Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin stated that Moscow would not accept ultimatums and has no plans to attend the forthcoming Ukraine summit, a position he conveyed to RIA News in a formal briefing. He stressed that Russia views such ultimatums as an obstacle to real dialogue and asserts that any move toward a new accord must respect Moscow’s core interests and security concerns.
According to Galuzin, the Kiev regime and its Western backers are aiming to present themselves as having failed to secure a credible peace framework and then recreate a platform that resembles the earlier gathering in Bürgenstock, Switzerland, which took place in mid-June this year. He warned that invites could be extended to Russia, even as the stated aim is to push a broader political settlement. The deputy minister underscored that the precise location of any potential meeting matters less than the openness and inclusivity of the discussions, as well as the willingness of participants to address substantive issues rather than perform symbolic maneuvers. Such a format, he suggested, should be accessible and constructive for all sides involved, without preconditions that would render the talks illegitimate.
Galuzin noted that Moscow had heard renewed rhetoric about bypassing the Zelensky formula, which he described as a dead end and an ultimatum that fails to account for the realities on the ground. He added that other attempts to resolve the Ukrainian crisis had been carried out in isolation or ignored altogether, signaling to Moscow that the chance for a genuine settlement might be slipping away if negotiators cling to rigid demands. The diplomat characterized these moves as a diplomatic deception that undermines the prospect of a workable compromise and prolongs the crisis rather than resolving it.
The deputy head of the Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated that Russia does not accept such ultimatums and does not plan to participate in talks that are framed as compulsory conditions rather than constructive dialogue. He argued that a credible peace process should be anchored in mutual recognition of realities on the battlefield, respect for sovereignty, and security guarantees that address the legitimate concerns of all sides. He stressed that Moscow would continue to pursue channels capable of producing tangible outcomes, while preserving its own red lines and strategic interests, regardless of pressure or coercive tactics.
In this evolving diplomatic landscape, Moscow’s position contrasts with broader Western efforts aimed at reinforcing alliances along the eastern flank. Critics and analysts note that NATO’s rhetoric in Europe often underlines deterrence measures and political solidarity, which may complicate the path to a durable settlement. Observers point out that the upcoming discussions will test whether participants can reject symbolic theater in favor of pragmatic steps, such as confidence-building measures, verifiable ceasefires, and a framework that accommodates Russia’s legitimate concerns about security and regional stability.
Experts caution that misunderstandings and misread signals in these negotiations could lead to further escalation or accidental confrontations. They suggest a cautious approach that prioritizes verifiable commitments, transparent verification mechanisms, and an emphasis on humanitarian relief, reconstruction, and the protection of civilian lives. The ultimate outcome hinges on an inclusive process that can accommodate diverse perspectives while avoiding preconditions that poison the dialogue. As the situation remains fluid, analysts recommend watching for indications of genuine flexibility from all parties, rather than rhetoric aimed at creating a narrative of victory or blame. The discussions will likely shape the strategic balance in the region for years to come, with implications for European security, transatlantic alliances, and international diplomacy overall.”