Why Putin Cannot Meet Zelenskyy on Neutral Terms

Diplomacy presupposes a degree of equality between interlocutors. Yet in the long and bitter war between Russia and Ukraine, such equality has never been possible. The reasons why Russian President Vladimir Putin cannot sit down with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in neutral terms, or on genuinely neutral territory, are rooted in centuries of history and the geopolitics of the present.

The Legacy of Imperial Denial

At the heart of the problem lies Russia’s refusal to recognise Ukraine as a fully sovereign nation. From the era of the Russian Empire, Ukraine has been viewed as “Little Russia”—a subordinate region whose culture and language were suppressed to consolidate imperial control. Soviet policy, although superficially federal, perpetuated this hierarchy, marginalising Ukrainian identity while integrating her economy into Moscow’s orbit.

Putin has revived this imperial narrative. His published essays and speeches deny Ukraine’s historical legitimacy, insisting that she is a branch of Russia’s destiny rather than an independent polity. To meet Zelenskyy on neutral terms would be to concede equality, implicitly recognising that Ukraine’s sovereignty is valid. For Putin, who has framed his war as a mission to restore “historical unity”, such recognition would represent an ideological defeat.

Geopolitical Stakes and the Collapse of Neutrality

Neutral territory itself has become almost impossible to identify. Traditional venues of mediation, such as Minsk or Geneva, are no longer credible. Belarus is openly aligned with Moscow; Switzerland’s neutrality has been tested by her adoption of sanctions against Russia. Even Turkey, which has sought to play the role of broker, is perceived in Kyiv as tilting towards Moscow.

For Ukraine, a neutral venue is not merely symbolic but existential. Negotiating on Russian-leaning soil would undermine the very principle of independence that she is defending. For Russia, a Western-aligned venue would be viewed as a trap, confirming Moscow’s narrative that the West dictates Ukraine’s policy. In this way, the geography of diplomacy reflects the geography of war: there is no space uncontested by spheres of influence.

Asymmetry of War Aims

Diplomatic neutrality also requires that each party has a goal that can be compromised. Here again, the asymmetry is fatal. Ukraine seeks survival and the restoration of her borders; Russia seeks domination and the erasure of Ukraine’s independent status. These aims are irreconcilable. A neutral meeting would require Putin to treat Zelenskyy as the representative of a legitimate state whose survival is negotiable in good faith. For Putin, whose position depends upon denying that legitimacy, such a step is structurally impossible.

The Shadow of Accountability

Another obstacle lies in the realm of justice. Putin stands accused of war crimes, with an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court. To sit down with Zelenskyy as an equal counterpart would highlight not only Russia’s failures on the battlefield but also her isolation in law. Neutrality cannot exist when one party is subject to international criminal prosecution and the other is the victim of those alleged crimes.

European and Western Context

Finally, the geopolitical reality of Europe since 2022 has made neutrality a fiction. European powers—Britain, France, Germany and others—have unambiguously aligned themselves with Ukraine. NATO has committed unprecedented resources to her defence. The European Union has opened its doors to Ukrainian membership. Against this backdrop, any negotiation purporting to take place on neutral ground risks becoming a façade, because the underlying balance of alliances has shifted decisively against Russia.

The Impossibility of Equal Dialogue

For diplomacy to be neutral, both sides must accept the other’s legitimacy, share a space not under contest, and pursue aims susceptible to compromise. None of these conditions apply in the case of Russia and Ukraine. Putin’s imperial worldview denies Ukraine’s sovereignty; the geopolitics of the conflict have eliminated trusted neutral venues; the objectives of each side are fundamentally incompatible; and international law shadows any engagement.

That is why Putin cannot meet Zelenskyy on neutral terms, and despite US President Donald Trump's aims. The obstacle is not one of logistics but of essence: the war itself is rooted in Russia’s refusal to recognise equality. Until that refusal is abandoned, neutrality will remain an illusion, and negotiations will continue to be theatres of power rather than platforms for peace.