Russia's strategy is to negotiate under fire

From the Faktor:

"Negotiations Under Fire: Russia's Strategy from Chechnya to Ukraine

December 5, 2025

Evgeny Atanasov 

For decades, Russia has demonstrated a specific model of waging wars that it has declared itself. It conducts “negotiations” but simultaneously escalates the situation with bombings, ground offensives, or hybrid attacks. This behavior is not chaotic - it is part of a sustainable model built on a combination of diplomacy, force, disinformation, and the creation of controlled zones of instability. This model can be clearly traced in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, and even in the energy and cyber pressure on Europe. 

A tried-and-true formula: “I negotiate while I attack” 

Russian strategy follows several consistent principles. A common tactic is to provoke escalation before and during negotiations. This means that military or political tension is first created, which puts the enemy on the defensive. Negotiations are used not for compromise, but for tactical pauses, reconnaissance and pressure to legitimize territorial or political gains. Even signed agreements are often violated when the Kremlin considers that the balance of power allows it to escalate again. These principles are present in all major conflicts that Russia has started since the collapse of the USSR. 

 

Chechnya: The Prototype of the Model 

 

During the first Chechen war (1994–1996), Russia began negotiations with Chechen leaders repeatedly, but in parallel carried out massive bombing. The strategy included sieges of cities (Grozny was almost completely destroyed), parallel diplomatic requests, information operations presenting Chechens as terrorists. The negotiations in Khasavyurt in 1996 came precisely after a period of Russian military defeats, that is, as a way to pause, not for a lasting solution.

 

During the second Chechen war (1999–2009), Moscow expanded its strategy. After a series of attacks in Russia, which the Kremlin blamed on Chechen groups (and which some researchers have linked to Russian intelligence services), Moscow launched a new offensive. The pattern is characterized by negotiations with “loyal” Chechen clans, mass deportations, bombing during “dialogue,” and the imposition of pro-Russian power. Chechnya is a key example of how Russia uses war and “negotiations” to impose a puppet regime. 

 

Georgia: Blitzkrieg under the guise of peacekeeping 

 

Before the 2008 war in Georgia, Russia maintained “peacekeeping” contingents that effectively armed separatist forces. Negotiations with Tbilisi took place in conditions in which Moscow distributed Russian passports in the occupied territories, provoked clashes, and claimed to “protect Russian-speakers.” 

 

The Prelude: South Ossetia and Abkhazia 

 

During the fighting, Russia accepted international mediators, but continued its offensive deep into Georgian territory while formally negotiating a ceasefire. After the signing of the EU-sponsored agreement, Russian troops did not fully withdraw. They effectively consolidated control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia and used the agreement as a tool to legitimize the occupation. 

 

Ukraine: The Evolution of the Model into a Large-Scale War 

 

Russia has been implementing the same model in several stages – first in 2014 in Crimea and Donbas. During the annexation of Crimea, Moscow “negotiated” with Kiev and the West while organizing a referendum at gunpoint. On the other hand, in Donbas, the Minsk agreements serve to freeze the front and pressure Ukraine to make political concessions. 

 

Full-scale invasion 2022 and beyond 

 

In the first weeks of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia formally participated in peace talks in Belarus and Turkey while bombing Kiev, Kharkiv, and Mariupol, preparing propaganda narratives of “demilitarization” and “denazification.” This is the most striking example of the strategic fusion of diplomacy with force.

Why does Russia use this strategy? 

 

In Russian military doctrine, compromise is a form of weakness, and strength is the main language of international communication. It is good for Western countries to take an example from this strategy and try to achieve lasting peace through intransigence to provocations. 

 

Control through fear 

 

Fear creates a negotiation asymmetry - small countries are inclined to make concessions in order to avoid a full-scale war. At the same time, Russia uses diplomacy as a tactical pause. Negotiations give time to transfer units, replenish military resources and scout the enemy. 

 

Creation of “frozen conflicts” 

 

Frozen conflicts are permanent tools for influence - the examples are many and almost identical - Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh.

Hybrid components: propaganda, energy, cyberattacks 

 

Russian aggression is not limited to tanks. It is accompanied by “auxiliary” actions such as disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks on key sites, energy dependence as a tool for pressure, corruption of political elites, financing of radical parties in Europe. These tactics often work in conjunction with military actions. 

 

Russian strategy is consistent, not chaotic 

 

Whether it is Grozny, Tskhinvali, Donetsk or Mariupol, the pattern is the same - pressure through force, negotiations without concessions, occupation or maintenance of chaos and use of peace as a tool for influence. As long as the Kremlin perceives international relations as a game of supremacy, the strategy of “negotiate while you bomb” will remain a core element of Russian foreign policy.

 

Key tactic – rapprochement with a strong adversary 

 

Moscow often uses the tactic of rapprochement with a strong adversary (such as the United States in the case of Ukraine) as a tool to advance its own interests. This approach can be described as “diplomatic rapprochement for strategic gain”. Here, Russia demonstrates a willingness to engage in dialogue and engage in negotiations in order to create an impression of constructiveness, without actually seeking compromise. The main goal is to study the opponent’s reactions, gather information and test the extent to which it can push its terms.

 

Through such rapprochement, Moscow also tries to divide coalitions of powerful states, create divisions, or weaken external support for the third country. This allows it to lobby for easing sanctions, reducing military aid, or politically destabilizing opponents. At the same time, the tactic gives Russia a time window to strategically strengthen positions, transfer troops, and prepare infrastructure for future operations. A classic example of this is the Minsk agreements of 2014–2015, when Moscow formally engaged in dialogue with the EU and the US while simultaneously occupying territories in Donbas. 

 

Rapprochement has a psychological and propaganda effect: Russia presents itself as a “reasonable country” ready for negotiations, which provides it with legitimacy in the international community and can confuse the adversary about its true intentions. Thus, rapprochement with a powerful adversary is used as a tactical step to extract strategic, political, and military dividends without implying an intention for real compromise.

Why Ukraine Doesn’t Trust Russia? 

Ukraine has seen too much of the same to believe this time. Kiev is aware that despite the formal dialogue, Russian forces will continue the offensive, sieges, and destruction. This systematic violation of agreements and the use of diplomatic talks as a tool for military and political dividends is the reason for the deep distrust of the Ukrainian side. 

For Kiev, every new “diplomatic” gesture from Moscow is perceived as part of a long-term strategy to weaken Ukraine, legitimize the occupation, and undermine international support. In the context of this model, faith in real peace or good-faith negotiations with the Kremlin seems unreasonably risky."