated limits to temper nuclear arms racing may be coming to an end. The last remaining treaty limiting U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, the New START Treaty, expires in February 2026. China's rapid nuclear buildup is making many defense officials and experts in Washington call for a U.S. buildup in response. Intense hostility all around means that for now, neither Russia nor China is even willing to sit down to discuss nuclear restraints, in treaty form or otherwise. In my view, adding Golden Dome to this combustible mix would likely end any prospect of avoiding a future of unrestrained and unpredictable nuclear arms competition. But paths away from these dangers are available. It would be quite plausible to design defenses that would provide some protection against attacks from a handful of missiles from North Korea or others that would not seriously threaten Russian or Chinese deterrent forces – and design restraints that would allow all parties to plan their offensive forces knowing what missile defenses they would be facing in the years to come. I believe that Trump should temper his Golden Dome ambitions to achieve his other dream – of negotiating a deal to reduce nuclear dangers. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Matthew Bunn, Harvard Kennedy School Read more: Golden Dome: An aerospace engineer explains the proposed US-wide missile defense system Is Russia looking to put nukes in space? Doing so would undermine global stability and ignite an anti-satellite arms race H-bomb creator Richard Garwin was a giant in science, technology and policy Matthew Bunn is a member of the National Academies Committee on International Security and Arms Control and a board member of the Arms Control Association. He is a member of the Academic Alliance of the United States Strategic Command and a consultant to Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store