Putin says ‘no’ to a ceasefire, but ‘yes’ to talks with Zelensky – what is he up to?

Vladimir Putin’s 2am press conference on Sunday was not just theatre, it was his latest salvo in the psychological battle to shape global perceptions of who is truly to blame for Russia’s war with Ukraine.

Russia was ready for peace talks in Turkey this Thursday, Putin said, with no conditions attached. That meant no ceasefire as a prelude to talks.

Volodymyr Zelensky took the wind out of Putin’s sails by replying that he was willing to break the Ukrainian taboo on negotiating with the Kremlin so long as it occupied its territory. He even said in his television address: “We are prepared to end the war.”

That was a big concession to the invader, but it was accompanied by a demand that Putin agree to a 30-day ceasefire – also demanded by the four European leaders whom Zelensky had just met.

By declaring that he would be waiting for him in Istanbul, and daring Putin to meet him face to face for the first time since 2019, Zelensky was throwing down a challenge. It could yet blow up in either leader’s face.

Summit meetings can break the logjam preventing hostile states from reconciling their conflicting interests, because only the men at the top can take the risk of making unpopular decisions. But, as a rule, these top-level talks only work when the so-called “sherpas” have spent long hours whittling down the points of disagreement so that the heads of state can sign off on a deal effectively already done.

History offers lessons in the power – and peril – of summit diplomacy. Think of Henry Kissinger’s secret trips to Beijing to set up President Nixon’s dramatic visit to Mao’s China in 1972. That turned out well for the two leaders, despite their apparent ideological enmity.

By contrast, a decade earlier, an ill-prepared (on the US side) summit between John F Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev encouraged the Kremlin to put nuclear missiles in Cuba, because Khrushchev came away with the wrong impression of Kennedy’s qualities as a statesman.

Those were summits between rivals whose forces were not directly firing at each other. If a Putin-Zelensky meeting does actually happen, then it will be as an extension of the war on the ground.

Maybe the Russian and Ukrainian presidents will talk seriously about peace. More likely, they will fight a war of words to reinforce their support at home, blaming the other one for all the suffering.

Putin’s aggression may seem to us the obvious crime, so what is the point of a discussion?

Even if the talks take place – which is by no means certain – the risk of failure is high. A breakdown into acrimony could serve both leaders politically, allowing them to blame the other and walk away hardened in their positions. After all, Zelensky certainly, and Putin probably, won’t want to be seen by his own soldiers being chummy with the other side’s commander-in-chief.

Putin’s offer of talks likely serves multiple audiences. Domestically, it reassures the Russian public that their leader is a willing peacemaker frustrated by Ukrainian and Western obduracy. Internationally, it sows doubt among war-weary Ukrainians by suggesting that peace is available if only Zelensky will deal.

And now, there is a third target for Putin’s public diplomacy: Donald Trump. The Kremlin is dismissive of European leaders, but Trump is another matter entirely. The need to keep the US president sweet is as much on Zelensky’s mind as Putin’s.

Whereas Putin wants to split the Americans from the Europeans, Zelensky is well aware that, by themselves, even a united Europe cannot replace the power and influence of the United States.

Trump’s insistence that Ukraine talk to Russia derailed the Starmer-Macron-Merz-Tusk hardline. Zelensky must hope that, if Putin shows up to talk, his own skills as a public communicator will win the propaganda war for Ukraine.

To paraphrase the Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, negotiations are simply war by other means, rather than a magic bullet to end it.

Mark Almond is director of the Crisis Research Institute, Oxford