Politics
Putin Modifies Rhetoric on Ukraine – but Peace Still far off
December 26, 2024
-
Sergei Shelin
Journalist, independent analyst
Analyzing Vladimir Putin’s annual hours-long show, journalist Sergei Shelin points out that the president spoke about the end of the war in more specific terms than he had before. However, the specifics were hardly reassuring.
The original text in Russian was published in the Moscow Times. We are publishing a shortened version with the author’s permission.
President Putin on Itogi Goda (“Results of the Year”), a televised event combining a big press conference and Q&A from citizens. December 19, 2024. Source: VK
On December 19, President Putin spent four and a half hours answering questions on Itogi Goda (“Results of the Year”), a televised event combining a big press conference and Q&A from citizens. This combined format was used for the first time last year – before that, these two public events took place separately.
Judging by preliminary polls (see here and here), Russians were expecting Putin to talk about three main points: new initiatives in domestic and especially economic policy; the defeat in Syria; and especially the outlook for the Ukraine war.
On the first point he said that he was aware of accelerating inflation, but “the overall situation is stable and, let me reiterate, solid.” He added that the Central Bank is to blame for inflation – it “could have used certain instruments other than raising the key rate, more efficiently and at an earlier stage. Yes, the Central Bank started doing it around summer. But again, these experts believe that it could have and should have been done earlier.”
In fact, the “certain instruments” that could really reduce inflation – cuts to fiscal spending and subsidized lending – are in Putin’s hands, not Nabiullina’s. Judging by his view that there should be no limits on low-interest family mortgages, he does not intend to stop pumping money into the economy.
And it will be the meek Central Bank that will have to answer for the consequences. There was no stated warning not to hike rates; but if that fails, Putin has already absolved himself of responsibility.
No one will hold him accountable
The Russian president assigns no blame to himself for the failure of the Syrian gambit. (see Russia.Post here on how Russian state media covered the collapse of the Assad regime).
Putin’s greatest achievement is that his country never holds him accountable for his failures, like Russia’s military intervention in Syria, which was carried out at his insistence and under his personal leadership.
Assad’s army simply ran away and “our Iranian friends… asked us to help withdraw them.” According to Putin, the situation in Syria is not so bad for Russia: “we maintain dialogue with all groups controlling the situation there and with all regional countries. An overwhelming majority of them have expressed interest in retaining our military bases in Syria.”
Putin rejects responsibility for any fiasco and demonstrates the confidence – quite justifiably – that no one will hold him accountable.
We must take this into account when analyzing what Putin said about the prospects for reconciliation with Ukraine. What he said on Itogi Goda are the words of a man who knows that he can plan and announce one thing, then accept failure and do it differently and he will not be held accountable for a thing.
Peace without a stop to fighting
This time, Putin’s Ukraine discourse did not include his usual verbose excursions into history, and there were not even any promises to “demilitarize” and “denazify” the country.
Instead of “demilitarization,” he recalled the 2022 Istanbul peace talks, though these treaty drafts entailed the disarmament of Ukraine and its noncooperation with the West. And instead of general words about “denazification,” Putin noted that “there are people in Ukraine who you can talk to, there are many people who are dreaming, together with us, about liberating their country from the neo-Nazi regime.”
A ceasefire and truce along the current front lines, according to Putin, does not suit him, as it would give the Ukrainians time to gather their strength and organize their defense. Still, peace is presented as possible and even desirable, but it must be signed by someone other than Zelensky, whom Putin considers illegitimate.
Judging by preliminary polls (see here and here), Russians were expecting Putin to talk about three main points: new initiatives in domestic and especially economic policy; the defeat in Syria; and especially the outlook for the Ukraine war.
On the first point he said that he was aware of accelerating inflation, but “the overall situation is stable and, let me reiterate, solid.” He added that the Central Bank is to blame for inflation – it “could have used certain instruments other than raising the key rate, more efficiently and at an earlier stage. Yes, the Central Bank started doing it around summer. But again, these experts believe that it could have and should have been done earlier.”
In fact, the “certain instruments” that could really reduce inflation – cuts to fiscal spending and subsidized lending – are in Putin’s hands, not Nabiullina’s. Judging by his view that there should be no limits on low-interest family mortgages, he does not intend to stop pumping money into the economy.
And it will be the meek Central Bank that will have to answer for the consequences. There was no stated warning not to hike rates; but if that fails, Putin has already absolved himself of responsibility.
No one will hold him accountable
The Russian president assigns no blame to himself for the failure of the Syrian gambit. (see Russia.Post here on how Russian state media covered the collapse of the Assad regime).
Putin’s greatest achievement is that his country never holds him accountable for his failures, like Russia’s military intervention in Syria, which was carried out at his insistence and under his personal leadership.
