Putin doubles the position of the Ukrainian war after the Beijing meeting

Sometimes it is not what is said that makes the greatest impression.

This is the reaction.

In the Russian Far East, Vladimir Putin offered a warning to the West: do not even think of sending soldiers – and that includes peacekeepers – to Ukraine.

“If some troops appear there,” said the Russian president, “especially now while the fighting takes place, we are premise that these will be legitimate objectives of destruction.”

Then the reaction.

The public of the Vladivostok Economic Forum broke out in applause, Russian officials and business leaders apparently welcomed the threat of “destroying” Western troops.

By observing the scene in the corridor, I found the applause quite frightening.

And it came a day after the kyiv allies, the so-called coalition of The Will, had promised a post-war “comfort force” for Ukraine.

The public again applauded when the chief of the Kremlin suggested that he would be ready to meet the Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky – but only on the soil at home.

“The best place for this is the Russian capital, in Hero City Moscow,” said Putin.

Apart from Russia, Putin’s proposal has been rejected as unresalized, a complete non-starter. A case of political trained fishing.

But in many ways, it summarizes the current position of the Kremlin on the war in Ukraine: “Yes, we want peace, but only according to our conditions. You reject our terms? No peace then.”

This without compromise position is fueled by a combination of factors.

First, by the conviction of the Kremlin according to which, in Ukraine, the Russian forces have the initiative on the battlefield.

Second, by diplomatic success. In China this week, Putin shook her hand and shared smiles with a series of world leaders. The optics aimed to demonstrate that Russia has powerful friends, such as China, India and North Korea.

And then there is America. Last month, US President Donald Trump invited Putin to Alaska for a summit meeting. Back Home’s pro-Kremlin commentators praised the event as proof that Western efforts to isolate Russia during the war in Ukraine had failed.

To convince the Kremlin to end the fighting, Trump previously established ultimatums and deadlines; He threatened with new sanctions if Russia does not make peace.

But Trump did not follow his threats – and that is another reason for the confidence of Russia.

Putin publicly praises Trump’s peace efforts. And yet, he rejected Trump’s ceasefire proposals and has not shown any desire to make war in Ukraine.

So where does that leave perspectives of peace?

Putin recently said that he could see “the light at the end of the tunnel”.

It seems to me that Russia, on the one hand, and Ukraine and Europe (and, to a certain extent, America), on the other hand, are in different tunnels, on different roads, with different destinations.

Ukraine and Europe are focusing on the end of the fighting, shaping the security guarantees for kyiv and ensuring that the Ukrainian army is strong enough from the war to prevent another invasion.

When Putin speaks of “light at the end of the tunnel”, I think he imagines a path that leads to a Russian victory in Ukraine, and more broadly, to the construction of a new world order which benefits Russia.

In terms of peace, it is difficult to see where and when these two very different highways converge.