The Kremlin’s twisted tale of peace

Twenty months have passed since Russia launched its brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. Now, the unconditional triumphalism is all but gone from the Kremlin’s rhetoric and the longer the Russian forces fight to hold onto the temporarily occupied territories in Ukraine, the more the Kremlin talks about peace. In July, Putin claimed(opens in a new tab) that Russia does not reject the idea of peace talks as long as Ukraine accepts its ‘new territorial reality’ – a euphemism for Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian lands.

More recently, Putin said that Russia is ready for a cessation of hostilities(opens in a new tab), if Ukraine stops trying to liberate its own territory and ceases the counteroffensive. Pro-Russian outlets have also made friendly noises about peace proposals floated by countries whose favour Russia seeks to curry – including China(opens in a new tab), fellow BRICS members(opens in a new tab), and states in Africa(opens in a new tab).

At the same time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has crudely dismissed(opens in a new tab) the only path toward a just and sustainable peace in Ukraine – the ten-point peace plan(opens in a new tab) proposed by Kyiv. Such statements go beyond the mere rhetorical device to distract from the fact that Russia offers no credible options for peace, only ultimatums for Ukrainian surrender(opens in a new tab). In fact, we have seen this manipulative tactic to reverse the roles of the victim and the aggressor in other pro-Kremlin disinformation cases. This time, the Kremlin deploys it to deny Ukraine’s legitimacy as the victim of aggression and dismiss its striving for peace.

So how serious is the Kremlin’s newfound passion for peace? Not very. We can see why by examining a few recent Kremlin narratives that have attempted to frame media discussions around various peace proposals.

The two-faced West

If the Kremlin were interested in peace, it should be willing at least to engage in negotiations with Ukraine, the country that it has invaded repeatedly since 2014. But the Russian leadership routinely rejects any Ukrainian proposals, dismissing Ukraine’s very statehood and sovereignty. The reason is clear – Ukraine’s proposals for a just and sustainable peace call to respect its territorial integrity. This notion directly contradicts Russia’s land grab designs in Ukraine. Hence, pro-Russian commentators insist(opens in a new tab) that Ukraine doesn’t want peace.

Regarding the West, pro-Kremlin disinformation is strangely two-pronged. On the one hand, Russian state-controlled outlets insist that the West doesn’t want peace(opens in a new tab), allegedly pursuing the war for their own profit(opens in a new tab) and somehow ‘cashing in(opens in a new tab)’ by delivering weapons to Ukraine. On the other hand, more recently, some commentators have claimed that the West is waiting for Ukraine’s counteroffensive to fail(opens in a new tab) before imposing(opens in a new tab) a draconian peace that legitimises Russia’s occupation. According to the Kremlin, the West is tired of providing support and will soon beg for negotiations(opens in a new tab).

This pro-Kremlin idea – that the West is poised to stab Ukraine in the back – is either a conscious effort to sow distrust between Ukraine and Western countries, or delusional optimism, or a combination of both. The ultimate goal of this blame-shifting game is to distract from the simple fact that Russia is the sole aggressor in Ukraine.

Well-known pro-Kremlin fearmonger and one-time presidential seat-warmer Dmitry Medvedev provided another example of purposefully twisting the narrative about peace when he claimed(opens in a new tab) that Western military support stands in the way of peace and prolongs the war. A blatant lie to deny Ukraine’s right of self-defence against Russian aggression. The truth is much more dire. As put succinctly(opens in a new tab) by NATO Secretary General “If Russia stops fighting, there will be peace. If Ukraine stops fighting, it will cease to exist.”

But by far the best demonstration of selective memory and twisting the narrative about peace negotiations came from Putin himself when he declared(opens in a new tab) that Ukraine rejected an April 2022 peace proposal after Russia graciously ‘withdrew the troops from Kyiv, as we promised’. The chutzpah was breath taking. Russia forces withdrew only because Ukrainian resistance had inflicted a series of humiliating defeats upon them. Once again, Putin was portraying Russia’s failure as a success and making it sound as if Russia’s forced retreat was a gesture of good faith.

“The world is on Russia’s side”

Having backed itself into a corner of international isolation by launching an unwise and illegal war, the Russian leadership is desperately looking around for allies. Pro-Kremlin outlets have gone out of their way to report on peace proposals(opens in a new tab) put forward(opens in a new tab) by non-Western countries(opens in a new tab). The same outlets have also showcased statements that could appear to be sympathetic to Russia.

For example, some pro-Kremlin outlets prominently covered(opens in a new tab) comments that could be misconstrued as “bothsidesism” if deliberately taken out of context. Others sought to equate(opens in a new tab) calls for diplomacy to prevail as explicit endorsement of the Kremlin’s narratives. And some outlets resorted to paraphrasing(opens in a new tab) statements of foreign officials, to make them sound more supportive. Pro-Kremlin outlets are more than ready to twist the words of world leaders if they can be made to appear to parrot the pro-Kremlin line of ‘’Western aggression’ and remove Ukrainian agency as a sovereign state.

Such comments are not necessarily disinformation. But when reported by pro-Kremlin outlets they are selective and often out of context. By portraying Russia’s invasion as a ‘crisis,’ they posit a false equivalence between the two sides. The wanted effect is to frame Russia’s aggression as an absolute last-resort option that only became inevitable due to reasons beyond Russia’s control. If anyone is to blame – and the Kremlin has many ideas on that topic – it certainly isn’t Russia.

The Jeddah meeting(opens in a new tab) on 5 August, however, presented a problem. The conference brought together representatives of over forty countries, including all BRICS members – except Russia. Pro-Kremlin outlets belittled(opens in a new tab) the event. Where they could, they also highlighted comments by officials from non-Western countries bemoaning(opens in a new tab) Russia’s absence from the event. The apparent goal was to portray Russia as united with its interlocutors around the globe in opposing the West’s ‘futile, doomed efforts(opens in a new tab)’ to promote a peace that does not allow Russia to keep Ukrainian lands.

Fumbling towards the future

Perhaps the most extreme example of pro-Kremlin efforts to diminish Ukrainian peace proposals happened in the context of a visit by African leaders(opens in a new tab) to Kyiv in June. As the visit began, Kyiv’s air defence sirens blared and two explosions shook the city(opens in a new tab) as Russian missiles threatened the capital.

Shortly thereafter, a pro-Kremlin outlet declared(opens in a new tab) that the Ukrainian government had carried out a ‘psycho-operation’ and staged the attacks to portray Russia as the ‘evil aggressor’. In addition, RT in French falsely alleged that President Zelenskyy had ‘rejected(opens in a new tab)’ the African leaders’ offer to mediate, using a photo of Zelenskyy clenching his fists while seeming to ignore an African leader’s open hand as ‘proof’. In fact, President Zelenskyy simply reiterated a common-sense position, that Russia must withdraw from Ukrainian territories before peace can be achieved.

Make no mistake: Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine, and the Kremlin’s attempts to twist the truth can only make the path to real peace longer. No doubt, Russia’s only idea of peace is an unconditional Ukrainian surrender. But that is neither just, nor sustainable.