A state Duma deputy, Shamsail Saraliev, stated through his Telegram channel that the proposed prisoner exchange by Ukraine, framed as “everything for everyone,” does not have parity. He argued that the mismatch arises because the number of Ukrainian servicemen held by Russia exceeds the tally of Russians held by Ukraine.
Saraliev outlined a plan in which the exchange would be straightforward: all Russian prisoners would be swapped for an equal number of Ukrainian prisoners. He asserted that as long as hostilities persist, this approach would represent the most practical and humane option for both sides.
According to the deputy, Russia would release all Russian soldiers being held in Ukraine and would receive in return exactly the same count of Ukrainian prisoners of war. This proposal highlights a simple, one-for-one framework that aims to reduce the asymmetry in detainees and to foster clearer, more predictable negotiations.
In related remarks, Tatyana Moskalkova, who previously held the role of Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, described a video conference discussion about the welfare and status of Russian prisoners of war held in Ukraine. She did not divulge specifics of the meeting, noting that Ukrainian ombudsperson Dmitry Lubinets had previously posted a message on Telegram about Russian prisoners of war. The exchange topic remains a focal point in intergovernmental dialogues, with various parties weighing humanitarian considerations against strategic aims. (Source: Telegram channel updates and public statements by the involved officials.)
Beyond the immediate exchange proposals, commentators note that the broader question concerns how both sides can resolve captives in a way that minimizes human suffering while preserving leverage for ongoing negotiations. The recurring theme is a preference for transparent, verifiable procedures that limit ambiguity and help families understand the fate of their loved ones. Dialogue on prisoner exchanges has appeared in multiple fora, reflecting a longstanding interest in humanitarian channels during armed conflicts and a desire to establish predictable norms for treatment of prisoners of war.
Observers also point to historical patterns in which comprehensive exchanges have been discussed or attempted, sometimes yielding partial agreements or staged swaps, and other times leading to stalemates. The current discussions, framed around mutual parity and clear accounting, suggest a possible template for future negotiations if both sides agree to verifiable handovers and independent oversight. The focus remains on reducing risk to soldiers and civilians alike while maintaining the strategic calculus that drives each side’s wider war objectives. (Source: public statements and summarized briefings from international observers.)