In a briefing room filled with reporters, Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for the President of the Russian Federation, addressed questions about whether Moscow might negotiate the terms associated with Kyiv. The briefing, reported by DEA News, centered on Russia’s stated approach to bilateral discussions and its expectations for any potential agreement. Peskov was clear that Russia does not accept the premise of bending to conditions set by others and emphasized that dialogue, if it occurs, would come with conditions that reflect Moscow’s own strategic priorities rather than external templates. He described a stance in which Russian positions are not framed around accommodating third parties but about pursuing what Moscow views as essential security guarantees for its own interests. The spokesperson’s remarks underscored a broader pattern in Russian diplomacy that prioritizes national interests and a focus on what Moscow considers legitimate boundaries for any settlement. The exchange illustrated Moscow’s preference for a process that begins with respect for its own red lines and ends with a framework that Russia can accept, rather than a concession-based sequence dictated by external partners.
Earlier in the day, Ukrainian officials publicly expressed their own diplomatic ambitions. Dmytro Kuleba, the Ukrainian foreign minister, spoke about a proposed peace summit slated for late February 2023, with a preference for hosting the talks at the United Nations. In his remarks, Kuleba suggested that the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres could serve as a mediator, signaling Kyiv’s desire for a high-profile, multilateral forum to advance discussions. The message conveyed a willingness to engage with international institutions and to commit to a process that relies on broad-based participation and legitimacy provided by the UN framework. The emphasis on a UN role signals Kyiv’s aim to ensure that any settlement is anchored in global norms and that accountability mechanisms are part of the diplomatic equation. The potential for a formal gathering in New York or another UN venue would, in Kyiv’s view, lend credibility to the talks and offer a structured environment for negotiating terms that affect regional security and humanitarian considerations.
Beyond the call for a peace process, Kyiv indicated a parallel expectation that accountability be addressed on the international stage. Kuleba noted that, in his view, it would be appropriate for Moscow to face scrutiny within the international legal system for actions deemed as war crimes. This stance reflects Kyiv’s strategy to connect negotiations with legal and moral accountability, arguing that any durable agreement must be accompanied by consequences for violations that have occurred. The broader argument is that recognition of harms and mechanisms to address them should be a prerequisite for meaningful dialogue. In this framing, international institutions and courts are positioned as crucial to the process, ensuring that any diplomatic outcome remains tethered to universal standards and prior commitments by all parties involved.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin has framed its public messaging around a broader military operation in Ukraine. Russian officials have repeatedly stated that the operation aims to protect populations in the Donbass region and to counter perceived threats from the Kyiv government. The official rationale centers on protecting residents and restoring what Moscow describes as order within contested territories. Russian leadership has also stated objectives related to disarming and, in their terms, denazifying elements of Kyiv’s administration, a formulation that has been widely scrutinized and debated in international fora. The operational narrative emphasizes a distinct set of security concerns that Moscow believes justify the actions taken, and it frames any future settlement as contingent on the de-escalation of perceived threats and a reassessment of governance in the Ukrainian capital. The balance of power on the ground, the legitimacy of authorities in Kyiv, and the security guarantees demanded by Moscow are all part of an intricate calculus that continues to shape the negotiating landscape.