August 5, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Putin announces withdrawal from arms control treaty in response to Trump warning

Institute for the Study of War

Private and public Kremlin statements indicate that Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to demand the entirety of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts before he will initiate a peace agreement. Helping Ukraine inflict battlefield setbacks on Russian forces remains essential to efforts to persuade Putin to reevaluate his position on the war and negotiations. Reuters reported on August 5 that three Kremlin sources familiar with the matter stated that Putin’s belief that Russia is winning and his doubts that US sanctions will have a significant impact on Russia are driving Putin’s decision to continue his war against Ukraine.[1] Two of the sources claimed that Putin’s war aims take precedence over his efforts to improve relations with the United States and US President Donald Trump. One source claimed that the recent Ukrainian-Russian peace talks in Istanbul were a Russian attempt to convince Trump that Putin was open to peace but noted that the talks were devoid of any real substance. One source claimed that “Putin cannot afford to end the war just because Trump wants it.” A source described Trump’s reported March 2025 offer — in which Trump purportedly proposed to lift all US sanctions against Russia, to “de jure” recognize Russian sovereignty over occupied Crimea, and to “de facto” recognize Russian control over the other parts of Ukraine that Russian forces occupied at the time — as a “fantastic chance,” but stated that stopping a war is more difficult than starting one. Putin rejected that offer.

The Kremlin insider sources likely leaked this information in an attempt to obfuscate Putin’s actual, more extreme war aims. One of Reuters’ sources stated that Putin does not see the logic in stopping Russian offensive operations, as Russian forces are making relatively more rapid advances on the battlefield.[2] The Kremlin sources implied that Putin would be willing to establish a ceasefire if Russia first occupied (or was given) the entirety of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts. Recent Kremlin statements, including from Putin himself, have repeatedly indicated that Putin remains committed to achieving his maximalist objectives that amount to full Ukrainian capitulation, however.[3] Putin claimed as recently as June 20 that “all of Ukraine is [Russia’s].”[4] Russian State Duma Deputy Anatoly Wasserman said in an interview with Azerbaijani news outlet Minval published on August 3 that the stated goals of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine are “incompatible with the continued existence of Ukraine” as a sovereign state and that Russia alone will determine the end date for its war.[5] Kremlin newswire RIA Novosti published two op-eds on July 30 entitled “There is no other option: no one should remain alive in Ukraine” and “Noted: Ukraine will end very soon.”[6] Kremlin insiders are likely speaking to Western media outlets in order to socialize Putin’s demands to Western policymakers and audiences, frame Russia’s demand for the entirety of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts as reasonable, and insinuate that there is a possibility for a full ceasefire and lasting peace should Ukraine and the West acquiesce to Putin’s demands.

Putin has intentionally put himself in a position where he cannot present any peace settlement that falls short of his original war aims as a victory to the Russian military or people. One Kremlin source told Reuters that Putin does not feel that now is the time to end the war because Russian society and the Russian military would not understand such a decision.[13] The Kremlin has been engaged in a concerted multi-year effort to justify Putin’s maximalist war objectives as necessary for the existence of the Russian state and to garner societal support for a protracted war until Russia achieves such goals.[14] Russian state and independent polling from early 2025 suggested that most Russians support continuing the war in Ukraine, and the Kremlin is likely seizing on these sentiments, which it has actively fostered, to justify Putin’s decision to continue the war.[15] Putin is also increasing Russian society’s reliance on military spending by heavily investing in Russia’s defense industrial base (DIB), which now accounts for a significant portion of overall Russian domestic production.[16] ISW continues to assess that any sharp decrease in Russia’s defensive spending will likely depress the Russian economy in the medium term, furthering Putin’s incentive to continue a protracted war in Ukraine and instigate future military conflicts despite high Russian losses on the battlefield and critical constraints on its economy.[17] Putin has intentionally cultivated Russian society’s commitment to his war aims and has not set conditions to take any off-ramps to accept a peace settlement that falls short of his original war aims.

Russia announced on August 4 that it will withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, likely as a rhetorical response to US President Donald Trump’s August 1 announcement about the redeployment of US nuclear submarines toward Russia. Russia’s INF Treaty withdrawal does not portend a shift in Russia’s use of shorter- and intermediate-range missiles, however. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) claimed on August 4 that the conditions for Russia’s “unilateral moratorium” on the deployment of weapons banned under the INF Treaty are “disappearing” such that Russia “no longer considers itself bound” by the INF Treaty’s restrictions.[18] The Russian MFA claimed that the Russian leadership will decide on response measures after analyzing the deployment of Western land-based intermediate-range missiles. The Russian MFA claimed that Russia has “proactively made efforts to maintain restraint” following the US suspension of the INF treaty in 2019. The Russian MFA claimed that Western states have built up “destabilizing” missiles in areas near Russia, creating a “strategic” threat to Russian security. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded to the MFA’s announcement, stating that Russia is no longer “limited” in any way and that Russia has the right to take “appropriate measures.”[19] Peskov claimed that the West should not expect any announcements about the deployment of Russian shorter- and intermediate-range missiles as this information is “sensitive.”[20] Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev claimed on August 4 on his English-language X (formerly Twitter) account that the Russian MFA’s statement is the result of NATO states’ “anti-Russian policy” and that “this is a new reality all [Russia’s] opponents will have to reckon with.”[21] Medvedev vaguely threatened that the West should “expect further steps” from Russia. Medvedev’s August 4 threat on his English-language account is the latest in a string of recent nuclear threats against the West that are part of the Kremlin’s wider reflexive control campaign that aims to push the West to make decisions that benefit Russia.[22]

Key Takeaways:

  • Private and public Kremlin statements indicate that Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to demand the entirety of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts before he will initiate a peace agreement.
  • Helping Ukraine inflict battlefield setbacks on Russian forces remains essential to efforts to persuade Putin to reevaluate his position on the war and negotiations.
  • The Kremlin insider sources likely leaked this information in an attempt to obfuscate Putin’s actual, more extreme war aims.
  • The Kremlin also likely intends for these leaks to Western media to advance its ongoing effort to break Ukrainian and Western morale.
  • Putin has intentionally put himself in a position where he cannot present any peace settlement that falls short of his original war aims as a victory to the Russian military or people.
  • Russia announced on August 4 that it will withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, likely as a rhetorical response to US President Donald Trump’s August 1 announcement about the redeployment of US nuclear submarines toward Russia. Russia’s INF Treaty withdrawal does not portend a shift in Russia’s use of shorter- and intermediate-range missiles, however.
  • Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Chasiv Yar. Russian forces recently advanced near Lyman, Siversk, and Toretsk.
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.