Murat SofuogluRussian President Vladimir Putin surprised many, including a large segment of the Russian public, on the country’s Victory Day by suggesting that “the matter is coming to an end”, referring to the war in Ukraine.
Despite sustained pressure from US President Donald Trump, Putin has shown little consistent interest in signing a peace deal with Kiev.
Some analysts argue that increasing geopolitical tensions—from Gaza to Lebanon and the Iran conflict—have bolstered Moscow’s strategic stance against Ukraine and the West.
These tensions have also strengthened Russia's alliances with Beijing and Tehran as US/Israeli war on Iran has helped Russian energy revenues rise due to global restraints to reach oil and gas sources in the Gulf.
Against this backdrop, Putin’s suggestion that he could even meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whom he has repeatedly vilified, in a “third country” to finalise a peace deal has raised questions.
So why is Putin now signalling openness to an endgame in the war?
Experts suggest that internal factors, not international shifts, might be influencing the change in rhetoric.
Recent surveys indicate growing war weariness in Russia, with a historic 67.2 percent supporting peace talks, while only 24.3 percent support continuing the conflict.
In February, a Russian Academy of Sciences survey also highlighted declining morale amid rising casualties, noting “pronounced anxiety and depressive symptoms” among respondents.
By April, Russia had reportedly suffered more than 35,000 casualties in a single month, underscoring the mounting psychological and social strain of the conflict.
“Sustaining the military efforts to achieve Russia’s political goals in Ukraine becomes more and more difficult, not to say practically impossible, with the problems of recruiting new soldiers and carrying out successful operations more than complicated,” Denys Kolesnyk, a Paris-based political analyst, tells TRT World.
“Moscow didn’t manage to achieve what it wanted.”
Domestic limits
Putin’s statement came during a three-day US-backed ceasefire period tied to Russia’s Victory Day commemorations. This year’s celebrations appear more subdued than in previous years, which some attribute to Moscow’s efforts to avoid potential disruption from Ukrainian drone attacks.
Ukraine’s deep air strikes create significant challenges for Russia and its economy, which is also a growing concern for ordinary Russians, the analyst tells TRT World.
Putin’s peace statement also comes at a sensitive time, with security in Moscow reportedly tightened amid fears of coups or possible assassination attempts, according to Western intelligence and media reports.
“He is feeling the weight of domestic pressure on the overdue war in Ukraine. Too many soldiers are being lost to gain too little territory. So, Putin would be satisfied with the territory gained so far, with the cessation of hostilities,” Ricardo Martins, a policy analyst specialising in international affairs and geopolitics, tells TRT World.
“Like Trump in Iran, Putin is looking for an end to this war, and putting it on the agenda of the Trump-Xi summit this week, he believes to have a broader concerted camp to counter Ukraine-Europe’s side in the negotiations.
“Even a frozen conflict over the actual lines – in the Korean style – would be convenient for him if the negotiations fail.”
Foggy times
Throughout the war, Putin faced not only unexpected Ukrainian resistance backed and armed by the West but also a Wagner march led by the late Yevgeny Prigozhin on the capital, apparently aimed at changing parts of the Russian government.
At the time, some analysts argued that Prigozhin’s mutiny reflected not only Wagner’s grievances but also broader frustration among Russian elites with the management and direction of the war.
But Putin, who has survived numerous political and intelligence crises throughout his career, may now also be looking to seize an opportunity to end the war, according to experts.
They point to shifting global dynamics, including the Iran war, which they say has exposed the limits of US global influence and deepened a growing trust deficit between the Trump administration and Europe on issues ranging from the Strait of Hormuz to the Ukraine war.
“Putin's tone seeks to strike a balance between the demands of his domestic policy (to show tangible results of the war to Russian society) and to demonstrate to the collective West that there is a place for dialogue, and that Russia is not looking for an offensive war to redraw the map of Europe,” Juan Martin Cabanas, a Moscow-based political analyst, tells TRT World.
In 2025, Moscow rejected Trump’s proposal for a trilateral meeting of the US, Russian and Ukrainian leaders — a format Putin is now openly suggesting as a possibility.
“It’s not clear why Vladimir Putin is saying this at this particular time. No official explanation has come to clarify his statement yet,” says Sergei Markov, a former advisor to Putin and a leading Russian academic, highlighting the surprise within Russian political circles.
While Putin does not trust the West, Markov suggests the Russian leader may be signalling goodwill.
