Does Putin Want A Ceasefire?

Anton Troianovski, Adam Entous and Julian E. Barnes claim today in the New York Times that Vladimir Putin is looking for a ceasefire (gift link Content warning: photos of dead Russian soldiers). The dek beneath the headline says “Despite its bravado in public, the Kremlin has indicated its interest in striking a deal to halt the war — so long as it could still declare victory,” but I don’t see much indication of the last, although one might assume that to be the case.

The rest of the article is not much better supported. The primary sources are “ two former senior Russian officials close to the Kremlin and American and international officials who have received the message from Mr. Putin’s envoys.” It’s customary for sources in these circumstances not to be identified, so that’s not unreasonable. Later in the article, other “American officials” are cited as sources. There no distinctions or numbers when “American officials” are quoted.

Let us consider the claims made. Quotes are from the article.

• “Mr. Putin has been signaling through intermediaries since at least September that he is open to a cease-fire that freezes the fighting along the current lines, far short of his ambitions to dominate Ukraine”
• ‘ “He really is willing to stop at the current positions,” one of the former senior Russian officials told The New York Times, relaying a message he said the Kremlin was quietly sending. The former official added, “He’s not willing to retreat one meter.”’
•  “The signals come through multiple channels, including via foreign governments with ties to both the United States and Russia. Unofficial Russian emissaries have spoken to interlocutors about the contours of a potential deal that Mr. Putin would accept, American officials and others said.”
• “Mr. Putin has also made vague public comments about being open to negotiations, which have largely been dismissed by Western commentators.”
• “But American officials see a shift in Mr. Putin’s position, noting that he is no longer demanding the departure of Mr. Zelensky’s government. They said that the cease-fire being floated by Mr. Putin would maintain a sovereign Ukraine with Kyiv as its capital, but leave Russia in control of the nearly 20 percent of Ukrainian territory it has already conquered. They added that while Mr. Putin is telegraphing that he is open to such a deal, he is waiting to be brought a more specific offer.”

A number of problems in the article’s logic. The first quote minimizes the current situation by comparing it with Putin’s grandiose ambitions to dominate all of Ukraine, as does the last. But 20 percent of Ukrainian territory is a lot, and the article concedes that this is unlikely to be acceptable to Ukraine. The second quote, artfully divided into two parts, says Putin is willing to stop BUT not retreat one meter. Not a flexible position. There is no indication of how widely or in what ways Putin has put forth these feelers to show that there is substance to them. Multiple channels – means more than three. Putin is willing to feint and dodge to confuse his enemies.

The argument is larded with past, clearly insincere, approaches by Putin in the fall of 2002 and a more recnt conversation that Gregory Yavlinsky, who would like to be an intermediary, provided as if they support the idea he is now looking for a ceasefire. In that regard, I’ll quote again from the last point above: ” he is waiting to be brought a more specific offer.”

Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesperson, responded to the reporters’ queries with the public Kremlin line: They are ready for talks, but only in the service of Russia’s stated goals. Slipped in quietly toward the end of the article is that Putin would like to negotiate primarily with the United States, his continuing fixation on a Yalta-style agreement over the heads of the Ukrainians. The United States will not agree to this.

Some American officials say it could be a familiar Kremlin attempt at misdirection and does not reflect genuine willingness by Mr. Putin to compromise. The former Russian officials add that Mr. Putin could well change his mind again if Russian forces gain momentum.

It wouldn’t be a bad time for Russia to have a ceasefire to regroup and resupply after a difficult winter. A ceasefire leaves Russia occupying four Ukrainian provinces and gives them a base to further expand. Putin would be open to that, particularly if he could negotiate it with another Great Power. Hence the dek. But the article offers nothing else.

The communication channels seem to be less than what is called Track II diplomacy, although it’s hard to tell with the small amount of vague information about sources.

It looks like nothing has changed. Putin said a few nice words to a few people about a ceasefire, but it would be a ceasefire on his terms. It’s always a good idea to try to look like a peacemaker, and it’s one of the things Putin occasionally does. Nothing new, but it gives the Times another chance to tell us we’re tiring of the war in Ukraine.

One other point. Two of the reporters, Troianovski and Barnes, are reasonably reliable and know their beats. I am suspicious of anything by Adam Entous.

Photo is a screen grab from Putin’s February 24, 2022, speech.

Cross-posted to Nuclear Diner