January 30, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Kremlin signals that captured Ukrainian lands are not negotiable

Institute for the Study of War

Kremlin newswire TASS published an interview with Valdai Discussion Club Research Director Fyodor Lukyanov on January 30 entitled “Don’t count on big agreements,” highlighting the Kremlin’s ongoing efforts to shape domestic and global expectations about future negotiations between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump. The Valdai Discussion Club is an international forum where Kremlin officials, Russian scholars, and foreign officials and scholars meet to discuss international issues and has proven to be a useful tool in the Kremlin’s decades-long efforts to influence Western policy in Russia’s favor.[1] Lukyanov is a senior member and scholar at the Valdai Club, has repeatedly moderated Putin’s annual speech at Valdai, and is considered a well-connected and authoritative voice on the Kremlin’s foreign policy goals and objectives — though he holds no formal position in the Russian government.[2] ISW is not prepared to assess or argue that Lukyanov has intimate and personal knowledge about Putin’s state of mind or intentions in future peace negotiations, but Lukyanov’s statements in this interview are generally consistent with Putin’s and other Kremlin officials’ statements about Russia’s future negotiating positions.[3] TASS’decision to leverage Lukyanov’s interview to dampen domestic speculation about the possibility of a peace agreement in the near future also highlights the relevance of this interview and Lukyanov’s statements when considering Russia’s possible negotiating positions vis-a-vis Ukraine and the United States.

Lukyanov stated during the interview that the “main thing” for future peace negotiations regarding Ukraine is “not the territories” but addressing the “root causes” of the war, which Lukyanov defined as NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe in the 1990s and early 2000s.[4] Lukyanov stated with respect to Ukrainian lands Russian forces now hold that “with the territories, everything is clear: how much you take is yours,” further indicating that the Kremlin has no intention of compromising on its territorial gains in Ukraine in future peace negotiations.[5]This position suggests that the Kremlin likely means for any future peace negotiations with Trump to start with the United States recognizing Russia’s territorial claims over Ukraine, likely including areas that Russia does not currently occupy, before actual negotiations can begin that should focus on these so-called “root causes.” Lukyanov stated that Russia’s chief demand for future peace negotiations with Trump is “a change in the security landscape in Eastern Europe” and the “abandoning [of] a number of provisions on which NATO’s existence and functioning are based.”[6] Lukyanov stated that Russia may also want to discuss the possibility of “reducing the level of [NATO’s] military presence,” presumably along Russia’s borders, but noted that this is unlikely to happen.

Kremlin officials have repeatedly alluded to the need for future peace negotiations to address the “root causes” of the war in Ukraine, which Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov defined in December 2024 as NATO’s alleged violation of commitments not to advance eastward and “aggressive absorption” of areas near Russia’s borders.[7] Putin issued a series of demands to the United States in December 2021 ahead of his full-scale invasion of Ukraine that included that: NATO commit to not accepting Ukraine or any other countries as new members; the United States commit to upholding the alleged ban on NATO enlargement; NATO not deploy any military forces to states that became NATO members after May 1997; and NATO ban any military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia, among other things.[8] The Financial Times (FT) reported on January 10, citing a former senior Kremlin official and another source who discussed the topic with Putin, that Putin will maintain his pre-war demands of preventing Ukraine from joining NATO and forcing NATO to withdraw deployments in Eastern Europe in any future negotiations.[9] Lukyanov’s statements are yet another indication that the Kremlin remains committed to imposing its will and security interests on the United States and Europe and is not interested in compromising on this goal.

Lukyanov’s statements assume that Trump and his administration are weak and more susceptible to being intimidated by the Kremlin’s shows of force than the former Biden Administration. Lukyanov claimed that Trump wants to “dump all further problems” concerning Ukraine on Europe and “does not respect” European states or NATO more broadly.[10] Lukyanov claimed that Trump may be willing to compromise NATO’s foundational principles to appease Putin’s demand for a NATO withdrawal from Eastern Europe and suggested more broadly that Trump will abandon Ukraine and NATO. Lukyanov claimed that “Trump only respects those who show steadfastness” and called on the Kremlin to “never give in” and “to be prepared for a fairly tough conversation, even including elements of [a] bluff” — calling on the Putin to strongarm Trump and demonstrate his resolve in future negotiations with Trump. Lukyanov’s interview supports the Kremlin’s ongoing efforts to force Trump into acquiescing to Putin’s demands that amount to Ukraine’s full capitulation and the weakening of NATO and Putin’s personal efforts to position himself as Trump’s equal on the international stage.[11]

People’s Republic of China (PRC)–based companies continue to supply Russia with critical materials needed to sustain Russia’s war efforts in Ukraine. RFE/RL, citing its own Ukrainian bureau’s investigative unit Schemes, reported on January 30 that at least two dozen PRC-based firms “untouched” by Western sanctions are directly supplying Russia with gallium, germanium, and antimony — key elements used in Russian drones and missiles.[12] Schemes found that PRC-based firms send these materials to Russian defense industrial base (DIB) companies including Russian state defense conglomerate Rostec, which supplies nearly 80 percent of the Kremlin’s weaponry used in Ukraine. At least a third of these suppliers are reportedly linked to the PRC government, which has repeatedly denied aiding Russia’s war. Schemes also noted that the Russian subsidiary of a Japanese company imported antimony from the PRC and supplied silicon wafers to Russian military microelectronics manufacturers. ISW has previously noted that PRC companies are directly and indirectly supplying Russia with drones, machine tools, and microelectronic products that Russia uses to produce missiles, rockets, armored vehicles, and munitions used in Ukraine.[13]

The US military reportedly recently transferred Patriot missiles from Israel to Poland and is expected to deliver these missiles to Ukraine. A US defense official told CNN and three sources with knowledge of the transfer told US outlet Axios on January 28 that the US military transferred roughly 90 decommissioned Patriot missiles from storage facilities in Israel to Poland.[16] The Patriot missiles are expected to be transferred to Ukraine on an unspecified date.

Key Takeaways:

  • Kremlin newswire TASS published an interview with Valdai Discussion Club Research Director Fyodor Lukyanov on January 30 entitled “Don’t count on big agreements,” highlighting the Kremlin’s ongoing efforts to shape domestic and global expectations about future negotiations between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump.
  • Lukyanov stated during the interview that the “main thing” for future peace negotiations regarding Ukraine is “not the territories” but addressing the “root causes” of the war, which Lukyanov defined as NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe in the 1990s and early 2000s.
  • Lukyanov’s statements assume that Trump and his administration are weak and more susceptible to being intimidated by the Kremlin’s shows of force than the former Biden Administration.
  • People’s Republic of China (PRC)-based companies continue to supply Russia with critical materials needed to sustain Russia’s war efforts in Ukraine.
  • The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a resolution on January 28 defining its position on peace in Ukraine, closely echoing the principle of “peace through strength” that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky previously outlined. 
  • The US military reportedly recently transferred Patriot missiles from Israel to Poland and is expected to deliver these missiles to Ukraine.
  • Ukrainian forces recently regained lost positions near Kharkiv and Pokrovsk, and Russian forces recently advanced near Chasiv Yar, Toretsk, and Kurakhove and in the Dnipro direction. 
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.