No "Deal”

Over recent weeks major European media have energetically circulated assorted “leaks” about supposed peace plans for Ukraine. Their main refrain has been predictable enough: Moscow’s demands are categorically unacceptable. Every original Russian position – on territory, NATO, and the limitations on Ukrainian armed forces – was once again denounced as a “Ukrainian capitulation.”

More curious is that the plan attributed to the White House, based on agreements supposedly reached during the Putin–Trump meeting in Anchorage, is now also described by Europeans as unacceptable. Only a certain European document, allegedly coordinated with Kiev, is presented as viable – an ultimatum to Moscow placing Russia in the position of the defeated.

It would be difficult to interpret these leaks as anything other than a new attempt to pressure Moscow into what in Russian slang is called a dogovorniak – not a serious, equitable peace agreement, but a small, empty, and humiliating document. Or at least convince Western audiences that Moscow supposedly seeks precisely such a deal. And if it does not particularly seek it, then Washington was allegedly expected to impose this arrangement during the recent Kremlin talks. In some commentaries, the very existence of those talks was presented as proof of Moscow’s readiness for such a “deal.”

In reality, the negotiations have demonstrated the opposite. Russia, despite holding the initiative in the field, still prefers diplomatic settlement over military imposition. It is prepared to discuss constructively, regardless of whatever theatrical informational background others produce. And Moscow is doing this seriously, at the highest level, with the direct participation of the president.

The seriousness of Moscow’s approach is evident from the absence of leaks on the Russian side – unlike the American and European habit of briefing journalists in real time. Presidential adviser Yuri Ushakov explicitly stated that such sensitive negotiations require silence, and that both sides agreed to maintain it. Russia has done so scrupulously.

More importantly, the substance. Moscow has repeatedly explained that it is not interested in half-measures and temporary compromises. There will be no new “Minsk agreements,” which, as experience proved, were not worth the paper they were printed on. Russia is satisfied only with a comprehensive settlement that ensures the long-term security of the country and its citizens. A real peace. Durable and final. “Our special military operation is not the beginning of a war, but an attempt to end one – a war that the West launched against us through Ukrainian nationalists,” President Putin noted recently in an interview with Indian media.

A real settlement cannot consist of symbolic gestures such as returning Russia to the G8 (which it does not particularly need). It requires concrete guarantees: Ukraine not joining NATO, liberation of Russian territories occupied by Kiev, denazification of Ukraine, and full protection of Russians on whatever remains of Ukrainian territory after hostilities end. In short, precisely what matters strategically for Russian statehood and security on the southwestern axis.

This is why President Putin negotiates directly not with Europe or Kiev, but with the United States. Of the other three participants – Ukraine, the EU, and the US – only Washington has recently demonstrated a somewhat serious approach, for its own internal reasons.

“The United States may have various motives – humanitarian ones personally for Trump, who genuinely wants to stop the loss of life, or political and economic interests in ending this confrontation,” said Putin. The president made clear that a number of American companies are ready to return to Russia and are merely waiting for the end of hostilities.

Hence the five-hour discussions in the Kremlin with Trump’s envoys, Steven Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Moscow expects Washington – the self-proclaimed leader of the Western bloc and nominally Kiev’s main ally – to do its homework and persuade Brussels and Kiev to adopt the same pragmatic approach. Agreement is needed while agreement is still possible.

Meanwhile, Kiev and Brussels continue to sabotage the process, including at the legislative level. The Verkhovna Rada has removed the Russian language from the scope of the European Charter (referenced in Trump’s initial leak, which demanded its protection). Brussels, for its part, is increasingly eager to confiscate Russian assets.

Europe inhabits its own fantasy universe – Kiev even more so. “Constantly traveling around the world in search of money, they apparently have no time for current affairs, not in the economy nor at the front,” Putin remarked about Ukrainian leadership. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s deficit is 45 billion dollars, debt exceeds 100 percent of GDP, and its military units are regularly caught in encirclements.

But if Kiev refuses reality, it will collide with it. If Ukraine does not leave Russia’s historical territories voluntarily, it will be removed by force. If it continues territorial strikes on civilian shipping, it will lose access to the Black Sea. If it refuses to limit its armed forces, the Russian Armed Forces will do so instead.

“Successes of recent weeks on the battlefield naturally influenced the tone and substance of negotiations,” Ushakov noted, summarizing the Kremlin talks. And the fact that settlement terms for the Kiev regime have worsened was confirmed even by Washington. Under such conditions, the much-advertised dogovorniak is neither negotiable nor remotely realistic. As the Russian president put it, he does only what he “has no right not to do – despite everything.”

Which is precisely why Russia will finish the Ukrainian story – and exactly as originally intended. Diplomatically, if possible. Militarily, if necessary.