MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin declared Thursday that Russia will secure complete control of Ukraine’s Donbas region through military conquest unless Ukrainian forces withdraw from remaining territories, simultaneously characterizing his marathon negotiations with American envoys as productive yet acknowledging substantial disagreements remain over proposed peace framework provisions.
Putin dispatched tens of thousands of troops into Ukraine during February 2022 following eight years of combat between Russian-backed separatist forces and Ukrainian military units in the Donbas, which comprises the Donetsk and Luhansk regions that have been contested since 2014 when pro-Russian insurgencies erupted following Ukraine’s Euromaidan revolution.
“Either we liberate these territories by force of arms, or Ukrainian troops leave these territories,” Putin told India Today ahead of a visit to New Delhi, according to clips broadcast on Russian state television, presenting Ukraine with a stark ultimatum that Kyiv has categorically rejected as tantamount to rewarding Russian aggression.
Reuters reported that Ukraine insists it will not surrender its own territory that Moscow has failed to conquer on the battlefield, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy asserting Moscow should not be rewarded for a war it initiated through unprovoked invasion. The fundamental disagreement over territorial concessions represents the central obstacle to any negotiated settlement between the warring parties.
Russia currently controls 19.2 percent of Ukraine’s territory, including Crimea which it annexed in 2014, all of Luhansk region, more than 80 percent of Donetsk, approximately 75 percent of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, and portions of the Kharkiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv and Dnipropetrovsk regions. About 5,000 square kilometers of Donetsk remains under Ukrainian government control, representing the territory Putin demands Ukraine relinquish.
In discussions with the United States concerning the outline of a possible peace arrangement to terminate the war, Russia has consistently insisted it requires control over the entirety of Donbas, additionally demanding that the United States informally recognize Moscow’s territorial gains. This position creates fundamental tension with Ukrainian sovereignty principles and international law governing territorial acquisition through military force.
Russia in 2022 proclaimed that the Ukrainian regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia were now part of Russia following referenda that Western nations and Kyiv dismissed as fraudulent. Most countries recognize these regions, along with Crimea, as integral parts of Ukraine under international law, refusing to legitimize territorial changes accomplished through military aggression.
Putin received United States envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in the Kremlin on Tuesday for extensive negotiations, subsequently stating that Russia had accepted some American proposals on Ukraine while emphasizing that talks should continue. Russia’s RIA state news agency cited Putin as characterizing his meeting with Witkoff and Kushner as “very useful” and noting it was based on proposals he and President Donald Trump had discussed in Alaska during August.
According to the Associated Press, Russian President Vladimir Putin described his five-hour talks with United States envoys on ending the war in Ukraine as “necessary” and “useful” but also “difficult work,” with some of the proposals unacceptable to the Kremlin. The lengthy duration of the negotiations and Putin’s characterization suggests substantive engagement rather than merely ceremonial diplomatic theater.
Putin spoke to the India Today television channel ahead of his visit to New Delhi on Thursday, and while the full interview has yet to be broadcast, Russian state news agencies Tass and RIA Novosti quoted portions of Putin’s remarks. The Russian leader’s comments arrive as United States President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner are scheduled to meet with Ukraine’s lead negotiator Rustem Umerov on Thursday in Miami for further discussions, according to a senior Trump administration official who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The high-stakes talks constitute part of Trump’s renewed push to terminate the nearly four-year war that has killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions, and reshaped European security architecture. The peace effort has recently gathered momentum, even though reconciling Russia’s and Ukraine’s “red lines” still appears to be an uphill battle given the fundamentally incompatible positions on territorial control and security guarantees.
Trump stated Wednesday that Witkoff and Kushner emerged from their marathon session with Putin in the Kremlin confident that he desires to find an end to the war. “Their impression was very strongly that he’d like to make a deal,” Trump declared, characterizing Putin’s posture as potentially receptive to negotiated settlement despite Russia’s maximalist territorial demands.
Tass quoted Putin as stating in the interview that at the talks in the Kremlin, the sides “had to go through each point” of the United States peace proposal, “which is why it took so long.” The point-by-point examination suggests detailed substantive negotiation rather than general discussions of principles, indicating the talks have advanced to specific implementation mechanisms.
“This was a necessary conversation, a very concrete one,” the Russian president stated, characterizing the engagement as operationally focused rather than merely exploratory. There were provisions that Moscow indicated it was prepared to discuss, while others “we can’t agree to,” Putin acknowledged, revealing the negotiations involve both areas of potential compromise and fundamental disagreements.
“There were these provisions, we discussed them, it’s difficult work,” he added, emphasizing the complexity of bridging positions between parties with dramatically different starting points and conflicting strategic objectives.
Tass reported that Putin was asked whether the 28-point peace plan drafted by the United States remains relevant, to which the Russian president replied that those provisions were indeed discussed during the Kremlin meeting. “They just divided these 28, I think 27, points into four packages,” Putin was quoted as saying. “And they proposed that we discuss these four packages. But essentially, they are the same (provisions).”
It remains unclear whether Putin meant that the Kremlin talks covered the version of the plan before it was amended following United States-Ukraine talks in Geneva last weekend, or whether the restructured format represented attempts to make the comprehensive proposal more digestible by organizing it into thematic clusters addressing different aspects of a potential settlement.
