{"id":26328,"date":"2026-09-27T19:06:13","date_gmt":"2026-09-27T13:21:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=26328"},"modified":"2026-09-27T19:06:13","modified_gmt":"2026-09-27T13:21:13","slug":"putins-message-the-door-to-talks-is-open-but-peace-cannot-ignore-russias-interests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=26328","title":{"rendered":"Putin\u2019s Message: The Door to Talks Is Open, but Peace Cannot Ignore Russia\u2019s Interests<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"


\nMuna Chand<\/strong><\/p>\n

Proposals to end the war in Ukraine remain on the negotiating table, but Russia will decide its next steps only after considering its own interests. That was the essence of President Vladimir Putin\u2019s message on September 25. It was not an announcement that Russia was withdrawing from talks. It was a clear warning that keeping a proposal on the table is different from accepting it. Moscow reiterated its position that a document drafted in haste to stop the fighting cannot deliver lasting peace if it sidesteps questions of security, territorial disputes and how an agreement would be implemented.<\/p>\n

It is easy to dismiss Putin\u2019s remarks as language intended merely to increase pressure in negotiations. But doing so misses the central point: Russia is stating the basis on which it intends to make its decision. For Moscow, the question is not only when a ceasefire will be announced. What arrangements will follow in the border areas? What direction will Ukraine\u2019s security relationships take? How can a renewed conflict be prevented? Sitting down at the negotiating table will not resolve these questions by itself; finding answers to them is why negotiations are needed.<\/p>\n

Putin has said Russia was ready to resume contacts with Ukraine after its parliamentary election. He claims that Ukrainian attacks on Moscow and polling stations during the vote forced Moscow to reconsider its next steps. The events and responsibility for each attack require separate, independent verification. From Russia\u2019s stated perspective, however, it is difficult to build trust when proposals for talks and attacks against one another proceed at the same time. Moscow\u2019s argument that diplomatic language about peace must be matched by conduct cannot simply be ignored.<\/p>\n

Ukraine\u2019s position is also clear. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has proposed direct talks and a reciprocal arrangement to halt attacks on energy and export infrastructure. He describes Ukrainian operations as a response to Russian attacks. Each side thus presents its military actions as retaliation. Under these circumstances, competing over who acted first will not, on its own, produce a solution. What is needed is a verifiable arrangement to protect civilian areas and essential infrastructure.<\/p>\n

Taking Russia\u2019s policy seriously means recognising that a plan to end the war cannot realistically exclude its demands from discussion. Moscow has long placed Ukraine\u2019s relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the four regions it claims at the centre of any settlement. Ukraine rejects Russia\u2019s claims to those regions and says it will not compromise its sovereignty. That divide is the hardest knot in the negotiations. Treating one side\u2019s demands as unmentionable while calling on the other side alone to compromise is not diplomacy; it is inviting talks after deciding their outcome in advance.<\/p>\n

This does not mean that all Russian demands are automatically justified or that Ukraine\u2019s objections are secondary. A lasting agreement would have to confront, in the same difficult negotiation, the safety of those directly affected, Ukraine\u2019s position on its sovereignty and Russia\u2019s stated security concerns. Removing the hardest issues from a communiqu\u00e9 does not make them disappear. More than four years of war have shown that plainly.<\/p>\n

Western countries face an uncomfortable question as well. Supporting Ukraine may be their declared policy, but they should be clear about the political outcome that support is meant to achieve. How will further military assistance and sanctions lead to negotiations? What proposals will they put forward once talks begin, and how will they address the points of disagreement? Without answers, \u201cpeace\u201d becomes little more than a diplomatic slogan. Equally, Russia must not define its interests so rigidly that no position acceptable to the other side remains possible. The value of saying that talks are open depends on a willingness to seek a workable agreement.<\/p>\n

A comprehensive political settlement may not be immediately possible, but the paths to limited cooperation are not closed. Reciprocal restraints on attacks against energy infrastructure, exchanges of prisoners of war, measures to protect civilians and agreements on maritime traffic could be pursued in stages. Declarations alone would not be enough. Any arrangement must specify who will monitor it, how violations will be verified and what will happen if one occurs. In a war marked by deep mistrust, an ambiguous agreement can become the beginning of another dispute.<\/p>\n

Putin\u2019s latest remarks are neither proof that talks have succeeded nor an announcement that the door to peace has closed. By saying that proposals remain under consideration, he has kept a diplomatic possibility alive while making Russia\u2019s interests a condition for its decisions. That is Moscow\u2019s policy, not the final outcome of negotiations. Those who accept or challenge it must first answer the substantive questions it raises.<\/p>\n

The greatest mistake would be to mistake exhaustion with war for agreement on peace. Anyone seeking to end the fighting must do more than repeat a desire for it. They must identify why the other side disagrees, what security it seeks and where room for an acceptable settlement remains. An attempt to make peace while disregarding Russia\u2019s interests will not endure. Nor will an agreement that disregards the safety and political future of Ukraine\u2019s people. Putin\u2019s message has brought that hard reality back into focus: talks remain on the table, but an end to the war will require everyone at that table to make difficult decisions, not merely repeat familiar slogans.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t