The Kremlin has acknowledged that a prominent Russian businessman made a clandestine trip to Kyiv in late May, conveying messages between President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky. Yury Ushakov, a senior foreign policy aide to Putin, confirmed the visit but pointedly refused to name the envoy, describing him only as “a fairly large businessman” whom “many know.” The disclosure, aired on Russian state television, offers a rare glimpse into the discreet channels Moscow uses to communicate with Kyiv even as the war grinds on.

Putin first revealed the trip during the St Petersburg International Economic Forum on 5 June, recounting how the entrepreneur contacted him from the Ukrainian capital. According to the Russian president, the businessman had been invited by Zelensky and relayed a request for a direct leaders’ meeting. Putin said he subsequently received the envoy in person for a debriefing. Ushakov later clarified that the visit took place around 21 May—the night before a Ukrainian drone strike on Russian soil—and emphasised that such backdoor contacts coexist with formal, multi-round negotiations that have since stalled.

The intrigue deepened after Oleksiy Goncharenko, a Ukrainian member of parliament, claimed on 6 June that the businessman was Roman Abramovich, the billionaire former owner of Chelsea Football Club who has acted as an informal mediator since the early days of the invasion. Abramovich’s name has surfaced repeatedly in connection with peace feelers, including talks in Istanbul last spring. Moscow has not confirmed the identification, and Ushakov’s coyness suggests the Kremlin seeks to preserve the emissary’s deniability while advertising the channel’s existence to both domestic and international audiences.

Viewed from Western capitals, the episode underscores the layered complexity of Russia-Ukraine diplomacy. Analysts in London note that while official negotiations remain frozen, backchannels allow both sides to explore potential de-escalation without political risk. The mission’s timing—amid heightened military activity—signals that such dialogue is not merely symbolic but operational, even if its impact on the battlefield remains negligible. By carefully calibrating the disclosure, Moscow appears to be signalling to Kyiv and the West that it remains open to talking, while facing no domestic backlash for secret engagement with an enemy state.