By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following my call with Chancellor Scholz, I reiterated Russia’s justification for the Ukraine conflict as a response to NATO’s aggressive policies and the need to incorporate “new territorial realities” into any negotiations. I emphasized that Russia has never refused negotiations, but only on our terms. Regrettably, our conversation highlighted the deterioration of Russo-German relations due to Berlin’s unfriendly actions. Our assistants will maintain contact following this discussion.
Read the original article here
The Kremlin’s statement following the Scholz-Putin conversation reveals a series of accusations and demands, rather than clear-cut ultimatums. Putin essentially blamed Germany and NATO for the war in Ukraine, framing it as a response to a long-term aggressive policy aimed at creating an anti-Russian foothold in Ukraine. This narrative conveniently ignores Russia’s own history of aggression, including the 2014 invasion of Crimea.
The Kremlin’s account paints a picture of Putin as a wronged party, forced to act defensively. He reportedly claimed he’d always been open to negotiation, but only on Russia’s terms, incorporating the “new territorial realities” – the areas Russia has illegally occupied in Ukraine. This suggests a fundamental unwillingness to compromise or acknowledge any wrongdoing. The lack of specificity regarding what constitutes acceptable “new territorial realities” further underlines this stance.
Putin’s accusations against NATO’s policies feel deliberately vague and unsubstantiated. The suggestion of a deliberate, long-term strategy to encircle Russia rings hollow, especially considering the open nature of NATO’s membership process. The claim is further undercut by Russia’s own aggressive actions, including the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which hardly reflects a defensive posture. These actions stand in stark contrast to the purportedly non-aggressive policies he claims to support.
The statement also mentions the deteriorated relationship between Russia and Germany, blaming the German government for its “unfriendly course.” This further solidifies the victim narrative, casting Russia as unjustly targeted rather than the aggressor. It’s a clear attempt to shift responsibility and deflect criticism for the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Ukraine.
The conversation’s conclusion – that assistants would remain in contact – hints at a lack of concrete progress or meaningful concessions from either side. It suggests that Putin’s primary goal was to reiterate his justifications for the war, attempting to gain legitimacy for his actions rather than engaging in good-faith negotiations.
The Kremlin’s portrayal of the conversation omits any specific ultimatums. Instead, it presents a litany of accusations, justifications, and demands. This points to a clear strategy: maintaining the narrative that Russia is the victim, while simultaneously demanding concessions as the price of peace. The lack of defined demands or consequences, however, casts doubt on the sincerity of Putin’s claims about a willingness to negotiate. The entire exchange seems designed to reinforce Russia’s narrative, rather than to achieve any realistic resolution.
The “new territorial realities” claim further emphasizes this lack of sincerity. The concept is fundamentally unacceptable, as it would reward aggression and set a dangerous precedent for future conflicts. The Kremlin’s willingness to discuss peace only on these terms is a clear indication that it is not genuinely interested in a peaceful resolution, but rather in securing its illegal territorial gains. Any suggestion of negotiating based on these realities is a non-starter, as it would legitimize Russia’s violation of international law and Ukraine’s sovereignty. The entire conversation appears as a strategic attempt by Putin to present a deceptive image of himself as being open to negotiation while, in reality, his aim is to secure his illegal gains and consolidate his narrative.
Ultimately, the Kremlin’s “reveal” of Putin’s statements to Scholz appears to be little more than a propaganda exercise, aimed at strengthening Russia’s narrative and further isolating itself from international condemnation. The lack of concrete ultimatums and the blatant disregard for international law only serve to underscore the deep chasm separating Russia from the rest of the world. This narrative, however carefully constructed, is unlikely to sway international opinion or provide a path towards a just and lasting peace. The international community continues to firmly stand against Russia’s invasion, demanding accountability for their actions and a complete withdrawal from Ukrainian territory.