Assad’s army simply ran away and “our Iranian friends… asked us to help withdraw them.” According to Putin, the situation in Syria is not so bad for Russia: “we maintain dialogue with all groups controlling the situation there and with all regional countries. An overwhelming majority of them have expressed interest in retaining our military bases in Syria.”
Putin rejects responsibility for any fiasco and demonstrates the confidence – quite justifiably – that no one will hold him accountable.
We must take this into account when analyzing what Putin said about the prospects for reconciliation with Ukraine. What he said on Itogi Goda are the words of a man who knows that he can plan and announce one thing, then accept failure and do it differently and he will not be held accountable for a thing.
Peace without a stop to fighting
This time, Putin’s Ukraine discourse did not include his usual verbose excursions into history, and there were not even any promises to “demilitarize” and “denazify” the country.
Instead of “demilitarization,” he recalled the 2022 Istanbul peace talks, though these treaty drafts entailed the disarmament of Ukraine and its noncooperation with the West. And instead of general words about “denazification,” Putin noted that “there are people in Ukraine who you can talk to, there are many people who are dreaming, together with us, about liberating their country from the neo-Nazi regime.”
A ceasefire and truce along the current front lines, according to Putin, does not suit him, as it would give the Ukrainians time to gather their strength and organize their defense. Still, peace is presented as possible and even desirable, but it must be signed by someone other than Zelensky, whom Putin considers illegitimate.
“It looks like Putin is modifying his rhetoric. From abstract anti-Ukraine declarations he is shifting to a stance of being ready to make peace, or at least to one where peace is on the table.”
But what peace plan is lurking behind this new stance?
The Trenin-Putin plan
Ahead of Putin’s Itogi Goda, an article titled “What Ukraine should look like after Russia’s victory” was published by Dmitri Trenin. Trenin is a veteran analyst, known for his ability to pick up on moods in the Kremlin.
In the plan he presented, Ukraine is divided into three parts. The lands already seized by Putin, as well as, possibly, Odesa, Kharkiv and Dnipro regions, are annexed by Russia. Five to seven regions in the west of Ukraine form some kind of anti-Russia state and, if they want, apparently may even join NATO. The rest of Ukraine – that is, at least half of the country, including Kyiv – would be allowed to keep its name and cultivate superficial “Ukrainianness” but would be placed in Russia’s orbit, without being occupied by it.
It looks like Putin has a similar plan in mind now. This is the logical conclusion of his comments about “many people who are dreaming, together with us, about liberating their country from the neo-Nazi regime.” Indeed, this is supported by the inclusion of a question for Itogi Goda about the possibility of negotiations with Kyiv (even though the selection criteria for questions for the president were even tougher than usual). The show included an employee of a certain “international public movement” called “Other Ukraine,” which “represents the interests of millions of Ukrainian citizens both within Ukraine, regrettably still under the control of the Kyiv regime.”
Trenin’s (and presumably Putin’s) plan contains, as it were, two steps reflecting the current state of affairs.
The Trenin-Putin plan
Ahead of Putin’s Itogi Goda, an article titled “What Ukraine should look like after Russia’s victory” was published by Dmitri Trenin. Trenin is a veteran analyst, known for his ability to pick up on moods in the Kremlin.
In the plan he presented, Ukraine is divided into three parts. The lands already seized by Putin, as well as, possibly, Odesa, Kharkiv and Dnipro regions, are annexed by Russia. Five to seven regions in the west of Ukraine form some kind of anti-Russia state and, if they want, apparently may even join NATO. The rest of Ukraine – that is, at least half of the country, including Kyiv – would be allowed to keep its name and cultivate superficial “Ukrainianness” but would be placed in Russia’s orbit, without being occupied by it.
It looks like Putin has a similar plan in mind now. This is the logical conclusion of his comments about “many people who are dreaming, together with us, about liberating their country from the neo-Nazi regime.” Indeed, this is supported by the inclusion of a question for Itogi Goda about the possibility of negotiations with Kyiv (even though the selection criteria for questions for the president were even tougher than usual). The show included an employee of a certain “international public movement” called “Other Ukraine,” which “represents the interests of millions of Ukrainian citizens both within Ukraine, regrettably still under the control of the Kyiv regime.”
Trenin’s (and presumably Putin’s) plan contains, as it were, two steps reflecting the current state of affairs.
“The first is consent to part of Ukraine, though small, joining the West. The second is no Russification of the Ukrainian regions that would not be formally annexed by Russia.”
Perhaps Putin will put something similar on the negotiating table with Trump as his constructive position. It is impossible to imagine that Ukraine would accept such terms without a complete military defeat. Overall, this means no end to the war in the coming months.
Share this article
Read More
