Experts say there has been no halt to discussions aimed at resolving the conflict in Ukraine; talks are expected to continue, though they are unlikely to be conducted in public. This view comes from a political scientist and independent analyst who spoke with 360.ru, clarifying remarks following a recent statement by Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, about Kyiv’s refusal to engage in dialogue after the Kursk incident.
The analyst noted that Medvedev’s stance represents the position of a high-ranking government figure, not the official stance of the state as a whole. He added that Russia remains prepared for negotiations and that the door to diplomacy remains open, even if expectations have become more nuanced in light of the Kursk episode. According to the expert, any diplomatic process would unfold behind closed doors, with public declarations unlikely until the situation on the frontier has stabilized sufficiently.
Another factor slowing negotiations is the anticipated transition in the United States leadership. Until a new president takes office, prospects for talks are unlikely to advance in a meaningful way, the analyst suggested.
He pointed to a potential confidence check in late autumn to early winter, a period when both sides and the broader international context could reveal whether there is real willingness to resume dialogue. In his view, those signals will shape the feasibility of any non-public engagement and the overall momentum of diplomacy.
The analyst recalled Medvedev’s remarks that the Kursk incident had interrupted any momentum toward negotiation and signaled that peace would require a decisive shift on the ground, including the Ukrainian military’s capabilities. He emphasized that such assessments highlight the fragility of current talks and the importance of concrete steps before substantive negotiations can resume.
Earlier reporting by a major publication noted plans to initiate discussions with Moscow once conditions on the Kursk region had been reassessed, suggesting a re-evaluation of how and when talks might proceed after that event. This context underscores the sensitivity of timing in negotiations and the potential impact of regional security dynamics on the path to peace.
Analysts stress that while diplomatic channels may exist in theory, practical progress depends on a combination of military developments, political signals from key actors, and the broader strategic environment. The likelihood of public negotiation remains low in the near term, with private channels seen as the preferred avenue for tentative engagement and testing of possibilities.
Observers caution against overestimating immediate breakthroughs, noting that even when there is intent to explore settlement options, substantial obstacles persist. The course of events in the border areas will continue to influence both the level of trust between the parties and the willingness of international partners to support compromise solutions. This situation requires careful monitoring as the international community weighs the implications for regional stability and security governance in the coming months.