But will there ever be a meeting between Putin and Zelensky? The answer, for those familiar with the Russian propaganda machine, is that a face-to-face is highly unlikely, and certainly not in the form of a confrontation between equals. Clare Sebastian, an analyst and CNN correspondent from London, argues this, as do numerous analysts and observers in the West.

Let’s start with an assumption: Putin called Zelensky a ‘Nazi‘, a ‘puppet of the West‘, an illegitimate president; to suddenly turn him into an interlocutor would mean demolishing years of propaganda. Orysia Lutsevich of Chatham House, interviewed by CNN itself, said it clearly: such a summit would be tantamount to admitting that Ukraine exists as a sovereign state and that its president deserves to be treated as an equal.

Reinforcing this logic of denial of Ukrainian national identity are Putin’s own demands: the recognition of Russian as an official language in Ukraine and protections for the Russian Orthodox Church, which has been severely damaged by the break with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has declared itself autocephalous and is now linked to the Patriarch of Constantinople. These are not mere formal issues, but symbolic and identity elements, designed to reaffirm the idea that Ukraine is not a separate nation, but an offshoot of Russia.

It is therefore not surprising that the Kremlin is playing on ambiguity. Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s advisor, spoke of ‘raising the level of representatives‘ without ever naming the two presidents. And Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister since 2004, reiterated that ‘summit contacts must be prepared with the utmost care‘. Words that, in today’s Moscow’s Soviet lexicon, are tantamount to postponing indefinitely.

To confirm how far the hypothesis remains, it is worth recalling two episodes reported by European sources. In Germany, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung noted that Zelensky says he is open to a meeting ‘without preconditions’, while the Kremlin reiterates that Russian demands – from ceding territories to forced neutrality – must be accepted in advance. In France, La Dépêche du Midi stressed the provocative nature of Putin’s proposal to host the meeting even in Moscow, which was immediately rejected by Zelensky.

The Kremlin’s design is clear: it does not envisage a meeting of equals, only an act of surrender. The conditions put forward by Putin go in the direction of denying Ukraine’s legitimacy as a state: from the recognition of Russian as an official language to protections for the Russian Orthodox Churches, presented as damaged by the break with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church linked to Constantinople. These are not mere technical demands, but targeted blows to Kyiv’s national and religious identity.

It is surprising and worrying, in this context, how a large part of the Italian press has espoused the Trumpian-Putin narrative, extolling the US president’s ‘peace’ efforts without emphasising the enormity of the Russian conditions. On the contrary, the major international newspapers – from the Wall Street Journal to the Guardian to the Washington Post – have made it clear that the negotiations do not end the war, but prolong it, allowing Putin to gain time and strengthen his position.

Meanwhile, Putin cashes in: he has already won the prestige of the Alaska summit, the American renunciation of a ceasefire as a precondition, and the gradual erosion of ultimatums on sanctions. On the ground, attacks have resumed violently: 270 drones and 10 missiles launched in a single night, a signal that war remains the Kremlin’s primary tool.

The truth is that a meeting between Putin and Zelensky appears remote and conditional on scenarios of Ukrainian surrender. This is what Moscow imagines or desires, and it is not what the West should consider as ‘peace’.