In a detailed discussion, experts examined the motives behind Kirill Dmitriev’s visit to the United States. It is suggested that among his tasks is to observe how both sides in negotiations refer to Russia and use it for their own interests. The discourse also covers the idea that Dmitriev might receive hints about a possible transition of power in Russia after Putin and how Western countries might react to such changes.
The participants debate the prospects of removing Putin from power and the possibility of a shift towards collective leadership, drawing parallels to the Politburo era after Stalin. According to one expert, Russia currently lacks a figure capable of directly replacing Putin, making collective rule more likely after his departure—an arrangement that could potentially lead to a freeze or end to the war. However, there is skepticism that such changes would immediately result in the return of Crimea to Ukraine or other swift concessions.
The conversation notes that the US often seeks to negotiate with whoever is willing and able, reflecting the Trump administration’s tendency to find alternative interlocutors if negotiations stall with top leaders. The discussion explores the differing styles of Democrats and Republicans on sanctions and international conflict resolution, referencing past leadership transitions and key policy moves.
Experts highlight that high-level engagements between the US and Russia often feature ambitious proposals, such as the idea of building a tunnel between Kamchatka and Alaska or even selling Gazprom for a dollar, though such proposals are viewed as unrealistic.
In summary, analysts believe changes in Russian leadership could result in at least a freeze in the war and the onset of prolonged negotiations. However, they don’t foresee rapid compromise or sanctions relief in the near future.
