Could Putin Really Step Down as a Term of the Mar-a-Lago Peace Agreement?
According to bne IntelliNews Kremlin sources, the answer is ‘yes.’ But I’m not so sure.
This article is for paid subscribers. As a reminder, I publish two additional, exclusive paid articles every week, on Wednesdays and Sundays. A paid subscription not only gives you access to these; it unlocks the full vault of previous free articles that get auto-paywalled after 7 weeks. Plus it supports independent journalism and keeps me from selling my soul to brand sponsorships on YouTube. Happy reading friends.
For nearly four years now, the war in Ukraine has demanded a lot from everyone who watches it closely: moral clarity, analytical rigor, and a stomach for relentless contradictions.
Yet here we are at the tail end of 2025, flirting with the possibility, however premature, that the conflict might find an “end” at a sun‑soaked luxury resort in Florida.
The kerfuffle over a potential peace deal between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump at Mar‑a‑Lago this week has been the subject of breathless speculation: that a 20‑point peace plan could be signed, that Russia might finally agree to something approaching an end to hostilities, and, most provocatively, that Vladimir Putin could step aside in the deal’s wake.
Presumably, Putin wants to secure his legacy before retiring in luxury. At least, according to Intellinews…
It’s tempting to see such a scenario as the diplomatic equivalent of a Hollywood ending; a defeated antagonist quietly slipping into sunset after pledging “victory” to his people.
But anyone whose understanding of Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin comes from Kremlinology 101 already knows one thing: Putin doesn’t go quietly. He doesn’t passively submit his legacy to a foreign press conference or barter it away in an American political theatre.
What makes this story worth unraveling, then, isn’t the headline possibility of Putin’s exit. It’s the uncomfortable mechanics and implications of trying to build peace on an illusion.
The Context: Why Mar‑a‑Lago Matters
Despite the glitz of Florida and the casual references to “peace talks,” the diplomatic terrain here is anything but simple.
Ukraine and US negotiators have been working toward a revised 20‑Point Peace Proposal, an attempt to create a framework that threads Ukraine’s demand for sovereignty with US interests and Russian demands that have fluctuated but never truly softened.
Zelenskyy’s office submitted this updated plan to Moscow on Christmas Eve, a symbolic gesture in a war where both symbolism and timing are weapons in their own right.
The talks have ebbed and flowed over weeks of intense meetings in Berlin, Miami, and Stateside in Florida just before the year’s end. Ukrainian officials have said publicly that much of the framework is near completion; “about 90% ready,” as one reporting put it, but that crucial disagreements remain unresolved.
At the same time, Russia has continued to pound Ukrainian cities, even as diplomats talk.
Prior to this week’s Florida meeting, Russian forces launched one of the most sustained attacks on Kyiv in months, using hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles. Casualties were reported and critical infrastructure was hammered. Zelenskyy framed the assault as Putin’s answer to peace efforts.
This contradiction, bombs and talks, is the first thing you need to unpack if you’re trying to understand why the “Putin steps down” talking point sounds less like realpolitik and more like wishful thinking.
Putin’s public statements ahead of the Florida talks reveal a carefully choreographed narrative, not a genuine willingness to conclude a war he has framed for Russian audiences as a struggle for national security and historical justice.
In a long-televised year‑end address broadcast domestically shortly before the Mar‑a‑Lago meeting, Putin reiterated that Russia would achieve its aims by force if Ukraine wasn’t ready for peace… That’s a stark reminder that on the battlefield, Moscow still believes it holds leverage.
If peace is truly the objective, then why does Russian official rhetoric continue to emphasize strategic victories, territorial gains, and continuing operations?
Recent internal Kremlin commentary, amplified in Russian media and analyzed by observers, suggests this isn’t a simple misunderstanding.
In interviews and call‑in shows, Putin has tied any peace to Ukraine’s abandonment of NATO aspirations and to Russia’s control over territories it now occupies, including most of Donbas, Crimea, and other regions seized since 2014.
Elimination of “root causes” of conflict, in his telling, means Ukraine must recognize Moscow’s security concerns by giving up strategic autonomy and territorial integrity.
That framing goes to the heart of why the notion that Putin might suddenly “decline” to lead after a deal is more fantasy than analysis.
For nearly a quarter‑century, Putin has welded his personal narrative to Russia’s geopolitical narrative: victim turned avenger, defender of Russians abroad, heir to a restored great‑power status. Stepping aside in deference to US or Ukrainian demands would require not just political recalibration, but a complete inversion of that story.
