TL;DR
Get movie nights 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 carry a Biden administration message to Vladimir Putin through intermediaries in 2022. Conn and associates later tried to advance an unofficial peace proposal, but the channel was sidelined by official negotiators and the effort did not produce a settlement.
A Financial Times report has detailed how American lawyer Richard Conn helped carry a message from the Biden administration to Vladimir Putin in 2022 through intermediaries, then tried to support an unofficial Russia-Ukraine peace effort. The channel helped convey messages during a period of concern about nuclear escalation, but it did not lead to a settlement and was effectively ended by early 2023.
Conn, a corporate lawyer and investor who had worked in Russia since 1992, began pursuing the channel after a Russian businessman told him in March 2022 that he feared Putin might use tactical nuclear weapons following the failure to capture Kyiv. According to the FT’s account, Conn contacted Eric Green, then overseeing Russia policy at the U.S. National Security Council, and proposed reaching Putin outside ordinary diplomatic channels. Green agreed, but the initial message did not reach Putin until September.
Conn worked with American investor Bob Foresman to reach Matthias Warnig, a former German Stasi officer and businessman with a longstanding relationship with Putin. On October 4, 2022, Conn and Foresman met Warnig in Zurich. Conn later passed on a message from Green. The FT quoted it as saying: “The US is not pursuing regime change. We’re not trying to destroy Russia. There is no existential threat.” The message also said Washington wanted peace and sought to support international order and the United Nations.
Warnig relayed a response at Frankfurt Airport on October 26, which he had written in a notebook. The FT reported the words as Putin’s response, while noting uncertainty about whether the wording was Putin’s or Warnig’s understanding of it. The following day, Putin publicly said that using nuclear weapons would make “no political or military sense” for Russia. Conn and Foresman took the public remarks as a sign their effort had helped reduce the nuclear danger; the report also says official discussions about the issue were occurring between national security adviser Jake Sullivan and Russian official Yuri Ushakov.
A Parallel Channel During Nuclear Fears
The exchanges show how people outside formal diplomatic roles sought to pass messages between Washington and the Kremlin during a period of heightened concern about nuclear escalation. The reported U.S. message aimed to address Russian fears that Washington intended to topple Putin or threaten Russia’s existence. That communication mattered because misread intentions during a war can complicate crisis management, although the report does not establish that Conn’s intervention changed Russian policy.
The later initiative also illustrates the limits of unofficial mediation. Conn and Foresman moved from relaying a message to trying to broker proposals between Moscow and Kyiv, but the effort did not produce an agreement. The FT account says official negotiators effectively brought the channel to an end by early 2023. Subsequent U.S. efforts to negotiate an end to the war have involved other people, and, according to the source report, have also failed to secure peace.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Message Delivery to Peace Proposal
Conn had established professional and personal contacts in Russia over several decades. He founded the Russian office of law firm Latham & Watkins in 1992. Foresman, an investor with experience at several financial firms, knew Warnig through their business connections. The FT report describes Warnig as having unusual access to Putin because of their longstanding relationship.
After the October 2022 exchange, Conn and Foresman sought to turn the channel into an unofficial mediation effort. With help from businessman Michael Calvey, Conn reached Ukrainian producer Alexander Rodnyansky, who knew President Volodymyr Zelensky. Warnig and Rodnyansky then carried proposals to the Russian and Ukrainian leaders, according to the report. The proposals included Russian withdrawal from most areas Moscow had recently annexed, while leaving Russian control over Crimea and parts of Donbas occupied before the 2022 invasion. The available source account does not provide the full terms or a complete explanation of how each side responded.
nuclear diplomacy and crisis management books
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Limits of the Reported Channel
The account is based on reporting by the Financial Times, relayed here through Meduza. The source material does not establish that the private exchange caused Putin’s public comments about nuclear weapons, or that the channel changed decisions by either government. The reported notebook response also carries a qualification: it is not clear whether the words were Putin’s exact statement or Warnig’s interpretation.
The complete course of the proposed mediation remains unclear from the available account. It does not give a full record of the proposals, the leaders’ detailed responses, or all the reasons the initiative failed. The source says official negotiators Yuri Ushakov and Eric Green effectively ended Conn’s channel by early 2023, but does not specify the precise date or describe a formal decision to terminate it.
international peace negotiation and mediation books
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
No Settlement From the Initiative
The reported backchannel effort is a past episode, not a newly announced negotiating process. Conn’s channel had effectively ended by early 2023, and the source material does not identify a new meeting or next step involving him. It says later U.S. attempts to negotiate a peaceful end to the war have used other participants and have not succeeded.
Further detail would be needed to establish the full terms and reactions to the unofficial proposals, or to assess the channel’s effect on official diplomacy. For now, the report documents messages and mediation attempts, but not an agreement or a clear change in either side’s position.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Who is Richard Conn?
Richard Conn is an American corporate lawyer and investor who began working in Russia in 1992 and founded the Russian office of Latham & Watkins, according to the source report.
How did the backchannel reach Putin?
Conn worked with investor Bob Foresman to contact Matthias Warnig, whom the FT described as a longtime associate of Putin with direct access to him. Warnig carried messages between the intermediaries.
What did the Biden administration’s message say?
The message said the United States was not seeking regime change or Russia’s destruction and wanted peace, according to the wording quoted by the Financial Times.
Did the channel produce a peace agreement?
No. Conn and associates later tried to advance proposals between Russia and Ukraine, but the source report says the effort did not produce a settlement and the channel was effectively ended by early 2023.
Is Putin’s reported response a confirmed verbatim quote?
Not definitively. The FT reported that Warnig wrote down and relayed the response, but the source account says it is unclear whether the wording was Putin’s exact words or Warnig’s understanding of them.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
