Russian Security Council Secretary Dmitry Medvedev stated on April 29 that Russia’s war in Ukraine must end in Russian “victory” and the “destruction” of the current Ukrainian government.[1] Senior Kremlin officials continue to signal that Russia has greater territorial ambitions than just the occupied areas of Ukraine, particularly in areas bordering the Black Sea. Russian Presidential Aide and former Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev claimed in an interview with Kremlin newswire TASS published on April 29 that Ukrainian civilians, particularly those living in the Black Sea region, must “determine their own future.”[2] Patrushev specifically noted that Odesa City spent over two centuries as the Russian Empire’s and Soviet Union’s outpost in the Black Sea and claimed that Odesa City residents have “nothing in common” with the current Ukrainian government. These statements are a reference to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s 2023 claim that Ukrainians living in the Black Sea region have nothing “to do with Ukraine” and that Odesa is a “Russian city” and follows Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s April 14, 2025 claim that the Ukrainian government “does not represent” residents of Odesa City and other Ukrainian territories.[3] Patrushev claimed that Russia “respects the will of the [Ukrainian] people” and attempted to justify Russia’s illegal annexation of occupied Crimea, Donbas, and “Novorossiya” — an invented region in Ukraine which the Kremlin has claimed includes all of eastern and southern Ukraine and is an “integral” part of Russia.[4] Medvedev also claimed that the current Ukrainian government does not speak for the Ukrainian people.[5] Medvedev’s and Patrushev’s statements reference the longstanding Kremlin demand for regime change in Ukraine with the installation of a pro-Russian puppet government that could struggle to oppose or even support the Kremlin’s goal to occupy more territory in Ukraine at a later time of the Kremlin’s choosing.[6]
Senior Russian officials reiterated the longstanding, false Russian narrative that the Ukrainian government is illegitimate, likely in order to set conditions to manipulate ceasefire negotiations and renege on any future Russian-Ukrainian agreements at a time of Russia’s choosing. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov claimed on April 29 that the “illegitimacy” of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s presidency would create legal difficulties in direct peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, but that Russia is more interested in starting negotiations and “everything else is secondary.”[7] Peskov claimed on April 24 that Russia would restart its war should “people…question the legitimacy” of Zelensky and stated that Russia has “no confidence” in the Ukrainian government.[8] Putin and other senior Russian officials have repeatedly claimed that all Ukrainian governments since 2014 are “illegitimate” and that Russia would not view any agreements concluded with the current Ukrainian government as binding.[9] Putin and other Russian officials have similarly claimed that Zelensky is illegitimate because Ukraine did not hold presidential elections in 2024, and have additionally alleged that all Ukrainian civil authorities are therefore illegitimate since the president appoints regional officials.[10] The Ukrainian Constitution explicitly prohibits elections during periods of martial law and invasion by a hostile country, however.[11] The Kremlin is deliberately coupling its purported interest in Russian-Ukrainian peace negotiations with its false narrative of Zelensky’s illegitimacy in order to set conditions for Russia to claim that any future peace settlement that Russia signs with Zelensky is illegitimate, to renege on the agreement, and relaunch the invasion at the time of Russia’s choosing. Any long-term peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine must include Russia’s explicit recognition of the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian Constitution.
Russian officials are setting conditions to baselessly accuse Ukraine of violating Russia’s unilateral May 8 to 11 ceasefire, as the Kremlin has done during previous ceasefires, while rejecting Ukraine’s proposal for a 30-day ceasefire. Lavrov claimed on April 29 that the May 8 to 11 ceasefire will be the “beginning of direct negotiations, without preconditions,” but stated that Russia considers the US- and Ukrainian-proposed 30-day ceasefire to be a “precondition.”[12] Lavrov reiterated Putin’s rejection of the US- and Ukrainian-proposed longer-term ceasefires, claiming that Russia cannot accept any longer-term ceasefire since such ceasefires require extensive monitoring measures. Lavrov stated that Russia does not think “honest” monitoring is possible during a 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov claimed on April 29 that the Ukrainian government does not have full control over all Ukrainian military units and will be unable to guarantee that Ukrainian forces adhere to the May 8 to 11 ceasefire.[13] Putin similarly declared a unilateral Easter ceasefire in mid-April 2025, and Russia has consistently accused Ukraine of violating previous ceasefires while rarely offering evidence supporting these accusations.[14] Ukraine — unlike Russia — supports US President Donald Trump’s proposals for a 30-day temporary ceasefire or more permanent ceasefires.[15] ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin is leveraging unilateral ceasefires to achieve informational and battlefield advantages in Ukraine and to maintain the illusion that Russia is interested in meaningful peace negotiations.[16]
Key Takeaways:
- Russian Security Council Secretary Dmitry Medvedev stated on April 29 that Russia’s war in Ukraine must end in Russian “victory” and the “destruction” of the current Ukrainian government. Senior Kremlin officials continue to signal that Russia has greater territorial ambitions than just the occupied areas of Ukraine, particularly in areas bordering the Black Sea.
- Senior Russian officials reiterated the longstanding, false Russian narrative that the Ukrainian government is illegitimate, likely in order to set conditions to manipulate ceasefire negotiations and renege on any future Russian-Ukrainian agreements at a time of Russia’s choosing.
- Russian officials are setting conditions to baselessly accuse Ukraine of violating Russia’s unilateral May 8 to 11 ceasefire, as the Kremlin has done during previous ceasefires, while rejecting Ukraine’s proposal for a 30-day ceasefire.
- Kremlin officials within Putin’s inner circle continue to threaten NATO as Putin himself refrains from doing so — likely as part of Kremlin efforts to justify future Russian aggression against NATO to the Russian population.
- Putin promoted his previously proposed Eurasian security architecture on April 29 as part of Russian efforts to create an alternative Russian-led bloc that furthers Putin’s goals of destroying NATO and weakening the West and its allies.
- Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Toretsk, and Russian forces recently advanced in Belgorod and Sumy oblasts and near Pokrovsk, Kurakhove, and Velyka Novosilka.