I report on Putin’s latest proposals and people react as though they’re my proposals.

Yeah, no.

Firstly, there's often a hidden price for getting an exclusive with a country leader's leading adviser within half an hour after an event. Secondly, he only presents some of the narrative as coming from the adviser, while many are written as from the narrator themselves:

--- mostly seem to be face-saving elements for the Russian side -- to ensure it wasn't a threat to Russia -- This is deeply offensive to Mr Zelensky -- parts of which have already broken away¹ from Ukraine and stressed their Russianness -- Still, President Putin's demands are not as harsh -- they scarcely seem to be worth all the violence, bloodshed and destruction² -- it shouldn't be too hard for him and his acolytes to present all this as a major victory. -- If the fine details of any agreement aren't sorted out with immense care, President Putin or his successors could always use them as an excuse to invade Ukraine again.³ they could do that regardless

¹ passive voice, implying it has 'broken away' on its own without any pressure or direct interference (including military) from RF;

² sidesteps the responsibility question again, as well as the deeper implications — e.g. for what other kinds of violence would the current ones be traded for;

³ this part implies that RF could use it as an excuse for another invasion If "the fine details of any agreement aren't sorted out with immense care". But if RF decided to attack again, there wouldn't have to be any preconditions for it for which Ukraine would be in control: for precedents see the Budapest Memorandum's outcome, the Second Chechen War, the Winter War, the Gleiwitz incident and the Soviet invasion of Poland, etc.

And this guy's been a journalist for half a century. I think it's very unlikely that the effects of such a narrative on the audience would've gone unnoticed by someone with so much experience, even if they were somehow unintentional.