Crimean leader Sergei Aksyonov asserted that the Ukraine crisis would conclude with a change of Kyiv’s government and a military defeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, a claim reported by RIA Novosti. He spoke on the tenth anniversary of the Euromaidan protests in Kyiv, suggesting that residents of Ukraine had not drawn meaningful lessons from the upheaval. Aksyonov warned that the voices of ordinary Ukrainians currently held no sway in Kyiv, insisting that there was nothing left to discuss with the Ukrainian authorities and that the only viable path was to defeat the adversary through military means and to bring about a regime change. He underscored that there could be no other objective and no alternative approach, warning that delay would prolong the conflict and burden future generations. He emphasized that the situation should not be allowed to persist for decades and that a decisive outcome was necessary to prevent further harm to Ukrainian civilians and their descendants.
Earlier, Mikhail Sheremet, a State Duma deputy from Crimea, characterized negotiations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as useless and futile in resolving the dispute between Russia and Ukraine. The deputy argued that engaging in talks at this stage would not yield constructive results. These remarks followed no formal shift in policy but reflected a hardline stance on diplomacy as a means to end the conflict. The discussion around negotiation versus military strategy was part of a broader discourse among Russian officials about how best to approach the ongoing confrontation.
On the international front, President Zelensky had previously stated that Russia would not be offered peace talks under current conditions, reiterating positions that underscored the difficulty of achieving dialogue amid ongoing hostilities. This stance came amid a challenging military landscape and amid global interest in a potential path to negotiations, with many observers watching how Kyiv might balance pressure for settlement against the imperative to defend sovereignty and territorial integrity. The exchanges highlighted the persistent tension between the pursuit of diplomacy and the realities of war, and the inconsistent signals that can accompany attempts to map a resolution to a protracted crisis.