Zelensky’s Illegitimacy Might Still Not Preclude Him From Signing Any Peace Documents

Andrew Korybko 

The fact that Peskov confirmed that Putin could hypothetically meet with Zelensky under certain conditions is proof of the Russian leader’s pragmatic desire to end the conflict if the right terms are reached instead of continuing it as an explicitly declared regime change campaign.

Zelensky’s term expired over a year ago, after which Putin declared that the Rada and its Speaker are the only legitimate powers in Ukraine per his reading of its constitution. The issue was then thrown onto the backburner until recently. The resumption of bilateral Russian-Ukrainian talks in Istanbul led to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov telling reporters that a meeting between Putin and Zelensky “is possible but only as a result of the work of the delegations of both sides and reaching specific agreements.”

He cautioned that “a key issue for Moscow remains the question of who Ukraine would authorize to sign any potential agreements reached by the negotiators” due to Zelensky’s illegitimacy. A few days later, Director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Legal Department Maxim Musikhin said that “It is of major importance who signs [documents] because their current ‘leader’ lost domestic, let alone external, legitimacy long ago. Hence, there could be problems with any agreement signed by such a person.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov soon thereafter chimed in as well, saying that “if those whose legitimacy, to put it mildly, does not convince anyone anymore, put their signatures, then their successors may challenge the agreement reached.” He then added that despite Putin deeming Zelensky to be illegitimate, “he emphasized at the same time that we still do not refuse to communicate with him and with his administration in order to agree on the principles of a settlement that suit everyone.”

Pushkov, Musikhin, and Lavrov are right, and the ideal scenario would be for truly free and fair elections to be held in Ukraine prior to the signing of any peace documents with Russia, but Zelensky’s illegitimacy might still not preclude him from signing them if the terms are agreed to without that happening. The issue of legitimacy is important but it’s not what observers might think. What matters most is that both parties, regardless of one side’s illegitimacy, continue to have reasons to abide by whatever is signed.

As informed by the UN’s eight-decade-long experience, international law is meaningless without credible enforcement mechanisms and the political will to use them, including unilaterally if there’s a politicized deadlock at the Security Council. International law shapes public opinion, but ultimately, powerful states can create facts on the ground that then become the new reality around which conflicts are politically settled. This might essentially become the case with the Ukrainian Conflict as will now be explained.

Whether Zelensky, the Rada Speaker, or some new Ukrainian President signs peace documents with Russia, they won’t be worth the paper that they’re written on if Kiev comes to feel after some time that it doesn’t have a reason to abide by these agreements just like it came to feel about the Minsk Accords. It’s here where the Russian and American roles come into play, the first with regard to retaining a large-scale military force near the frontier and the second by limiting its military commitment to Kiev.

If Russian forces remain within distance of carrying out various punitive actions in response to Ukrainian violations while the US makes it clear that it won’t let Ukraine manipulate it into a conflict with Russia, then a future peace deal might hold (unless a new US administration flip-flops). Even if a Ukrainian figure deemed legitimate to Russia were to sign these agreements, they or their successor could still violate them on any pretext if they didn’t have the aforesaid reasons to continue abiding by them.

Likewise, if Zelensky capitulated to some of the main concessions that Russia is demanding but insisted that he himself must sign the peace documents, then it can’t be ruled out that Putin the pragmatist might agree instead of continuing the conflict as an explicitly declared regime change campaign. The fact that Peskov confirmed that Putin could hypothetically meet with Zelensky under certain conditions is proof of the Russian leader’s sincere desire to end the conflict if the right terms are reached. 

Andrew Korybko, Substack, May 25, 2025

Anteriores: 
The Devil’s In The Details As Trump Announces “Immediate” Russian-Ukrainian Ceasefire Talks 
Yemen Taught Trump Some Lessons That He’d Do Well To Apply Towards Ukraine 
The AfD’s Views On Nationality Actually Aren’t Extremist At All 
Putin & Xi Might Hash Out A Grand Deal That Would Enter Into Force If The Ukraine Talks Collapse Radio Liberty Let The Cat Out Of The Bag Regarding The EU’s Game Plan For Ukraine