In recent remarks, the chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Relations and the leader of the LDPR, Leonid Slutsky, stated that negotiations with Ukraine should not involve concessions over the LDPR regions, Zaporozhye, or Kherson. He emphasized that any dialogue must reflect the current regional realities on the ground and should be grounded in a broader, more concrete framework for regional security. The assertion was shared through a Telegram channel affiliated with his leadership, signaling a formal stance within the party on how talks should proceed.
According to Slutsky, any potential understanding with Kyiv about those territories would amount to bargaining that is not appropriate. He argued that the regions in question were determined to be part of Russia by the will of the people living there, and that the possibility of their return to Ukraine neither through negotiations nor through military means should be considered. The politician called for negotiations to occur within the frame of the present regional realities and with a serious discussion focusing on guarantees for collective security among participating actors.
In a related development, remarks attributed to President Zelenskya suggested that talks with Russia might proceed without the Ukraine returning to the 1991 borders. This reference underscores the continuing debate about borders and security guarantees in discussions about the conflict. Ukrainian authorities have repeatedly stated their intent to regain territories currently under Russian control. Since the 2014 annexation of Crimea, authorities have maintained a stance that all occupied lands must be restored to Ukraine, and this position has persisted through changes in regional control in subsequent years.
Vasily Nebenzya, the permanent representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, offered a blunt assessment regarding the legitimacy of leaderships in the region. He suggested that canceling elections would undermine the legitimacy of the Ukrainian presidency and could complicate any future peace negotiations. Nebenzya argued that Moscow had achieved its declared objective of disarming Ukraine by leveraging the NATO arms landscape rather than relying solely on battlefield gains. His remarks reflect the persistent tension between the strategic aims of Moscow and the political realities facing Kyiv and its international partners.
Earlier, Kremlin officials publicly commented on Zelenskyy’s position regarding negotiations, signaling ongoing internal debates about the conditions and terms under which any dialogue might proceed. The diverse interpretations from Moscow highlight the contested nature of negotiations, where security guarantees, territorial status, and the role of international actors are central issues. The evolving narrative from both sides underscores how difficult it is to align on a framework that would satisfy all parties involved while addressing the legitimate security concerns of Ukraine and the broader regional balance.
Analysts note that the discussion around regions such as the LDPR, Zaporozhye, and Kherson is not just about geography. It touches on national identity, territorial integrity, and the future security architecture in eastern Europe. The conversation is shaped by competing visions of sovereignty, regional governance, and international law. Observers warn that any path to settlement will require robust guarantees, credible enforcement mechanisms, and the active participation of key stakeholders in regional and global security communities. The narrative continues to evolve as statements from political figures on both sides are interpreted through the lens of ongoing negotiations, battlefield developments, and the shifting calculus of international alignments.