German Chancellor Olaf Scholz expressed his intention to keep the channels of dialogue open with Russian President Vladimir Putin as discussions about the war in Ukraine continue to unfold. He emphasized that diplomacy remains a central tool for addressing the conflict, even as disagreements persist on the ground and in policy. According to Scholz, a critical moment must emerge that creates a real opening for peace negotiations, a threshold he believes could set in motion a process toward de-escalation and eventual resolution.
In outlining this approach, Scholz noted that his conversations with Putin have been purposeful and ongoing, including a recent decision to engage in discussion with the Russian leader. He recalled that the last direct exchange occurred in December, and he signaled a willingness to maintain contact in the near term with the aim of persuading Moscow that the present situation is not sustainable and that alternatives to continued confrontation are possible. The German leader underscored that dialogue is not about concession without principle, but about seeking a framework in which both sides can acknowledge concerns and work toward outcomes that reflect international norms and Ukrainian interests.
Scholz highlighted the hope that honest, productive negotiations could eventually become feasible and produce concrete results that are acceptable and legitimate for Ukraine, as well as for the broader European security architecture. He described peace as a shared objective that requires candor, patience, and a readiness to consider reciprocal compromises, all undertaken within a transparent process that preserves the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine while addressing the security concerns of Russia. This balanced view reflects a long-standing insistence that diplomacy must be paired with clear standards for accountability and compliance by all parties involved.
The Kremlin and the German government provided official accounts of their interactions, with the last telephone conversation publicly noted as taking place on December 2, 2022. This record underscores the ongoing routine of diplomacy at high levels, even amid frequent public disagreements over strategy and framing. The existence of such communications points to a deliberate effort by both capitals to keep lines of contact open, which many observers see as essential for preventing miscalculations and for keeping potential pathways to peace within reach, even when prospects appear uncertain or distant.
Observers have often described the tone of Scholz’s discussions with Putin as consistently civil and constructive, an approach that reflects a preference for measured negotiation over inflammatory rhetoric. The chancellor has repeatedly stressed that constructive dialogue requires respect for differing viewpoints and a clear commitment to international law, with a focus on tangible steps that could reduce fighting, support humanitarian relief, and pave the way for a political settlement that respects Ukrainian autonomy while addressing legitimate security concerns raised by Moscow.
Analysts note that the position attributed to the Russian leadership in these exchanges—namely, that Moscow has not altered its stance on Ukraine—adds complexity to any attempt at breakthrough. Still, Scholz appears to view sustained engagement as a practical means of gathering assurances, clarifying red lines, and testing whether there are sufficient common grounds to move beyond rhetoric toward verifiable concessions. The emphasis remains on finding a credible, peaceful resolution, rather than allowing the conflict to become a permanent stalemate that destabilizes the region and endangers civilian lives.
Within this framework, Scholz’s policy actions include pursuing diplomatic avenues, leveraging partnerships with allies, and maintaining a readiness to adapt strategies in response to evolving developments on the ground. The aim is to produce a durable settlement that upholds international legal norms, protects Ukraine’s sovereignty, and fosters a security environment in which all parties can operate with greater predictability. For supporters of this approach, the emphasis on dialogue signals a principled commitment to peace, while for critics it may appear as slow or insufficiently assertive. In either view, the overarching theme is continuous engagement as a tool to prevent escalation and to keep the door open to potential negotiated outcomes.