DONATE

Current News

Archives

Focus Areas

< Back

April 15, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: top Russian officials demand ‘demilitarization’ and ‘denazification’ of Ukraine as the price for peace

Institute for the Study of War

Two high-ranking members of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle reiterated Putin’s June 2024 non-negotiable demands that any resolution of the war in Ukraine must result in regime change, extensive territorial concessions, and long-term limitations on Ukraine’s military after US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff’s April 11 meeting with Putin. Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) Head Sergey Naryshkin claimed on April 15 that any future peace agreement ending Russia’s invasion of Ukraine must include terms concerning Ukraine’s neutrality; the demilitarization and “denazification” of the Ukrainian state; the abolition of Ukrainian laws that allegedly discriminate against Russian-speakers in Ukraine; and the recognition of Russia’s illegal annexation of all of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts.[1] Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed to Russian state business outlet Kommersant on April 14 that the current Ukrainian government is “unconstitutional” and that Russia “cannot give [Russian speakers living in occupied Ukraine] up” following the illegal and sham referendums Russia conducted in the four oblasts to join Russia in Fall 2022.[2] Lavrov reiterated that Putin “very clearly outlined” Russia’s demands for a future peace agreement to end the war during Putin’s speech on June 14, 2024, and stated that these June 2024 demands were “not some kind of request.” Lavrov stated that there are “no secrets” about Russia’s demands and reiterated the importance of addressing the “root causes” of the war in a future peace agreement.

Russian officials are using Putin’s June 2024 speech as the Kremlin’s current standing guidance on negotiations and the resolution of the war in Ukraine. Putin demanded on June 14, 2024 that Ukrainian forces must “completely withdraw” from Ukrainian-controlled territory in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts and that Ukraine must officially abandon its goal of joining NATO (by amending its constitution in which that goal is enshrined) before Russia can agree to a future ceasefire and peace negotiations.[3] Putin stated that Russia is prepared to begin negotiations with Ukraine as soon as Ukraine agrees to withdraw from the entirety of the four oblasts. Putin also demanded that the international community recognize the four illegally annexed and occupied oblasts as part of Russia and lift all Western sanctions against Russia in the event of a resolution to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Putin reiterated his calls for Ukraine to agree to full demilitarization and “denazification” and abandon its aspirations to join any external security blocs. These demands would preclude the bilateral security agreements Ukraine has negotiated and is negotiating with several European states.

Key Takeaways:

  • Two high-ranking members of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle reiterated Putin’s June 2024 non-negotiable demands that any resolution of the war in Ukraine must result in regime change, extensive territorial concessions, and long-term limitations on Ukraine’s military after US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff’s April 11 meeting with Putin.
  • Kremlin officials continue to set informational conditions to demand that Ukraine surrender territory that Russia does not currently occupy and to justify Russia’s ambitions of asserting control over independent countries, including NATO member states.
  • Naryshkin threatened a Russian attack against NATO states in response to NATO states building up their defenses in line with US President Donald Trump’s push for Europe to increase its own defense capabilities.
  • Lavrov reiterated Putin’s rejection of Trump’s proposal for a 30-day full ceasefire.
  • Russia may recognize the end of the 30-day energy infrastructure strikes ceasefire soon and intensify its long-range strikes against Ukraine, but the exact parameters of the ceasefire — including its end date — remain unclear.
  • Ukraine’s National Guard announced on April 15 the formation of two new army corps on the basis of two existing brigades, amid Ukraine’s continued efforts to transition to a corps structure.
  • Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Toretsk and Pokrovsk, and Russian forces recently advanced near Velyka Novosilka and in western Zaporizhia Oblast.

Share the Post:
Close

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.