Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal for direct talks with Ukraine, without agreeing to an immediate ceasefire, is not a surprising move ~ it is classic geopolitical posturing. This latest offer appears less about sincere peace-building and more about strategic image management, designed to serve Russia’s broader interests both on the battlefield and the diplomatic stage. Let’s strip it to the essentials: a true desire for peace begins with halting hostilities. If there’s no ceasefire, what are the talks actually about? Mr Putin’s refusal to endorse a 30-day unconditional truce, even as he expresses willingness to engage in discussions, speaks volumes. It allows Russia to keep military momentum while cloaking its intentions in the rhetoric of diplomacy. This dual-track approach is aimed not at ending the war, but at manipulating perceptions.

The proposed talks in Istanbul serve several overlapping objectives. Domestically, they signal control and openness. Internationally, they allow the Kremlin to portray itself as reasonable, especially to audiences that are growing war-weary. But perhaps more crucially, the offer is a wedge aimed at the Western alliance. By appearing conciliatory ~ while resisting a ceasefire ~ Moscow is perhaps hoping to exploit any fissures between the United States and Europe, especially in an environment where political leadership in the West is fluid and electoral uncertainties abound. The timing also reveals motive. Western leaders, after coordinating in Kyiv to demand a ceasefire, presented a united front. By undermining that unity with a proposal that sounds peace oriented but lacks substance, Mr Putin seeks to splinter consensus and test the resolve of individual actors. The underlying calculation is clear: create enough ambiguity to slow new sanctions, delay military aid to Ukraine, and sow strategic doubt. Another key element to consider is the psychological warfare embedded in this strategy.

Advertisement

By offering talks while continuing hostilities, the Kremlin aims to demoralise Ukraine and confuse its allies. This kind of manoeuvre sends a message that Russia controls not only the battlefield but also the diplomatic tempo. It puts pressure on Ukraine to appear inflexible if it rejects the offer, while simultaneously buying Russia time to regroup militarily under the guise of engaging in peace efforts. Furthermore, Mr Putin’s overture to resume talks ~ framed as a revival of previously interrupted dialogue ~ is a narrative inversion. It casts Russia not as an aggressor but as a misunderstood partner, aggrieved yet open to reason. That framing is designed not for Kyiv or Brussels, but for Washington. With the possibility of a friendlier US administration on the horizon, this could be the start of a charm offensive aimed at reshaping future bilateral dynamics. In the end, what matters is not the choreography of peace, but its content. Until Russia commits to stopping the violence it initiated, any diplomatic overture rings hollow. The world must remain vigilant to the theatre behind the negotiation table, and not mistake performance for progress.