Winter is coming: Putin seeks to 'hammer Ukrainians, their power grid, their water supplies'

Another major news for you today. It is, of course, been a marathon week for peace talks on the Ukraine war. After two days of direct U.S.-mediated negotiations in Abu Dhabi, U.S. envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are meeting with Vladimir Putin in Moscow before later heading to Dublin, Ireland, to meet with Volodymyr Zelensky. Now, at least for now, Jared Kushner has said that one of the objectives in Moscow today is to get Vladimir Putin to include European officials in peace talks, especially as the Kremlin is increasingly. focused on what it describes as the continent's broader security architecture. Here's how some Ukrainian residents, at least for now, view this latest round of discussions. If this can be called diplomacy, it's sheer nonsense. It makes sense. They always claim that they strike only military targets. But look, an ordinary residential apartment building in the city center on an ordinary working day. I can't count on them. You cannot rely on the Americans. We have to rely only on ourselves, on our own strength, and on Europe, because Europe is under threat. If they take our Ukraine, they will go further into Europe. I don't believe Trump, and I don't trust him. Well, meanwhile, leaders from more than 40 European nations are in Dublin this Thursday then for that European political community summit focused precisely on the continent's security. Now, it's also a first occasion for the leaders to digest the outcome of those U.S.-mediated talks in Abu Dhabi on this nearly five-year-long war in Ukraine, though those talks, of course, brought little breakthroughs aside from that massive prisoner swap agreement. Here's the Ukrainian president. We need to make sure that Europe becomes a regular part of these negotiations. The talks were serious, not empty. First, an agreement on a POW exchange. Second, a lot of talk about security guarantees, and here Europe really needs to pay attention. When the Americans and Russians talk about this, it's not just about security guarantees For Ukraine. It's more about some kind of new security framework between Europe and Russia. We're going to stick now with these latest peace negotiations and speak to Mark Gagliotti, executive director of MAIAC Intelligence and also honorary professor at the UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies. Mark, thank you very much for being with us today. So, I mean, I have to start by saying Russia's maximalist demands for ending this war have not changed. Can you just start by reminding us what Moscow wants in order to stop this war? Well, it's interesting because Moscow keeps saying our demands haven't changed, but of course they have changed, and at the moment they tend to use these broad euphemisms like addressing the root causes of the war without really spelling them out. There are some things we know they absolutely want. They want the territories that they've already captured. They want to guarantee that Ukraine will not become part of NATO and that there will not be NATO forces in Ukraine after any peace, and they want to have some kind of sanctions relief. Everything else, in effect, is on the table, but the Russian approach is always to sound incredibly bullish and then make any concessions at the very last minute. So, I mean, U.S. envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are in Moscow. Of course, right now they're speaking to the Russian president. A lot has been said about them being out of their league, so to speak, when it comes to trying to negotiate an end to such a significant conflict. How do you think they are actually perceived by the Kremlin? Are they taken seriously? And I'll add just to that question that I saw reports earlier that the The Kremlin is indeed broadcasting the meeting with Kushner and with Witkoff Live, does that indeed suggest that there's not much serious progress to be expected? To a degree, on that last point, you're right. It's clear that there's no rabbits about to be pulled out of hats. This is a fairly sort of, frankly, status quo kind of meeting, more or less saying that we all know who we are. But let's be honest, the talks were never going to lead to some kind of sudden breakthrough. In terms of how these individuals are viewed, I don't get the sense, frankly, that the Russians have huge regard for Mr Kushner and Mr Witkoff, but the point is they represent the United States. So in some ways it's actually the country behind them that really matters. And the very fact that the Russians themselves are willing now to entertain the thought of the Europeans coming into the peace process a little bit more, though under certain circumstances, suggests that they also think that the United States is a waning factor in this deal. Now, speaking to that question of Europeans coming into this these negotiations, Mark, we've I mean, there appears to be two components to that. On the one hand, Jared Kushner says he hopes to convince the Russian president to include Europeans. Europeans have been saying that they felt sidelined for years really now in these peace negotiations. But on the other hand, Moscow appears more focused this time around on drawing up a proposed European security framework. You say that Vladimir Putin kind of speaks in euphemisms. I imagine that this European security architecture is one of those euphemisms. What do you think Putin means by that? Yes, I mean, very much what he's talking about is some kind of wider deal. Just as he said, he doesn't want just a temporary ceasefire on Ukraine. He wants a proper deal that will actually settle the conflict