Putin’s aide Yuri Ushakov stated earlier this week that several documents were being discussed at the talks, suggesting the negotiation encompasses multiple frameworks or variations rather than a single take-it-or-leave-it proposal. “At first there was one version, then this version was revised, and instead of one document, a few more appeared,” Ushakov explained, indicating iterative diplomatic process responding to feedback from various parties.
Putin refused to elaborate on details regarding what Russia could agree to and what it finds unacceptable, maintaining operational security around negotiating positions. None of the officials involved in the negotiations has offered detailed disclosure of the talks’ substance, preserving flexibility for continued diplomatic maneuvering.
“I think it is premature. Because it could simply disrupt the working regime” of the peace effort, Tass quoted Putin as saying, justifying confidentiality as necessary to protect delicate diplomatic progress from public pressure or posturing that might harden positions.
The Russian leader added that Washington is engaged in “shuttle diplomacy,” moving between parties to identify areas of potential compromise and bridge gaps between incompatible positions. “They spoke to the Europeans, then came to us, then they have another meeting with the Ukrainians and the Europeans,” he described, outlining the multi-party choreography necessary to craft arrangements acceptable to all stakeholders.
Russian barrages of civilian areas of Ukraine continued overnight into Thursday despite ongoing peace negotiations, demonstrating that diplomatic engagement has not translated into battlefield restraint or protection of non-combatants. A ballistic missile struck Kryvyi Rih on Wednesday night, injuring six people including a 3-year-old girl, according to city administration head Oleksandr Vilkul.
He reported the strike damaged over 40 residential buildings, a school and domestic gas pipes in the city, which is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s hometown, potentially carrying symbolic significance in targeting the president’s place of origin while his representatives engage in peace discussions.
A 6-year-old girl died in Kherson, a southern port city, after Russian artillery shelling injured her the previous day. “Doctors fought until the very end to save her life, but her injuries were too severe,” regional military administration chief Oleksandr Prokudin wrote on Telegram, highlighting the human toll that continues accumulating while diplomats negotiate in distant capitals.
Russia also struck Odesa with drones, injuring six people, while civilian and energy infrastructure sustained damage, said the head of the regional military administration Oleh Kiper. The targeting of energy infrastructure represents a consistent Russian strategy aimed at degrading Ukrainian civilian morale and capabilities during winter months when heating and electricity become essential for survival.
Overall, Russia fired two ballistic missiles and 138 drones of various types at Ukraine overnight, officials stated, demonstrating sustained military pressure even as Moscow engages in peace negotiations. The simultaneous pursuit of military objectives and diplomatic dialogue reflects a negotiating strategy that maintains pressure while exploring settlement options.
The disconnect between diplomatic rhetoric about productive negotiations and continued large-scale attacks on civilian populations illustrates the complexity of the peace process. Russia appears to be negotiating from a position of strength while maintaining military pressure intended to degrade Ukrainian resistance and force territorial concessions that battlefield results alone have not achieved.
Putin’s insistence on complete Donbas control represents a maximalist position that Ukraine has consistently rejected. Zelenskyy’s government argues that surrendering territory would reward Russian aggression, establish dangerous precedent for future conflicts, and fail to provide sustainable security guarantees against renewed Russian military action after any settlement.
The territorial question extends beyond the immediate military situation to encompass broader principles of international order. Western nations supporting Ukraine argue that accepting territorial changes accomplished through military force would undermine the post-World War II international system based on sovereign equality and prohibition against conquest. Russia contends it is protecting Russian-speaking populations and correcting historical injustices from the Soviet Union’s collapse.
The involvement of Trump’s personal envoys rather than traditional State Department diplomats reflects the president’s transactional approach to foreign policy and desire for personal credit for any breakthrough. Critics question whether bypassing institutional expertise serves negotiation effectiveness or whether Trump’s personal relationships with Putin might lead to pressure on Ukraine to accept unfavorable terms.
The 28-point American proposal reportedly addresses multiple dimensions including territorial arrangements, security guarantees, sanctions relief, reconstruction financing, and mechanisms for implementing and verifying compliance. The division into four thematic packages suggests attempts to create sequenced agreements that build trust through incremental progress rather than requiring comprehensive simultaneous resolution of all contentious issues.
Ukraine’s fundamental concern involves security guarantees that would prevent Russia from using any settlement as an opportunity to reconstitute forces before launching renewed aggression. Previous agreements including the Minsk accords failed to produce sustainable peace, making Ukrainian leadership skeptical about Russian commitments absent robust enforcement mechanisms and consequences for violations.
European nations face difficult choices between supporting Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity versus pressure to end a conflict generating energy costs, refugee flows, and security risks. Different European countries maintain varying positions based on geography, historical relationships with Russia, and domestic political considerations, complicating unified Western negotiating positions.
The peace process remains in early stages despite recent diplomatic intensity. Bridging the gap between Russian demands for territorial control and Ukrainian insistence on sovereignty and territorial integrity requires creative solutions that neither side has yet demonstrated willingness to accept. The continued violence even during negotiations underscores how far the parties remain from genuine settlement.
AP/Reuters
