August 22, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Putin has no plans to meet Zelenskyy

Institute for the Study of War

The Kremlin continues to signal that Russian President Vladimir Putin is unwilling to have an immediate bilateral meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an interview to NBC on August 22 and reiterated that there is currently no plan for Putin to meet with Zelensky.[1] Lavrov stated that Putin would meet Zelensky “when the agenda is ready for a summit,” but noted that “this agenda is not ready at all.” Lavrov accused Zelensky of failing to accept Russia’s demanded preconditions for negotiation, such as “discussion of territorial issues,” despite the fact that Zelensky stated on August 18 that he remains willing to meet with Putin unconditionally and directly discuss territorial questions.[2] Putin notably rejected Zelensky’s May 2025 invitation for the leaders to hold direct negotiations in Istanbul.[3] The Kremlin has used Lavrov multiple times over the past few days to clarify the Kremlin’s position that there will be no Putin-Zelensky meeting on the timeline that US President Donald Trump desires, and Lavrov’s interview with a US-based media outlet likely aims to directly clarify this position to Western audiences.[4]

The Kremlin is likely concerned that a bilateral Putin-Zelensky meeting could undermine Putin’s domestic justification for Russia’s war in Ukraine. Russian opposition outlet Verstka reported on August 22, citing interlocutors in the Kremlin, that the Kremlin sees a Putin-Zelensky meeting in the near future as unlikely.[5] A political strategist working in the Kremlin told Verstka that Putin and his advisors fear reputational consequences as a result of meeting with Zelensky. A source who works with the Kremlin’s domestic political projects stated that Kremlin Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov’s August 18 statement about “raising the level” of the negotiating delegations is “more like a polite refusal” to the proposed Putin-Zelensky meeting. ISW previously assessed that the Kremlin failed to commit to a Putin-Zelensky meeting following the August 18 Trump-Putin call, and Kremlin officials led by Lavrov continue to explicitly reject such a meeting in the immediate future.[6] ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin is struggling to balance between appeasing a domestic audience that has been conditioned to accept nothing less than a full Russian victory in Ukraine and staving off further US sanctions that could impact Russia’s ability to sustain its war effort.[7]

Russian officials continue to deflect blame for the lack of a Putin-Zelensky meeting and Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations by rejecting the legitimacy of Ukraine’s democratically elected government. Lavrov also asked on August 22 how Russia can meet with an individual “pretending to be a leader,” falsely implying that Zelensky is an illegitimate leader.[8] Lavrov also questioned on August 21 Ukrainian officials’ legitimacy and their eligibility to sign a peace agreement with Russia.[9] Other Russian officials, including State Duma International Affairs Committee First Deputy Head Alexei Chepa, State Duma International Affairs Committee Deputy Head Andrei Klimov, and State Duma Defense Committee First Head Chairperson Alexei Zhuravlev also rejected Zelensky’s legitimacy and questioned the legality of any peace agreement that Zelensky would sign.[10] Russian officials have repeatedly denied and undermined the legitimacy of Zelensky’s presidency in an ongoing effort to justify Russia’s war against Ukraine, portray Zelensky as a false actor in peace negotiations, and deflect from Russia’s ongoing refusal to participate in negotiations.[11] Lavrov and other Russian officials’ claims about Zelensky’s illegitimacy also set informational conditions for Russia to reject the legality of any peace agreement Russia may sign and justify Russia’s reneging on such an agreement in the future.[12]

Ukraine continued its strike campaign against the Russian military and oil infrastructure in Russia and occupied Ukraine. Ukrainian Unmanned Systems Forces Commander Major Robert “Magyar” Brovdi reported on August 21 that Ukrainian drones struck the Unecha oil pumping station northeast of Vysokoye, Bryansk Oblast, which is part of Russia’s Druzhba pipeline and plays a key role in supplying Russia’s military-industrial complex.[13] Geolocated footage published on August 21 shows a Ukrainian strike on one of the Unecha station’s oil pumps and a large fire.[14] Ukrainian forces most recently struck the Unecha facility overnight on August 12 to 13.[15] The Ukrainian General Staff reported on August 22 that Ukrainian missile, artillery, and aviation launched coordinated strikes on a command post of the Russian Rubikon Center for Advanced Unmanned Technologies and a large ammunition depot in occupied Donetsk Oblast.[16] Geolocated footage from the Ukrainian General Staff published on August 22 shows the Ukrainian strike against the Rubikon command post and ammunition depot east of occupied Novotoretske, Donetsk Oblast (northeast of Pokrovsk).[17] The Ukrainian Navy reported on August 22 that the Ukrainian Navy struck a Russian drone base at the Khersones Airbase west of occupied Sevastopol, Crimea, hitting up to three Iranian Mohajer-6 drones and two Forpost reconnaissance drones that the Russian military uses to monitor the Black Sea.[18]

Key Takeaways:

  • The Kremlin continues to signal that Russian President Vladimir Putin is unwilling to have an immediate bilateral meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
  • Russian officials continue to deflect blame for the lack of Putin-Zelensky meeting and Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations by rejecting the legitimacy of Ukraine’s democratically elected government.
  • Ukraine continued its strike campaign against Russian military and oil infrastructure in Russia and occupied Ukraine.
  • Ukrainian authorities returned Ukrainian civilians whom Russian authorities deported from occupied areas of Ukraine to a checkpoint on the Russia-Georgia border.
  • Ukrainian forces advanced in northern Sumy Oblast and near Pokrovsk and Novopavlivka. Russian forces advanced in northern Sumy and eastern Zaporizhia oblasts and near Chasiv Yar and Novopavlivka.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.