“Maybe with his recent statement, Putin wants to show that peace is possible from the Russian perspective, but if Ukraine escalates and Europeans support this, the continuation of the war can not be blamed on Moscow,” Markov tells TRT World.
Could peace finally come?
Before Putin’s ceasefire announcement, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also proposed his own ceasefire on May 6, signalling that both sides are not only engaged in military confrontation but also in a parallel race of diplomatic gestures aimed at shaping perceptions of who holds the initiative, either in war or in peace.
Despite Putin’s rare peace signalling, experts remain cautious about the prospect of a near-term end to the conflict.
Beyond deep mutual mistrust, Markov suggests that European states may be preparing to target Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, which transports sanctioned oil exports. He also argues that Ukraine could be planning new waves of drone strikes against Russian territory, potentially launched from Baltic and Polish-linked routes.
Amid ongoing Russia–Europe tensions, the Financial Times reported last week that Brussels is considering renewed contacts with Putin, a possibility also being communicated to Kiev raising the prospect that Moscow and EU leadership could still find a negotiating channel.
Putin, meanwhile, has pointed to former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder as a possible intermediary capable of engaging directly with him.
By suggesting Schroder as the European negotiator, Putin aims to secure “a more amiable counterpart at the table,” according to Martins, who says EU leaders such as Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission President, and Kaja Kallas, Brussels’s top diplomat, are “too ideologically anti-Russia-driven to cut any possible deal.”
However, Martins argues that Brussels could still be drawn into Ukraine-related negotiations, noting that Putin’s reference to Schroder and the negative immediate reactions it triggered in Europe suggest the EU risks being sidelined from any eventual peace framework.
Other analysts are similarly sceptical about the EU’s potential role as a mediator.
“I don't believe Europeans will be great mediators. Within Europe itself, there are strong proponents of an aggressive policy towards Russia, and they continue to advocate for this. Currently, there is no European leader from a ‘strong country’ who advocates for or actually implements measures to ease tensions with Russia,” Cabanas says.
As Cabanas notes, there is no unified European approach to Russia. While countries such as Belgium and France argue that Europe should either open a channel with the Kremlin or secure a seat at any US–Russia peace talks, others continue to advocate a harder line against Moscow.
“Europeans can not be mediators because they are alongside Ukraine, but they can be participants in peace talks,” Markov says. But he doubts the EU can reach a durable agreement with Russia, especially as Trump’s US distances itself from Europe, which in turn is pushing to heavily arm Ukraine as a long-term military buffer against Moscow.
What is the best scenario?
The grinding war, marked by heavy human casualties and rising economic costs, has produced what many analysts describe as an effective stalemate across multiple fronts, from the Black Sea to eastern Ukraine, with no clear short-term victory for either side.
“It is difficult to say, but as of today the most probable scenario seems to be a lose-lose situation for both sides, with Russia being a lesser loser since it would most likely keep de facto control over some parts of de jure Ukrainian territories,” says Kolesnyk.
However, he argues that such an outcome would not resolve the conflict, but instead risk freezing it temporarily and laying the groundwork for renewed hostilities in the future. “It could be months or years before a new war between Russia and Ukraine starts without NATO membership for Ukraine,” he predicts.
“By all means, any ceasefire would only freeze and postpone the conflict, while a peace treaty that would provide Russia with de jure control over parts of Ukrainian territories would mark the end of an already dying world order and, therefore, dangerous for European security.”
Yet even a formal Russian acquisition of legal control over some occupied territories may fall short of what parts of the Russian establishment consider acceptable.
Markov, a former Putin adviser, is among those arguing that the Kremlin has not achieved its core objectives in Ukraine, citing the continued presence of Russian-speaking populations under Kiev’s control, Ukraine’s ongoing military capacity, and its unresolved orientation towards Western institutions such as NATO and the EU.
He also argues that this situation ‘compromises Russian security’. In addition, he notes that Russia has not secured full control over the annexed territories, including Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
From this perspective, Markov suggests that the most viable end-state would be political normalisation between Kiev and Moscow, resembling the period before 2014, with Ukraine maintaining friendly relations with Russia and abandoning any prospect of joining NATO or other Western alliances.
But even in this scenario, he argues, annexed territories would still remain under Russian control. As long as Kiev were under a government with a similar philosophy to Zelenskyy, Moscow would reject any settlement that leaves key Black Sea regions, including Odessa and other strategically important areas like Kharkiv with large Russian-speaking populations, under the Ukrainian leadership, he adds.
