Fact Check Analysis: Putin ready for direct talks with Ukraine, spokesperson says

Why This Article Was Fact-Checked

This article was flagged after readers raised concerns over Russian President Vladimir Putin’s claim that he is ready for direct talks with Ukraine—on the condition that Ukraine first enforces a “complete ceasefire.” Multiple readers questioned this narrative, citing Russia’s own role in continuing attacks during what was allegedly a truce. We investigated these statements to clarify the facts, detect any bias, and determine whether they align with official records and independent reporting.

Historical Context

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, multiple efforts have been made to broker ceasefires, peace initiatives, and negotiations. However, all significant talks broke down after Ukraine issued a 2022 decree banning direct negotiations with Putin following Russia’s illegal annexation of four Ukrainian territories. Despite intermittent battlefield lulls, both sides have accused each other of violating truces—most recently over the Easter weekend. These cycles of violence and attempted diplomacy have defined the war’s trajectory, making any claim of “readiness for peace” worthy of critical examination.

Fact-Checks on Key Claims

Claim #1: Putin is ready for direct talks if Ukraine agrees to a complete ceasefire

This claim is misleading. While Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated that Putin is open to talks, they placed the burden of initiating negotiations entirely on Ukraine by demanding a complete ceasefire. Yet, independent conflict monitors and Ukrainian officials reported multiple Russian drone strikes and shelling incidents during the very period Russia claimed to be observing a ceasefire. According to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), and verified by BBC and Reuters reporting from April 2025, Russian forces continued drone attacks across Kyiv and Kharkiv during the Easter truce. Therefore, suggesting Ukraine is solely responsible for obstructing talks lacks essential context.

Claim #2: Russia scaled back its military operation and limited attacks during the Easter ceasefire

This statement contains partial truth, but misses key context. President Putin claimed a 30-hour operational pause starting Friday of Easter weekend. Satellite imagery and field reports reviewed by the OSINT group Bellingcat confirm a temporary decrease in long-range missile launches. However, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense and international correspondents such as AFP documented continued use of kamikaze drones and localized skirmishes near Sloviansk and Avdiivka. In short, while Russia may have altered the form of aggression, labeling it as a sincere ceasefire is inaccurate.

Claim #3: Ukraine has placed legal obstacles that make talks with Putin impossible

This claim is accurate but lacks relevant nuance. In October 2022, Ukraine’s government issued a presidential decree signed by Volodymyr Zelenskyy legally barring negotiations with Vladimir Putin. However, several Ukrainian officials have stated Ukraine remains open to mediated talks or discussions if Russia elects a different negotiating structure. In this case, citing the decree as the sole obstacle to peace talks omits the broader context of Russia’s role in undermining conditions for negotiations—including occupying Ukrainian territory and conducting strikes against civilians. Sources: Ukrainian Presidential Decree No. 679/2022; Al Jazeera; DW.

Claim #4: The U.S.-backed peace proposal heavily favors Russia

This claim is speculative. The article cites unnamed “media reports” suggesting that the U.S. is presenting a deal favorable to Russia—including freezing current battle lines and recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. However, no official draft of such a proposal has been made public, and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has not confirmed those specifics. Analysts at Foreign Policy and The Atlantic Council caution against reading too much into anonymous reporting without diplomatic corroboration. As of now, there is insufficient evidence to verify the alleged content of the U.S. proposal.

Final Verdict

The article by The Guardian contains mostly accurate reporting but presents several claims without sufficient context or critical scrutiny—especially when referencing Russian willingness for peace and the alleged Ukrainian responsibility for failed negotiations. Assertions about Russia’s restraint during the Easter period and the blame placed on Ukraine are not fully supported by independent verification. Similarly, the U.S. peace plan is described using unsourced speculation. While the piece maintains journalistic neutrality in tone, its lack of depth in analyzing claims made by Russian officials may inadvertently mislead readers by providing a false balance or bothsidesism. Notably, the headline and framing emphasize Putin’s readiness for talks without adequately challenging contradictions in his conditions.

Engage With the Truth

If you’re tired of sorting facts from fiction, download the DBUNK app today. Join thousands of informed users who are pushing back against misinformation. Together, we verify before we trust.