Witkoff called Putin a humanist as he thanked him for Stephen Hubbard’s release. Russian troops seized the elderly American in Izium, and former fellow prisoners reported that he had been beaten, tortured with electric shocks, burned and attacked by dogs. This is a punitive system created and endorsed by Putin, who is himself a product of that system. Let us recall some examples of the “humanism” displayed by Putin and the system he created. Wars. Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Ukraine—a succession of military campaigns involving mass civilian casualties. In Novye Aldi in Chechnya, Russian forces executed at least 60 people. In Georgia, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) established Russia’s responsibility for killings, torture and the burning of homes. In Syria, human rights organisations documented unlawful strikes by Russian and Syrian forces on hospitals, schools and markets. His personal decision to invade Ukraine. On 24 February 2022, Putin himself announced the start of the full-scale war. As early as 2014, he publicly spoke of using civilians to shield Russian troops: standing “behind them, not in front, but behind” and challenging Ukrainian soldiers to “try shooting at women and children.” Killings of civilians and the destruction of shelters and hospitals. Bucha, with its extrajudicial executions; the Mariupol Drama Theatre, marked with the word “CHILDREN”; and the missile strike on Okhmatdyt Children’s Hospital are specific instances of violence committed by the army Putin sent into Ukraine. They have been documented by the UN and international human rights organisations. The deportation of children. The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Putin over his suspected personal responsibility for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children. The UN Commission of Inquiry classified these practices as crimes against humanity. Torture and the hunting of human beings. The UN Commission of Inquiry found that the Russian authorities’ systematic use of torture constituted a crime against humanity. It reached the same conclusion regarding systematic drone attacks on civilians in the Kherson region. Depriving millions of the basic necessities of life. Strikes on energy infrastructure left Ukrainians without electricity, heating and water, and threatened the operation of hospitals. In connection with this campaign, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Shoigu and Gerasimov, including for suspected attacks on civilian objects. MH17 and the concealment of responsibility. All 298 people aboard the passenger aircraft were killed when it was shot down. The ECtHR established Russia’s responsibility for the disaster and for violations of the rights of the victims’ relatives. Poisonings abroad. A British inquiry found that Putin had probably approved Litvinenko’s murder with polonium. Another inquiry concluded that he had authorised the assassination attempt on Skripal. Novichok left behind by the perpetrators killed a member of the public—Dawn Sturgess. The persecution of Navalny. After being poisoned with Novichok, the opposition politician was imprisoned; he died in a penal colony. In 2026, five European countries reported detecting epibatidine in samples taken from him and held the Russian state responsible for his poisoning. Impunity for those who ordered political killings. Nemtsov was shot dead near the Kremlin. Politkovskaya was murdered on Putin’s birthday after investigating crimes in Chechnya. Personal support for a state assassin. A German court established that Krasikov had killed Khangoshvili in Berlin on orders from Russian state agencies. Following a prisoner exchange, Putin personally met the convicted murderer at the airport and embraced him. “Kursk”: 118 dead and “It sank.” In the first days of the disaster, Putin remained on holiday while Moscow delayed accepting foreign assistance. All 118 sailors died. Later, when Larry King asked what had happened to the submarine, Putin replied: “It sank.” His initial response to a question about the deaths of an entire crew took just two words. “Nord-Ost” and Beslan: contempt for hostages’ lives. In the Nord-Ost case, the ECtHR found that the rescue operation following the use of gas had been inadequately organised. In Beslan, the authorities failed to take appropriate measures despite having information about the threat of an attack. During the operation, security forces used tank guns, grenade launchers and flamethrowers—the court found that this had contributed to the hostages’ deaths. Children as hostages to political revenge. In retaliation for the US Magnitsky Act, Putin signed a law banning US citizens from adopting Russian children. Even nearly completed adoptions were halted, including those involving children with serious illnesses. The ECtHR found the ban discriminatory and disproportionate. The Kremlin demonstrated its power to Washington at the expense of children who could have found families. The 1999 apartment bombings: questions the Kremlin cannot brush aside. Hundreds dead, another war in Chechnya and the rapid consolidation of Putin’s power. Litvinenko, Felshtinsky and Satter accused the FSB of organising the bombings. In Ryazan, the FSB later claimed that a device initially regarded as a bomb in an apartment building was part of a “training exercise with sugar.” Torture, coerced confessions and years of imprisonment—this is how Putin’s government punishes disobedience. Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and Russian opposition figures have received prison sentences of 10, 20 and 25 years in politically motivated cases. By calling Putin a humanist, Witkoff grants moral absolution to a ruler who starts wars, presides over a state that practises systematic torture, and personally welcomes a convicted murderer.

It suits the Kremlin to have Washington believe that a deal with Putin is just around the corner. One more meeting, one more concession, one more phone call. And while the Americans wait for a peace deal, Russia keeps waging war. Russia gets concessions. Ukraine gets pressure. Kushner has again demanded that Ukraine stop striking Russian oil refineries. This works well for the Kremlin: Washington is already making concessions to Russia while demanding concrete concessions from Ukraine. As long as Moscow keeps hopes of a deal alive, the US may hold off on new sanctions and persuade Kyiv to accept additional terms for the sake of successful negotiations. Talks can go on forever. Even while the war continues. Discussing a new document or a possible summit allows American mediators to report progress toward peace. Russia retains direct access to Washington and the opportunity to sell its version of why the war began and what it would take to end it. No luck with peace? Let’s talk business. Dmitriev has reported discussions about joint projects, including nuclear-powered data centers. Walking away from the talks would then mean giving up the benefits the US administration hopes to gain. Open-ended demands allow Moscow to keep bargaining. Without a definitive list of Russian conditions, every round can end with statements about progress and the need for further consultations. Meanwhile, Moscow can keep adding demands. Take Putin’s October 16 statement about a “security zone” in the Sumy and Kharkiv regions, which he does not intend to discuss in peace negotiations. Russia maintains an additional territorial demand while simultaneously signaling its willingness to meet with the US. In St. Petersburg, watch what Russia actually agrees to do. Which strikes will it stop? When? Who will verify this? What security guarantees for Ukraine will it accept? Without this, another “very constructive conversation” will simply mean the Americans have had their hopes raised again. They will leave to prepare for the next meeting, and Russia will keep waging war.