November 13, 2024

Institute for the Study of War: Kremlin goal remains Ukraine’s full capitulation

Institute for the Study of War

The Kremlin is attempting to dictate the terms of any potential “peace” negotiations with Ukraine in advance of US President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration. The manner in which the Kremlin is trying to set its terms for negotiations strongly signals that Russia’s objectives remain unchanged and still amount to full Ukrainian capitulation. The Kremlin does not appear any more willing to make concessions to the incoming Trump administration than it was to the current administration. Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Spokesperson Maria Zakharova claimed on November 13 that Western officials are lying about their interest in peace in Ukraine and that “peace” can only be achieved when the West stops providing military assistance to Ukraine.[1] Zakharova’s statement indicates that Russia continues to assert that the West must end all provisions of military assistance to Ukraine as a prerequisite for peace negotiations.[2] Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also claimed on November 13 that the start of Trump’s presidency would not fundamentally change the US position on Ukraine and that any proposals to freeze the frontline are “even worse” than the Russia-favorable Minsk Agreements that followed Russia’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014.[3]

Lavrov’s pre-emptive rejection of the potential suggestion to freeze the current frontline further indicates that Russia is not interested in softening its approach or demands in negotiations and maintains its objective of total Ukrainian capitulation, which Russian President Vladimir Putin explicitly outlined in June 2024.[4] Zakharova’s and Lavrov’s statements also undermine Putin’s recent efforts to feign interest in a willingness to “restore” US–Russian relations with the new US presidential administration and instead indicate that Putin likely is taking for granted that the Trump administration will defer to the Kremlin’s interests and preferences without the Kremlin offering any concessions or benefits in return.[5] Russian officials notably made these statements against the backdrop of reports that the Trump administration intends to appoint a “Ukrainian peace envoy to lead negotiations on ending the war” and announcements of multiple Trump national security cabinet picks, suggesting that Russia will maintain its goals in Ukraine regardless of the make-up of the incoming Trump administration.[6]

Ukrainian security services reportedly assassinated a Russian Black Sea Fleet (BSF) official in occupied Crimea on November 13. Ukrainian outlet Suspilne reported on November 13 that sources in Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) stated that the SBU conducted a successful special operation in occupied Sevastopol, Crimea and planted an explosive on the car of the BSF’s 41st Missile Boat Brigade Chief of Staff Captain First Rank Valery Trankovsky.[7] Trankovsky died from his injuries after the explosion.[8]  SBU sources noted that Trankovsky ordered Russian cruise missile strikes from the Black Sea at civilian objects in Ukraine in 2022.[9] Sevastopol occupation governor Mikhail Razvozhaev reported that a car exploded in Sevastopol on the morning of November 13, killing a Russian servicemember, but did not identify the deceased.[10] Razvozhaev claimed that Russian authorities did not rule out sabotage — suggesting that the Russian occupation administration will likely further crackdown against those it deems to be pro-Ukrainian in retaliation for the attack. Geolocated footage shows the aftermath of the car explosion in occupied Sevastopol.[11] Likely Ukrainian partisans have conducted three assassinations of Russian occupation and military officials since late September 2024.[12]

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian oil executives reportedly rejected a proposal to merge Russia’s three largest oil companies. The Financial Times (FT) reported on November 13, citing unspecified “people,” that Russian President Vladimir Putin shot down the proposal to merge Russian state-owned Gazprom Neft, state-affiliated Rosneft, and independently owned Rosneft.[13] FT’s sources attributed the proposed merger to Russian Energy Minister Sergei Tsivilev, the husband of Putin’s cousin and Russian State Secretary — Deputy Defense Minister Anna Tsivileva. Former Russian oil executives told FT that, while the merger would have given Gazprom Neft and Rosneft access to Lukoil’s UAE-based trading arm, concerns over the ability to circumvent Western sanctions and temporarily reduced oil production also contributed to Putin’s rejection of the proposed merger. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) first reported on the proposed merger on November 9 but noted that the Kremlin and Rosneft denied the talks while Gazprom Neft and Lukoil did not comment.[14]

Contradictory reporting on the proposed Russian oil merger highlights a possible factional struggle between close affiliates of Putin and Russian energy executives. FT reported that Tsivilev attempted to utilize his family connection to Putin to promote the deal but that Russian energy executives also had the political leverage to oppose the proposed merger.[15] Rosneft Head Igor Sechin and Gazprom Head Alexey Miller are both longtime friends and supporters of Putin, and Putin reportedly rejected Tsivilev’s proposal on their behalf despite reportedly desiring more direct Kremlin control over Russian oil production and his family connection to Tsivilev.[16] The initial reports of a merger may have been intended to weaken Sechin in particular. The WSJ reported that Sechin was a “main player” in the merger talks and was a possible, but not definite, candidate to lead the resulting company, though Rosneft rejected notions that “Evil Sechin” had “insidious intentions to take over the assets” of other oil companies.”[17]

South Korean and US intelligence separately confirmed that North Korean troops have deployed into combat alongside Russian forces in Kursk Oblast. South Korea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) confirmed on November 13 that it “assesses that the North Korean troops deployed to Russia” are already participating in combat after having completed their training and gradual battlefield deployment over the past two weeks.[18] US State Department Spokesperson Vedant Patel stated during a briefing on November 12 that over 10,000 North Korean troops deployed to eastern Russia, most of whom have now moved to western Kursk Oblast “where they have begun engaging in combat operations with Russian forces.”[19] ISW assessed on November 5 that North Korean troops had entered combat in Kursk Oblast, citing reports by Ukrainian intelligence and Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov.[20]

Key Takeaways:

  • The Kremlin is attempting to dictate the terms of any potential “peace” negotiations with Ukraine in advance of US President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration. The manner in which the Kremlin is trying to set its terms for negotiations strongly signals that Russia’s objectives remain unchanged and still amount to full Ukrainian capitulation. The Kremlin does not appear any more willing to make concessions to the incoming Trump administration than it was to the current administration.
  • Lavrov’s pre-emptive rejection of the potential suggestion to freeze the current frontline further indicates that Russia is not interested in softening its approach or demands in negotiations and maintains its objective of total Ukrainian capitulation, which Russian President Vladimir Putin explicitly outlined in June 2024.
  • Ukrainian security services reportedly assassinated a Russian Black Sea Fleet (BSF) official in occupied Crimea on November 13. 
  • Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian oil executives reportedly rejected a proposal to merge Russia’s three largest oil companies. Contradictory reporting on the proposed Russian oil merger highlights a possible factional struggle between close affiliates of Putin and Russian energy executives.
  • South Korean and US intelligence separately confirmed that North Korean troops have deployed into combat alongside Russian forces in Kursk Oblast.
  • Russian forces recently advanced near Toretsk, Kurakhove, and Vuhledar and in the Donetsk-Zaporizhia Oblast border area, and Ukrainian forces recently regained positions near Chasiv Yar. 
  • Russian forces continue to heavily rely on refurbished tanks and armored vehicles pulled from storage to replace vehicle losses during ongoing combat operations, but likely will not be able to sustain these losses in the long term.
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.