once and for all. Likewise, he's now trying to put the Ukraine conflict into a wider context. And look, he's going to use this to try and push back. It's not that he thinks any countries are going to be forced to leave NATO, for example. But he wants to see less what he calls NATO's military architecture on Russia's borders. And more to the point, he just wants that sense of being brought back into the European framework. There is, and it's a very emotional rather than geopolitical thing, is this great sense that Russia has been unfairly pushed out of the European family of nations to which it thinks it belongs. So I think that there is a mix of emotion and geopolitics coming in there. But he definitely wants to widen these discussions from just Ukraine. Now, I mean, that brings me to another question, Mark. By their very nature, diplomatic negotiations obviously require compromise. And yet we've seen really for months, if not more, we've seen both Russia and Ukraine essentially stick with their major conditions for ending this war. They haven't really changed much at all, which you hinted towards. In that sense, given where things stand today, do you actually see Any compromise at all from either side, political compromise as being realistic and in terms of realistic compromises, what might that look like for both Russia or Ukraine? So much of what's going on now is really focusing on just one small territorial part of the Donbass region. The last bit, maybe around 18 to 20 percent of this contested Donetsk region. Putin seems to think that it's absolutely necessary for him to say, as he will put it, liberated all of the Donbass. And therefore he's demanding that territory. The Ukrainians can't and won't give it to him. So on one level, look, I don't think we can expect any kind of compromise, certainly until spring. Because Putin will rely on the fact that he has a winter to hammer the Ukrainians, their power grid, their water supplies, and so forth. That said, though, we are hearing a lot more positive noises from every side. We heard Zelensky saying that these negotiations had been serious and there was a window of opportunity. So there is that sense that everyone is kind of easing towards it. But I must admit, for the moment, that is Donbass question. Is for me an intractable one. And no, neither side looks willing or able to compromise on that. Now, that brings in the question of the efforts of the main mediator, which, of course, has been the United States. We've seen the Trump administration oscillate between supporting Ukraine and also appearing to be more. Close to Russia. Which do you think is a better reflection of the administration's actual views? Do you think that Donald Trump really is pro-Russia or do you think he simply prefers the Kremlin out of his thinking that Russia is easier to make a deal with and perhaps that this might just be a question of real estate? Trump does seem to gravitate towards authoritarians of every stripe, in part precisely because that sense that, you know, as a dealmaker, you have one person with whom you can make a deal rather than a whole democratic structure. That said, though, there's little evidence that Trump really cares about Ukraine one way or the other. What he does care about, I think, seems to be this idea that he should win a Nobel Peace Prize. And if he wants to have some kind of final diplomatic triumph before the end of his now increasingly short term period in office, then he has to move on this. So I think Trump will essentially align with whoever he thinks at any one time is the strongest partner in the conflict. Most of the time, he's been of the view that it was Russia. Sometimes he's convinced that it's Ukraine, but the point is, to be brutally honest, you can just toss a coin to decide on whose side Trump will seem to be on any given day. Finally, Mark, I mean, it's really hard to keep count of how many rounds of peace talks there have been since the start of the war in Ukraine nearly five years ago. They have, of course, varied in size and scale. But aside from the prisoner swap there, there wasn't much progress in Abu Dhabi. We don't see much changing, at least for now, even though maybe, as you said, there is a little bit more optimism. Do you think that this peace process risks losing credibility as we continue to see these meetings take place with little to speak for? All peace processes are slow and painful. What's different, and I think what is the real problem with this particular process, is just how public it is. Usually peace processes are handled out of sight by experts, by specialists, and then the heads of state only get brought in right at the end to make the big announcement, to go and sign the documents, and generally to take the credit. In this, as in so many other aspects of Trump diplomacy, it's actually been turned around. Trump makes grand declarations and various people try desperately to make it happen, and most of the time they don't. So this is what we would expect from a peace process which is so intractable and where the situation on the ground, frankly, hasn't been changing all that much from month to month. But as I say, the problem has been just how public it is. And yes, it may then lose its credibility unfairly because Trump stoked so much expectation at the very beginning of them. It is indeed difficult to remember, at least in recent memory, a peace process that was indeed so public, precisely as you say. Mark Gagliotti, that's unfortunately all we have time for. Executive Director of M സാഹ Intelligence and Honorary Professor at the UCL School of Slavonic and Eastern European Studies. Thank you very much for joining us today.