Russia Says There Were No Official Germany-Ukraine Talks in Baku: Secret Backchannel—or Private Diplomacy Without Government Mandate?
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin says there were no official negotiations with Germany over Ukraine in Baku. Azerbaijan has confirmed that well-connected former German and Russian officials were present, while Berlin says the government neither authorised nor participated in the meeting.
Russia says there were no official negotiations with the German government over Ukraine in Baku, drawing a line between formal diplomacy and a mysterious gathering of former officials that has fuelled speculation about a backchannel.
Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin has denied that Moscow and Berlin conducted official talks there.
That denial is compatible with what Germany has said publicly.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he knew nothing about such a meeting, while the German Foreign Office said the government neither commissioned nor participated in it.
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev nevertheless confirmed that prominent former German and Russian officials were in Baku at the same time.
Flight records showed figures including Ronald Pofalla, a former chief of staff to Angela Merkel, and Matthias Platzeck, a former Brandenburg premier, travelling to Azerbaijan.
Russian participants also included well-connected former officials.
Aliyev said Azerbaijan itself had not been informed and only learned of the possible meeting afterward.
This creates three separate facts that should not be collapsed into one narrative.
First, a private or semi-private meeting appears to have taken place.
Second, the participants had political connections and experience.
Third, there is no evidence that they held formal negotiating authority from the current German government.
Backchannels often work precisely this way.
Governments may benefit from conversations they can publicly disown.
Former officials can test ideas, communicate red lines or determine whether formal negotiations would be worthwhile.
That does not mean every private meeting is secretly directed by a government.
Participants may act independently because they believe dialogue is useful.
The political sensitivity is obvious.
Germany is one of Ukraine’s most important European supporters.
Any perception that German figures are negotiating Ukraine’s future with Russians behind Kyiv’s back would be explosive.
Berlin therefore stresses that peace terms must be decided with Ukraine and that European security cannot be negotiated without Europeans.
Russia may see unofficial channels differently.
Moscow has long argued that Western governments publicly maintain maximal positions while privately exploring compromise.
A Baku meeting can be used to support that narrative even if no official mandate existed.
Azerbaijan is a logical venue.
It maintains relations with Russia and Europe, has increasingly positioned itself as a diplomatic hub and offers a location outside the traditional Western negotiating centres.
The secrecy also makes interpretation difficult.
No public agenda or minutes exist.
The participants may have discussed ceasefire ideas, sanctions, humanitarian issues or simply broader political relations.
Calling it “negotiations” suggests authority to bargain.
Calling it merely a social meeting may understate the significance of the participants.
Galuzin’s formulation therefore provides the most useful distinction: no official negotiations with Germany have been established.
That does not mean no politically meaningful conversation happened.
The open question is whether Baku was simply a private dialogue among former officials—or an exploratory channel whose ideas could later reappear in formal diplomacy once governments decide the political conditions are right.