Putin's Terms For Peace

The last few days have seen a flurry of commentary, stemming from Trump’s verbal attack on Putin, calling him “absolutely crazy” and complaining that Putin failed to properly appreciate that The Donald had personally saved Russia from “REALLY BAD” things (Trump’s caps). That was followed up by additional Trumpian warnings that Putin is “playing with fire” and would “destroy Russia.” The Russians were largely unimpressed, writing off Trump’s intemperate outbursts to “emotional overload.” Dmitri Medvedev, however, did later pointedly reflect that the only thing worse than what’s going on now would be “World War Three”:

Dmitry Medvedev @MedvedevRussiaE

Regarding Trump's words about Putin "playing with fire" and "really bad things" happening to Russia. I only know of one REALLY BAD thing — WWIII. I hope Trump understands this!

1:12 PM · May 27, 2025

Today, however, Putin has put forth his own terms for peace—which amount to a sort of ultimatum. Before we get to that, however, let’s review very briefly what has led up to all this.

First of all, I’ll repeat my own long held position: The Russians will talk and talk, but in the end they’ll win the war. They will either win de facto on the battlefield or by Ukrainina and/or NATO admissions of defeat and agreement to written terms of peace as dictated by Russia. No other result makes sense for Russia, given the sacrifices that have been made and given the threat presented by the collective West to Russia’s existence. No compromises will be made.

I think this view has been borne out so far—Russian terms for peace talks have all come down to what amounts to unconditional surrender before a peace settlement can be hammered out. This was the case most recently in Istanbul. There is another meeting scheduled for the first week of June, and there is every reason to expect a repeat of Russia’s unyielding position—or a raising of the bar.

Yesterday and today I’ve been listening to commentary on Trump’s outbursts and the Russian response. I was impressed with related remarks by Doug Macgregor and John Helmer. Both described Trump’s decision making process as highly informal, due to Trump’s dislike for reading things. He prefers to verbally hash things out with the handful of advisers he’s comfortable with. He also eschews formal daily intel briefings—leading to his startling admission to a reporter that he “hadn’t heard” of the assassination attempt on Putin. This highly informal process lends itself to sudden changes of mind on Trump’s part, which is an obstacle to “deal making” with foreign leaders, who are unable to fully trust anything Trump says.

By contrast, Putin is anything but the “dictator” that the West likes to portray him as. Instead, the Russian policy and decision making process is based on the concept of developing a consensus within the Security Council of Russia. This can lead to a slower decision making process, but it also presents a united front of formally articulated policy positions. Thus, when Putin speaks, he is representing the considered opinions of the military, the intelligence agencies, and the political leadership. He has the weight of the full government consciously behind him, acting in coordinated fashion.

I agree with those who believe that, at a minimum, Trump’s outbursts reflect the reality that he has essentially no leverage over Putin and—due to threatening economic realities—is in much more of a hurry to settle with Russia than Russia is to settle with Trump. To those who argue that Trump’s bluster and threats are just his public negotiating style, I would respond that there is no sign so far that this approach has had positive results in any international situation so far. In fact, in the case of China, there was a serious backfire that resulted from this blustering approach. China’s Xi is reported to have refused to speak with Trump because of Trump’s rhetoric directed at China. That is not a good development, given China’s continued rise—as discussed yesterday: Not So SWIFT Any More?. Trump needs to talk to other world leaders, and alienating Xi to that extent is not helpful.

Is the same thing happening with Putin? Putin hasn’t lowered himself to Trump’s level in the wake of Trump’s weekend outburst. Why should he? He and the Security Council know where they’re going, they’ve thought their position through and Trumpian outbursts change nothing for them. Moreover, the assassination attempt on Putin—which could only have occurred with NATO assistance—has probably destroyed what little trust remained with regard to Trump. However, Putin has now responded indirectly, with the support of various heads of government agencies:

Kremlin Issues Outline Of Putin's Truce Demands, Warns "Peace Tomorrow Will Be Even More Painful"

In other words, if Trump was deluded enough to believe that cheap “tough guy” jabber would force Putin to make concessions, he couldn’t have been more wrong.

Today Sergey Naryshkin, who heads Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, set the tone:

Russia can’t afford to be weak – spy chief

The country is the linchpin of security in Eurasia and the whole world, Sergey Naryshkin has said

Russia is a key pillar of Eurasian security and thus cannot afford to be weak, the head of the country’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergey Naryshkin, has stated.

Addressing the attendees of an international security conference in Moscow on Wednesday, Naryshkin said that “Russia has no right to be weak… [and] to abandon its own values and pursue the chimera of totalitarian liberalism and globalism.”

According to Naryshkin, “history teaches us that the security on the Eurasian continent and ultimately the whole world depends on Russia’s firm standing.”

But then multiple Russian sources outlined Putin’s terms for peace. I would caution that my understanding is that these terms are in addition to the already enunciated conditions for any ceasefire, which included recognition of Russian territorial claims. Recall that, after the recent meeting in Istanbul, Putin stated that Russia would develop a memorandum setting out terms for peace. But it is my understanding that there will be no ceasefire unless the previously enunciated conditions are met. What that means is that, if the conditions for a ceasefire are not met—and those conditions amount to something close to unconditional surrender, in practice—the terms for peace will continue to shift as the battlefield reality continues to develop—in Russia’s favor. With that in mind, Russia issued what amounts to an ultimatum: Agree to our terms for peace today, or peace tomorrow will be even more painful. Here it is. Please note, these are not terms that are up for negotiation. These are the bare minimum.

Amid this backdrop, one senior Russian source has told Reuters in a Wednesday report that "Putin is ready to make peace but not at any price."

Multiple Russian sources cited in the reaport said Putin wants a "written" pledge by major Western powers not to enlarge the NATO military alliance eastward. This is being taken to mean he's asking to West to formal ruling out ever extending membership to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.

These written guarantees and other conditions have been spelled out in English-language Russian state media as follows:

• Ukraine’s permanent neutrality

• Partial sanctions relief for Russia

• Return of frozen Russian assets

• Protections for Ukraine’s Russian-speaking people

And then an or else was offered as part of the ultimatum. While not officially issued by the Kremlin, this appears some very intentional signaling by Putin officials. It was conveyed via the Reuters report:

The first source said that, if Putin realizes he is unable to reach a peace deal on his own terms, he will seek to show the Ukrainians and the Europeans through military strength that "peace tomorrow will be even more painful."

I read that as Putin flipping off Trump. You wanna see something REALLY BAD? Even more painful? FAFO.