Putin the Peacemaker?

Russia’s pitch to mediate in the Middle East is more about image-building than genuine diplomacy.

As tensions mount between Israel and Iran, another actor has stepped onto the stage: Vladimir Putin. More than three years into his invasion of Ukraine and increasingly isolated from the West, the Russian president has offered his services as a potential mediator in one of the world’s most combustible regions. It is a familiar role for Moscow, which has long tried to project itself as an indispensable broker in Middle Eastern affairs. But this time, the offer is met with far more scepticism and for good reason.

Russia’s diplomatic overtures began swiftly after Israel launched strikes on Iran last week. Putin was quick to place calls to both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov later lamented Israel’s ‘reluctance’ to accept mediation and insisted that Russia remained committed to peaceful dialogue. It was a performance heavy on the language of neutrality but thin on credibility.

Russia’s ties to the region are not in question. Moscow has longstanding, if now strained, relations with Israel, bolstered in part by a sizeable Russian-speaking population. More crucially, its alliance with Iran has grown far deeper. Tehran has become one of Moscow’s most important military partners, supplying the Russian army with drones and missiles for use in Ukraine. In January, the two countries signed a broad strategic partnership agreement aimed at formalising their growing alignment.

Such entanglements make Russia’s claims to impartiality increasingly hard to sustain. Analysts across Europe and beyond have pointed out that any mediator must be, if not neutral, then at least trusted by both sides.

The criticism is echoed by Western leaders. French President Emmanuel Macron recently dismissed the idea that a state currently waging a large-scale war in Europe and in breach of the UN Charter could credibly mediate another conflict.

Yet Putin’s diplomatic gambit must be viewed through the wider lens of Russia’s ongoing attempt to escape the isolation imposed by its invasion of Ukraine. Earlier, too, Moscow has used the Middle East before to claw back international relevance. After its 2014 annexation of Crimea, Russia leveraged its intervention in Syria and support for the Iran nuclear deal to reassert itself diplomatically. It is attempting the same playbook now.

Putin has also signalled an interest in restarting negotiations with Kyiv, even expressing a readiness to meet President Volodymyr Zelensky. But these overtures come with caveats. The Kremlin has consistently sought to undermine the legitimacy of Ukraine’s leadership, claiming that Zelensky’s presidency lacks legal standing - an assertion grounded more in propaganda than in constitutional fact. Ukraine, under martial law and amid continuing attacks, is legally barred from holding elections. Nonetheless, such narratives are gaining traction in parts of the American right.

For Moscow, the Israel-Iran conflict and the war in Ukraine are not separate theatres but interconnected opportunities. By presenting itself as a responsible stakeholder in one crisis, Russia hopes to ease the diplomatic pressure in the other. It also sends a message to allies and fence-sitters across the Global South that Russia remains a relevant power, capable of influencing outcomes far beyond its borders.

Whether this strategy succeeds remains to be seen. Many in the region and beyond remain wary of Moscow’s intentions, and not without cause. Russia’s deepening alliance with Iran complicates its image as an honest broker. Meanwhile, its presence on the ground in Ukraine continues to undermine the very norms of sovereignty and restraint it now claims to champion.

The international community would do well to recognise both the symbolism and the limitations of Russia’s offer. There is value in broad diplomatic engagement, and the absence of dialogue rarely improves the odds of peace. But granting Moscow a central role in any negotiation - be it in Gaza or Kyiv - requires a suspension of disbelief that few can afford, including Donald Trump.

Putin may want to be seen as the architect of peace. For now, he remains one of the chief authors of the disorder.