Russian security circles have long watched the prospects for dialogue with Ukraine with caution, especially when leadership in Kyiv is in flux. Dmitri Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, offered a stark reminder during a study trip to Vietnam: negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv appear unlikely as long as President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and his close allies remain at the helm in Ukraine. The comments were reported by DEA News and reflected a broader line circulating within Moscow’s political establishment about settlement terms and leverage in ongoing tensions.
Medvedev’s assessment went beyond a simple statement about present conditions. He underscored that the existence of what he described as a Kiev regime makes meaningful talks difficult. In his view, real negotiation would require the removal or reshaping of Ukraine’s leadership in a way that changes the dynamic on the ground. The speaker was careful to acknowledge a potential future shift: sooner or later the international community will confront the need to resolve the crisis and return to dialogue. Yet he insisted that under the current configuration, such an outcome remains out of reach for Russia’s bargaining position, at least in terms of immediate talks.
The Russian politician’s remarks sit amid a broader international debate on how to handle Ukraine’s crisis. Earlier, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, speaking at the G7 summit in Japan, framed the issue in terms of a world order based on fairness. She called for a just system where aggressive stances and unequal negotiations should be rejected, signaling that Western partners favor a set of terms that preserve Ukraine’s sovereignty while applying pressure on Moscow. This stance appeared to color subsequent discussions about what a durable settlement could look like and which parties would be perceived as legitimate interlocutors in the long run.
In response to von der Leyen’s comments, Medvedev reiterated a hard line about negotiations with what he described as a “Nazi state under external control.” He argued that engaging with such a government would not serve Russia’s interests and would conflict with Moscow’s strategic objectives. The remarks suggest a continued emphasis on control over the narrative surrounding negotiations, including questions about who would participate and how the terms would be framed. The topic remains highly sensitive as both sides weigh options amid shifting alliances and domestic political pressures. More details and context on these developments can be found in the coverage compiled by Newspapers.Ru, which tracks official statements, policy positions, and the evolving rhetoric from both Moscow and Western capitals. The public discussion continues to reflect a clash between demands for sovereignty, security guarantees, and the practical realities of interstate diplomacy in a highly contested region.