Volodymyr Zelensky’s letter to Vladimir Putin is, first of all, a high-risk political move. It is not just an invitation to dialogue. It is an attempt to shift the burden of denial back to Moscow. The Ukrainian president proposes a direct meeting with the Russian leader on neutral ground – Switzerland, Turkey or countries of the Arab world – and states that Kiev is ready for a complete ceasefire for the duration of the negotiations. At the same time, he puts on the table an “all-for-all” exchange of prisoners and the return of civilians and children who have been transferred from Russia.
But the letter has a second level. Zelensky is not only addressing Putin. He is addressing Russian society, Russian officials, businessmen, and the power apparatuses that see the war drag on without a clear end. He argues that Russians are tired of the Ukrainian attacks, fuel shortages, inflation, and bans. In other words, he is sending a message of decay: the war is not only putting pressure on Ukraine, it is also putting pressure on Russia's internal system.
The most important sentence of the letter concerns Anchorage. Zelensky writes that “Ukrainian and European issues are not resolved in Anchorage.” This is a direct response to the logic that developed after the Trump-Putin meeting on August 15, 2025 in Alaska. At that time, Donald Trump had spoken of a “very productive” meeting and progress, but without an agreement. Reuters had recorded that there was no ceasefire, while Trump himself had summarized the result with the phrase “there is no deal until there is a deal.”
The problem is that almost ten months have passed since then, and the Anchorage “progress” has not translated into real peace. On the contrary, the Russian position seems to have hardened. According to Reuters, Putin said today that Trump’s proposals could end the war, but only if Ukraine accepts “compromises.” And those compromises, as the Russian position suggests, still revolve around the demand that Ukraine cede the rest of Donbass – which for Kiev amounts to capitulation.
Here lies the crux of the impasse. Putin appears willing to negotiate, but not to revise his ultimate goal. He declares himself ready for peace, but at the same time says that Russia will win on the ground if necessary. He invokes the “understandings” with Trump in Alaska, claims that Russia accepts them, and asks Ukraine to do the same. That is, he presents peace not as a mutual process, but as the ratification of a framework agreed without Ukraine at the table.
The picture on the ground does not allow for easy certainties. Russia says it fully controls Luhansk and over 85% of Donetsk. At the same time, however, international analyses show that the Russian advance has slowed and that Moscow is increasingly turning to air and missile warfare, striking Ukrainian cities to compensate for its difficulty on the ground. Reuters and the Guardian, citing analysts and evidence from the front, describe a Russia that is pressing hard but has not achieved a decisive breakthrough.
This is the paradox of the moment. Russia does not seem strong enough to quickly impose its final victory, but neither does it seem pressured enough to abandon its greatest goals. Ukraine cannot immediately expel Russia from all its occupied territories, but it has proven that it can hold on, deeply hurt the Russian hinterland, and raise the cost of war. This creates conditions not for peace, but for prolonged deterioration.
Zelensky’s reference to the American focus on Iran is also crucial. The Ukrainian president is implicitly admitting that Washington no longer has Ukraine at the absolute center of its attention. American diplomacy is absorbed by the Middle East, Iran, the Persian Gulf, and the multiple fronts that have opened or remain half-open. This means that Kiev fears that time is running out for it – not necessarily militarily, but diplomatically.
Moscow, on the contrary, is trying to exploit precisely this gap. Putin wants to restore the “Alaska spirit”: a negotiation between great powers, where Ukraine is asked to accept what has already been discussed between Trump and Putin. Reuters wrote after Anchorage that the Russian proposal included freezing a large part of the front line in exchange for the Ukrainian concession of the rest of Donetsk. This formula remains the point that blocks everything.
That is why Zelensky's letter today has more of the character of a diplomatic counterattack than a direct prologue to peace. Zelensky says: let's meet, let's stop the weapons while we talk, let's start diplomacy from the front line. Putin essentially replies: we can talk, but Ukraine must accept the Alaskan compromises. These two positions do not yet meet. One starts with a ceasefire and negotiation. The other with the acceptance of conditions before an agreement.
So, how likely is peace today? If we are talking about a full, sustainable peace agreement, with security guarantees, a territorial formula, prisoner exchanges, the return of children, and no recurrence of the conflict, the answer is: rather unlikely. It is not just the political will that is missing. The common starting point is missing. Ukraine wants to negotiate away from the current line of contact. Russia wants the current line to be merely an intermediate step towards securing greater gains.
But if we are talking about a temporary ceasefire, a meeting in a neutral country, or a new formula for talks with the US, Europe, and possibly Turkey or the Gulf states, then the possibilities are real. Not because the two sides have come closer strategically, but because both need political time management. Ukraine wants to prove that it is not the obstacle to peace. Russia wants to show Trump that it remains available for a deal – but on its own terms.
The most likely scenario, then, is not peace. It is a period of intense diplomatic activity, with public proposals, counter-proposals, possible technical contacts, and continued military strikes. Peace will become possible only if one of three factors changes: the balance on the ground, US pressure on Moscow, or the cost of the war inside Russia. Today, none of the three has yet reached the breaking point.
In other words, Zelensky’s letter is important. But it is not yet a harbinger of peace. It is Kiev’s first major attempt to break the diplomatic trap of Anchorage – to turn a Trump-Putin discussion about Ukraine into a discussion between Ukraine and Russia, with guarantors rather than arbitrators. Whether it succeeds will depend less on the words of the letter and more on whether Putin senses that time is no longer working exclusively in his favor. Until then, peace remains a possibility – not a prospect ripe for signing.
Source: protothema.gr
