Kremlin narrative centres on capitulation demands and misrepresentation of the frontline
During a press conference in Bishkek on 27 November, held after meetings with Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov and ahead of the CSTO summit, Vladimir Putin outlined conditions that would amount to Ukraine’s political surrender. He claimed hostilities could stop if Ukrainian forces withdrew from the entirety of Donbas, a demand that would legitimise Russia’s armed seizure of sovereign territory and contradict the UN Charter as well as repeated UN General Assembly resolutions affirming Ukraine’s borders. By presenting withdrawal as a prerequisite for “peace”, the Kremlin attempted to shift responsibility for the continuation of the war onto Kyiv.
Putin also asserted that Russian troops were “increasing the pace of returning territories” and nearing “full control” of Vovchansk, predicting an imminent collapse of the Ukrainian front. Independent monitoring contradicts these claims: Russia has made incremental gains in Zaporizhzhia and near Pokrovsk, but advances remain slow and costly. Analysts from ISW, the Polish OSW and other institutions stress that current Russian momentum does not guarantee the capture of the wider Zaporizhzhia region, describing Putin’s narrative as part of a psychological operation designed to demoralise Ukrainians and persuade Western audiences that supporting Kyiv is futile.
Casualty figures and frontline rhetoric used to mislead domestic audiences
Putin’s claim that the Ukrainian army allegedly lost 47,000 soldiers in a single month lacks evidence and is widely viewed as fabricated for domestic consumption. Western governments and independent research organisations estimate that Russian military casualties—killed and wounded—have exceeded one million, a figure the Kremlin omits from public statements. His remarks about Ukrainian soldiers “looking like beggars” reflect a standard technique of dehumanisation, disregarding the fact that Ukraine fields a regular, professional army defending internationally recognised borders.
He further insisted that “no peace agreement drafts exist” and dismissed the US plan as “laughable”, even though Russian officials privately acknowledge reviewing the proposals and preparing their own amendments. The gap between public rejection and private engagement is consistent with long-standing Russian tactics: undermine negotiation frameworks in the information sphere while attempting to secure favourable conditions behind closed doors.
Attacks on Ukraine’s constitutional order and election narrative
Putin characterised the absence of presidential elections in Ukraine as a “strategic mistake”, omitting that Ukrainian law and constitutional provisions prohibit holding elections under martial law. This position has been reaffirmed by national institutions such as the National Security and Defence Council and the Central Election Commission, as well as leading human-rights bodies and electoral-law experts. Public polling and statements by Ukrainian political leaders indicate a broad consensus that credible and safe elections are only possible after de-escalation and once minimum security conditions are met. Repeated parliamentary votes extending martial law with constitutional majorities confirm the legitimacy of the current government during wartime.
When accusing Ukraine of “fearing elections”, Putin also avoided acknowledging that Russia’s own voting processes no longer meet democratic standards. Opposition figures face systematic repression, media is tightly controlled, and so-called elections in occupied territories are not recognised by international institutions. These contrasts underline the use of electoral rhetoric as another tool in Russia’s information campaign rather than a genuine concern for democratic procedures.
Claims about European security, public attitudes and frozen assets
Putin suggested that many Ukrainians purportedly want to build “historic relations” with Russia, despite consistent polling by Ukrainian and international sociological agencies showing the opposite: more than 80–90% of Ukrainians now hold strongly negative views of Russia, associating it with war, destruction and aggression. His assertion that Russia “never intended to attack Europe” also stands at odds with Moscow’s recent decision to withdraw its ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and its increasingly aggressive nuclear signalling—developments EU governments and defence experts warn have raised strategic risks and weakened global arms-control architecture.
Addressing Western plans to repurpose frozen Russian state assets for Ukraine’s reconstruction, Putin labelled the move “theft” and threatened “retaliatory measures”. The EU maintains that Russian state assets and the revenue they generate should contribute to repairing the enormous damage inflicted on Ukraine’s energy system, infrastructure and housing. European officials argue this approach reflects both legal responsibility and political accountability for the consequences of Russia’s war.
