“Legally Impossible”: Putin Challenges Kyiv’s Legitimacy Amid Talks

In a move that adds a layer of legal complexity to the ongoing war, Russian President Vladimir Putin has declared that signing a peace deal with the current Ukrainian administration is “legally impossible.” Speaking to the press, Putin argued that because President Volodymyr Zelensky’s elected term has expired without new elections, his leadership is illegitimate. This assertion throws a wrench into the peace process, even as Moscow signals a willingness to engage with a peace plan brokered by the United States.
While Putin expressed general agreement with the Trump-backed proposal as a foundation for talks, he paired his diplomatic openness with hardline military threats. He insisted that for fighting to cease, Ukrainian troops must retreat from territories they currently defend. This ultimatum suggests that while Russia is open to the idea of a US-led plan, its conditions on the ground remain inflexible and maximalist, demanding surrender of land under the guise of negotiation.
The peace plan itself has evolved rapidly. Initially criticized as a “wish list” for the Kremlin, it included provisions for Ukraine to cede the Donbas, reduce its military, and abandon NATO ambitions. However, reports indicate that the draft has been balanced somewhat after European allies interceded, reducing the document from 28 to 19 points. Despite this, the core tension remains: Russia wants recognition of its gains, while Ukraine fights for its survival.
The arrival of Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, in Moscow next week highlights the urgency of these discussions. Yet, the disconnect is palpable. Russian officials are preparing to talk to American representatives while simultaneously denying the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government they expect to capitulate. This strategy appears designed to isolate Kyiv diplomatically while maintaining military pressure.
On the ground, the conflict continues to claim lives and destroy infrastructure. The recent drone strikes in Zaporizhzhia serve as a grim counterpoint to the diplomatic maneuvering. As the world watches to see if the revised plan can yield results, the fundamental question remains: how can a peace deal be signed if one party refuses to acknowledge the other’s right to exist as a sovereign government?