Zelenskyy’s letter to Putin was built to provoke rejection — Grevtsova

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin was written in a rather harsh and provocative tone. Moreover, it contained elements that could be interpreted as threats. Such wording is hardly conducive to preparing a meeting at the highest level.

This view was expressed in a comment to News.Az by Russian political scientist and Deputy Director of the Institute for Political Studies, Darya Grevtsova.

According to her, speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Vladimir Putin effectively concluded that the letter was aimed not so much at arranging direct talks between the two presidents as at creating conditions under which such a meeting could not take place.

The purpose of this political move may have been to present Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the international community as a party allegedly seeking direct dialogue, while portraying Vladimir Putin as a leader refusing negotiations. At the same time, the content and tone of the message were likely designed from the outset to ensure that the Russian president would reject the proposal.

At the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin gave the letter a rather tough assessment. At the same time, he did not rule out the possibility of a meeting between the presidents of Russia and Ukraine. However, according to his position, such talks should be the result of preliminary work conducted at other levels.

This would involve reaching concrete agreements between the two countries’ foreign ministries, defence ministries and security services. Only after the main parameters of a possible settlement had been agreed could a personal meeting between the presidents serve as a mechanism for formally endorsing decisions already reached.

However, an obvious contradiction emerges. On the one hand, Zelenskyy sends a letter proposing a summit-level meeting. On the other hand, contacts and negotiations with Russian representatives at the level of foreign ministries, defence agencies and other state institutions remain effectively blocked.

It is precisely the absence of full-fledged dialogue at the working and diplomatic levels that prevents the creation of a genuine framework for agreements between Russia and Ukraine, including discussions on the conditions for ending the conflict. Under such circumstances, the proposal for a presidential meeting risks remaining primarily a political and informational gesture rather than becoming part of a practical negotiation process.

At present, European countries apparently believe that an opportunity has emerged to intensify pressure on Russia. This assessment is linked to several factors.

First and foremost, Ukraine has been carrying out strikes using long-range drones against Russian oil refineries, energy infrastructure facilities, tankers and other targets of significance to the energy sector. Such attacks are creating additional economic and logistical difficulties for Russia.

In addition, the Ukrainian side has managed to complicate movement along the Melitopol–Crimea route. This has created problems with the transportation of fuel, goods and other cargo, as well as supplies to territories under Russian control.

Another factor has been medium-range drone strikes against transport infrastructure, including passenger buses and railway services in the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. As a result, traffic on certain routes was temporarily suspended, creating serious difficulties for civilian transportation and the supply of cities.

European capitals also believe that the active use of medium- and short-range drones has enabled Ukraine to slow the advance of Russian forces. However, Vladimir Putin, speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, stated that the Russian offensive had not been halted and was continuing across various directions and sectors of the front.

Another reason for European optimism is the perceived weakening of the Russian economy. Western countries expect that sanctions pressure, military expenditure and attacks on infrastructure could lead to a deterioration in the economic situation, growing public discontent and stronger protest sentiment within the country. The most radical forecasts even suggest the possibility of serious destabilisation of the Russian economy.

At the same time, the United States has, in effect, stepped back from its previous role as the main mediator in the Russia–Ukraine conflict. Against this background, European states are seeking to fill the resulting vacuum and present themselves as new facilitators of a possible negotiation process.

However, Moscow does not view Europe as a neutral mediator. From Russia’s perspective, European states are not outside observers but direct participants in the conflict, as they provide Ukraine with military, financial and political support.

Therefore, Russia is likely to insist that any possible mediation be conducted by a country that is not involved in the confrontation and maintains working relations with all parties. From Moscow’s point of view, Europe does not meet these criteria.

News.Az