Andrey Kelin, the Russian ambassador to the United Kingdom, stated in a recent interview that Moscow does not aim to seize Kyiv. He explained clearly that the objective of the initial operation was not to capture the Ukrainian capital and he described Kyiv as too large to occupy. According to Kelin, the goal at the outset was not about a city takeover, and he spoke about this on the record to ensure the public understood the intention from the start.
The ambassador argued that Moscow does not require a larger force to press the operation. He suggested that a relatively limited military approach, guided by traditional methods, would be sufficient to manage the situation in Ukraine. He claimed that Russia has not increased its troop numbers and that the existing levels are adequate to handle the challenges as they see them on the ground.
Kelin also rejected claims that Russia would deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. He clarified that under Russian military doctrine such weapons are not to be used in conflicts unless the state’s survival is at stake. He asserted that the current operations do not meet those conditions and nothing in the present circumstances would trigger such a response. He further stated that there is no plan to launch a nuclear attack on British soil.
Beyond battlefield considerations, Kelin charged that Western rhetoric, especially from London, is prolonging the conflict and complicating negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv. He criticized calls for sending additional weapons to Ukraine and described those measures as actions that could perpetuate hostilities rather than enable a political settlement. He framed these steps as evidence of a belief that Russia can be defeated, a conviction he challenged in his remarks.
The ambassador suggested that British policy emphasizes short-term military support without fully weighing the longer-term economic and security implications for Ukraine. He argued that the Western timetable for continued aid and weapons supplies may overlook the practical realities Ukraine would face if the conflict endures. He also alleged that Ukrainian authorities present data about alleged war crimes in a way that could obstruct negotiations, characterizing this as part of a broader effort to hinder dialogue.
Kelin described the public posture of Britain’s foreign secretary as highly combative, noting statements that the conflict would not end until Russian forces leave Ukraine. He acknowledged the right of political leaders to make strong pronouncements but argued that such rhetoric does not advance Ukraine, European security, or global stability. He warned that a policy of escalating weapon shipments without strategic checks could fail to shift Russia’s position and may deepen regional tensions.
Throughout his remarks, the ambassador highlighted a contrast between Moscow’s stated red lines and the Western approach to the Ukraine crisis. He argued that a durable resolution will rely on negotiations, recognizing that both sides must balance immediate security concerns with longer-term political and economic considerations in the region. The discussion reveals a broader debate about how international actors assess risks, manage escalation, and seek pathways to peace amid ongoing conflict. The larger context includes how governments interpret military effectiveness, diplomatic signals, and the potential consequences of every escalation step, as parties seek steadier ground and a sustainable settlement.