TL;DR
Get hardware and tech essentials delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A Financial Times report describes how American lawyer Richard Conn helped pass a Biden administration message to Vladimir Putin through intermediaries in 2022, then took part in an unofficial peace effort. The channel ended by early 2023, and the report does not establish that it produced a lasting change in the war or replaced official diplomacy.
A Financial Times report has detailed how American lawyer Richard Conn helped carry a Biden administration message to Vladimir Putin through informal intermediaries in 2022, before trying to broker a separate peace proposal between Russia and Ukraine. The channel was effectively closed by early 2023, and the report says later U.S. efforts to negotiate an end to the war involved other people and had not succeeded.
Conn, a corporate lawyer and investor who began working in Russia in 1992, became concerned in early 2022 that Putin could use tactical nuclear weapons after Russian forces failed to take Kyiv. According to the FT account, Conn was contacted by an unnamed Russian businessman who shared that fear. Conn then approached Eric Green, who oversaw Russia policy at the U.S. National Security Council, about creating a direct line to Putin that would bypass other Russian officials. Green agreed to the idea, but the connection took months to establish.
Conn worked with American investor Bob Foresman, who had professional ties to Matthias Warnig, a longtime Putin associate with access to the Russian president. On October 4, 2022, Conn and Foresman met Warnig in Zurich. Conn later passed him a message from the White House. The FT quoted the message as saying: “The US is not pursuing regime change. We’re not trying to destroy Russia. There is no existential threat. We’re trying to support international order and the UN. We want peace.”
On October 26, Warnig relayed a response he had written in a notebook, according to the report. The FT published it as Putin’s response, while noting uncertainty over whether the wording was Putin’s or Warnig’s account of his position. The next day, Putin said publicly that using nuclear weapons would make “no political or military sense” for Russia. Conn and Foresman interpreted the public remarks as a sign that the nuclear danger had receded. The FT also reported that official contacts between national security adviser Jake Sullivan and Russian official Yuri Ushakov were taking place around the same time.
A Parallel Channel Amid Nuclear Fears
The account offers a window into how officials and private intermediaries sought to communicate during a period of concern about nuclear escalation. Conn’s contacts created a route for a message from the White House to reach Putin outside the usual diplomatic channels. That could help explain how informal contacts operated alongside official discussions, but it does not show that Conn’s channel changed Russian policy or determined the course of the war.
The later peace effort also illustrates the limits of unofficial mediation. Conn and Foresman moved from carrying messages to helping advance proposals between Moscow and Kyiv, but the effort did not produce a settlement. The episode matters as a record of a specific attempt to reduce risks and explore terms; it should not be mistaken for an agreement between the governments or a successful peace process.
Products Worth Considering
Ledger Flex Crypto Wallet
Logitech MX Mechanical Full-Size Wireless Mechanical Keyboard, Tactile Quiet Switches, Backlit Keys, Bluetooth, USB-C, Multi-Device, Graphit
Apple MacBook Pro 2023 14 with M3 Pro Chip, 18 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD, Space Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From White House Message to Peace Bid
The backchannel began against the backdrop of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and failed early efforts to reach an understanding. Conn reportedly did not reach Putin until September 2022, after official talks in Istanbul had failed and Russian troops had withdrawn from the outskirts of Kyiv. The concern about tactical nuclear weapons persisted, although the feared use had not occurred during the war’s first six months.
After the October exchange, Conn and Foresman sought to expand their role. With help from businessman Michael Calvey, Conn reached Ukrainian producer Alexander Rodnyansky, who knew President Volodymyr Zelensky. The proposals carried by Warnig and Rodnyansky included Russian withdrawal from most areas Moscow had recently claimed to annex, while recognizing Russian control over Crimea and setting out other terms. These were proposals advanced by intermediaries, not an agreed settlement. The supplied account says Russian officials Yuri Ushakov and Eric Green had effectively brought Conn’s channel to an end by early 2023.
What the Record Cannot Establish
The account relies on reporting about private exchanges, including messages passed through intermediaries. The supplied report does not provide an independent record of every conversation, and it explicitly leaves uncertain whether the October 26 wording attributed to Putin was his exact language or Warnig’s interpretation. It also remains unclear how much influence the backchannel had on Putin’s public statements or on decisions made by either government.
The available material does not set out the full terms or complete sequence of the later peace proposal, the responses from both governments, or the precise reasons the effort failed. It says the channel was effectively ended by early 2023, but does not establish that its closure ended all communication between the United States and Russia. The report describes later U.S. diplomatic attempts as separate efforts.
Further Details on the Failed Proposal
The immediate development is the publication of the FT’s account; the supplied material identifies no new negotiations or official response tied to the report. Further reporting or statements from the people involved could clarify the disputed wording of Putin’s response, the full proposal exchanged with Moscow and Kyiv, and why the intermediaries’ effort broke down. Until then, the account documents an informal initiative rather than a negotiated outcome.
Any subsequent diplomatic progress should be distinguished from this 2022 channel. The source says later U.S. efforts involved different participants and had not succeeded; it does not give a date or milestone for a future agreement.
Key Questions
Who was Richard Conn?
Conn is an American corporate lawyer and investor who began working in Russia in 1992. The FT report says he used longstanding business contacts to help establish an informal route for a Biden administration message to reach Putin.
What did the White House message say?
As quoted by the FT, it said the United States was not seeking regime change or trying to destroy Russia, and that it wanted peace. The message was conveyed through intermediaries in October 2022.
Did the backchannel produce a peace agreement?
No. Conn and his associates later helped pass along unofficial proposals, but the source says the effort fell apart. It does not describe an agreement accepted by Russia and Ukraine.
Was the response attributed to Putin confirmed as his exact words?
No. The FT published a response Warnig reportedly wrote down, but the source says it is unclear whether the wording was Putin’s verbatim statement or Warnig’s understanding of his position.
When did Conn’s channel end?
The source says official negotiators Yuri Ushakov and Eric Green had effectively brought Conn’s channel to an end by early 2023. It does not say that all U.S.-Russia communication stopped at that time.
Source: rss
