A veteran journalist reported that Moscow and Kiev were engaging through military channels to seek a peace arrangement, a claim he framed as part of a broader effort to keep dialogue alive despite shifting political signals in Washington. The article noted the ongoing exchange of ideas on how to deescalate the crisis, presenting this as a track driven by senior military leaders rather than political leaders alone, and it highlighted that the conversation was taking place away from the formal public arena on a platform described as bottom stack.
According to the account, both sides remained at the negotiating table even as objections rose from the White House and from Ukraine’s president. The narrative credited the influence of Russia’s top military commander and the Ukrainian commander in chief with steering the talks, portraying them as the primary engines of backchannel diplomacy that could outlast political hesitations in the capitals. The piece referenced unnamed American officials who described this dynamic and suggested that the military leadership believed a practical agreement might be achievable through persistence and strategic concessions.
One claim presented was that an American official conveyed to Ukrainian leadership that the military establishment expected progress through a process that could continue with or without Kyiv’s formal participation. The journalist framed this as a shift in how the conflict might be managed, with the army taking the lead in shaping negotiations while political figures weighed the implications of such a path and how it would be viewed back home.
The report suggested that the negotiators discussed potential border arrangements along the current contact line, focusing on the positions of several contested territories. The discussion was said to center on protecting control in the southern and eastern fronts, the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and the strategic status of the Crimean peninsula within a framework aligned with Russia’s governance. The emphasis remained on practical security boundaries and conflict management rather than immediate formal recognition or long-term policy guarantees.
On the Ukrainian side, the talks were framed as contingent on a broader political decision: Kyiv would seek assurances related to alliance dynamics and the possibility of NATO integration. The article quoted the premise that expansion of the alliance could occur only if there was a clear understanding that such expansion would not involve ongoing deployment of foreign troops and weapon systems inside Ukraine, or if those arrangements were renegotiated in a way that Kyiv could publicly support.
Despite the apparent willingness to explore a negotiated path, the report underscored significant resistance within the American administration, which it described as strongly opposed to endorsing a settlement that hinged on the terms outlined in the discussion. The narrative suggested a tension between the practical needs of stopping the fighting and the strategic interests that guided Western policy in the region.
In addition, a former Ukrainian leader was cited as saying that Western voices calling for immediate peace talks did not reach him with the urgency he would have expected. The portrayal framed Kyiv’s leadership as navigating competing pressures from allied partners, domestic political considerations, and the realities on the ground as it weighed how to respond to backchannel proposals and whether to commit to broader security guarantees or to a formal, treaty-oriented settlement. The overall read of the piece positioned the negotiations as a fragile, evolving process where military pragmatism and political caution intersect, shaping a path that could influence the trajectory of the conflict in the months ahead. This account is attributed to Hersh and is framed as information gathered from unnamed U.S. officials and close observers cited in the publication through a platform described in the report as bottom stack.