The Geopolitics of Face-Saving: Pathways for Putin to Accept Border Restoration in Ukraine

Can Putin spin a Ukraine withdrawal into victory? Explore how neutrality pacts, sanctions relief, and diplomatic theatre might let Russia retreat without losing face.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, now entering its fourth year, has reached a critical juncture. Despite initial territorial gains, including the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the occupation of approximately 20% of Ukraine’s territory since 2022, Russia’s military campaign has faced significant setbacks. Ukrainian counteroffensives, such as the August 2024 incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, have exposed vulnerabilities in Moscow’s strategic positioning and domestic narratives. At the same time, shifting geopolitical dynamics — including U.S. President Donald Trump’s push for rapid negotiations and European recalcitrance — have intensified pressure on Vladimir Putin to seek a face-saving resolution. This article analyses the mechanisms through which Putin could plausibly justify a withdrawal to pre-2014 borders while preserving his domestic legitimacy and Russia’s perceived great-power status.

The Strategic Imperative of Neutrality and NATO Non-Expansion

A cornerstone of Putin’s justification for the invasion has been the alleged threat of NATO expansion into Ukraine. The Kremlin has long framed Ukraine’s potential membership in the alliance as an existential security risk, despite Kyiv’s pre-2014 constitutional commitment to neutrality. To reconcile border restoration with Putin’s rhetoric, a formalised Ukrainian neutrality agreement — guaranteed by international actors — could serve as a diplomatic fig leaf.

Neutrality as a Geopolitical Bargaining Chip

Ukraine’s neutrality, enshrined in a U.S.-backed peace deal, would allow Putin to claim success in halting NATO’s eastward expansion. As proposed by analysts, such an arrangement could mirror the Cold War-era Austrian State Treaty, wherein Ukraine’s sovereignty is restored in exchange for permanent non-alignment. Crucially, this neutrality would be contingent on Russia’s full withdrawal to pre-2014 borders, creating a reciprocal linkage between territorial integrity and security assurances. Putin could frame this as a “strategic realignment” rather than a retreat, emphasising that Russia’s core objective — blocking NATO — has been achieved without territorial concessions.

The Role of Security Guarantees

To mitigate Ukrainian concerns, a coalition of European states — potentially including France and Germany — could provide bilateral security guarantees outside NATO structures. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has hinted at such a model, proposing “non-Article 5” peacekeeping forces to deter future aggression. For Putin, this arrangement avoids the humiliation of direct NATO involvement while allowing him to tout the demilitarisation of Ukraine’s foreign policy. By positioning Russia as a co-architect of this security framework, the Kremlin could assert that its intervention compelled the West to address Moscow’s “legitimate concerns”.

Economic Leverage and Sanctions Relief

The Russian economy, though resilient, has been strained by sustained sanctions and the costs of prolonged warfare. A withdrawal linked to sanctions relief offers Putin a tangible deliverable for domestic audiences.

Energy Exports and Financial Normalisation

The Trump administration has signaled willingness to leverage U.S. energy production to undercut Russian oil and gas revenues. By negotiating a phased sanctions rollback in exchange for territorial withdrawals, Putin could present the deal as a victory for Russia’s economic sovereignty. For instance, restoring pre-2014 borders might be tied to the revival of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline or eased restrictions on Russian access to SWIFT. Such measures would enable Putin to claim credit for revitalising the economy, offsetting the political costs of military disengagement.

Reconstruction Partnerships

Russia’s participation in post-war reconstruction — particularly in eastern Ukraine — could further legitimise Putin’s narrative. By contributing to infrastructure projects or humanitarian aid, Moscow might frame itself as a stabiliser rather than an occupier. This approach mirrors Soviet strategies in postwar Eastern Europe, where economic integration served as a soft-power tool.

Phased Withdrawals and Symbolic Victories

A sudden, unilateral retreat would risk undermining Putin’s strongman image. Instead, a choreographed withdrawal — buttressed by symbolic concessions — could provide the necessary political cover.

“Humanitarian” Redeployments

Russian state media could frame troop withdrawals as a humanitarian gesture, emphasising the protection of ethnic Russians or the prevention of civilian casualties. This narrative builds on Moscow’s historical claims of defending Russian-speaking populations in Donbas and Crimea. By staging pullbacks from strategically minor areas first, Putin might create an illusion of voluntary disengagement rather than compelled retreat.

Cultural and Linguistic Concessions

Ukraine’s recognition of Russian as a regional language in Donbas or guarantees for cultural autonomy could be portrayed as a Kremlin victory. While falling short of territorial gains, such measures align with Putin’s stated goal of protecting “compatriots” and might satisfy domestic hardliners.

The Role of International Diplomacy and Multipolar Framing

Putin’s ability to cast border restoration as a triumph of multipolar diplomacy — rather than a Western-imposed diktat — is critical to saving face.

Engagement with the Global South

By securing endorsements from China, India, and other non-Western powers, Putin could position Russia as a leader of a “new world order.” For example, a UN General Assembly resolution endorsing the peace deal — with abstentions from Beijing and New Delhi — would allow Moscow to claim broad international legitimacy. This strategy exploits Western divisions over Ukraine while aligning with Russia’s anti-hegemonic rhetoric.

Symbolic Summits and Media Spectacles

A high-profile peace summit in a neutral venue — such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey — would enable Putin to share the stage with Trump and other leaders, reinforcing his image as a global statesman. The Kremlin’s mastery of symbolic politics, evident in the 2014 Sochi Olympics and the 2022 annexation ceremonies, could be repurposed to celebrate a “diplomatic victory”.

Conclusion: The Delicate Balance of Power and Perception

For Putin, accepting pre-2014 borders is less a military dilemma than a test of narrative agility. The solutions outlined above — neutrality pacts, economic quid pro quos, phased withdrawals, and diplomatic theater — offer pathways to reconcile territorial retreat with domestic political survival. However, success hinges on Ukraine’s willingness to grant symbolic concessions and the West’s capacity to frame sanctions relief as a mutual gain rather than a concession.

Ultimately, Putin’s face-saving calculus will depend on his ability to reframe defeat into strategic realignment. By emphasising Russia’s role in shaping a “new European security architecture” and leveraging multipolar rhetoric, he may yet turn a military quagmire into a pyrrhic victory. As the war enters a decisive phase, the interplay of coercion, diplomacy, and performative statecraft will determine whether restoration becomes retreat — or resurrection.

Bob Lynn / 17-Feb-2025