Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed the Ukrainian president’s so-called peace formula as a fantasy. He stated that Russia will not negotiate on such terms and that any talks must center on real, enforceable arrangements rather than unworkable promises.
In an interview with RIA News, Lavrov asserted that reparations should be borne by Russia and settled in international courts, signaling a preference for formal accountability rather than political declarations. He also spoke of a supposed confession emerging from the conflict, framing it as part of the larger narrative around accountability and consequence.
Lavrov emphasized that Moscow does not intend to discuss the terms proposed by Kyiv and asserted that Ukraine has shown clear reluctance to engage in dialogue. He accused the Ukrainian leadership of quitting the negotiation process that began earlier in the year at the urging of Western allies and said several rounds of talks had demonstrated the possibility of mutually acceptable results, while noting that Zelensky did not appear fully autonomous in crucial decision making.
According to the minister, Zelensky halted negotiations and hardened his stance, allegedly because Western partners sought to prolong hostilities. Lavrov reiterated that Russia has not abandoned the option of a diplomatic settlement, even as formal talks appeared to stall. Negotiations between Ukraine and Russia effectively ended in May, he claimed, following foreign media coverage that he described as inaccurate reporting about the town of Bucha.
In April, Ukrainian and Western media circulated images of civilians in Bucha, where the Russian army had recently operated. The city’s mayor, Anatoly Fedoruk, told French media that some individuals shown in the photographs were shot and that hundreds more were buried in mass graves, a claim disputed by some sources. The Russian Defense Ministry labeled the published materials as a provocation, while Mikhail Podolyak, adviser to Ukraine’s president, suggested that the emotional climate of talks shifted after the events in Bucha.
After the Donetsk and Luhansk regions along with Kherson and Zaporozhye joined Russia, Kyiv declared it would not negotiate with Moscow while Putin remained in office. This position, however, was later softened by Ukrainian officials.
Moscow’s negotiating stance
Lavrov described a core condition for resuming talks as Ukraine recognizing four new subjects within its borders, highlighting another major point as ensuring security for the Russian Federation against perceived threats emanating from Ukraine. He also criticized current Ukrainian political figures as unlikely negotiators and labeled them anti-Russian. The question lingered whether a more pragmatic voice might emerge in Kyiv over time, and Lavrov suggested the world could only wait and see.
The Kremlin has repeatedly argued that any peace plan must account for the incorporation of new territories, otherwise it cannot be considered a peaceful solution. Earlier, a Kremlin spokesperson noted that progress would be impossible without acknowledging these new facts.
What is the peace formula?
At the G20 summit in early November, Zelensky outlined ten conditions for the peace plan, including restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops, an end to hostilities, a formal declaration of peace, the release of prisoners and deportees, and compensation for damages. He also stressed food, energy, and nuclear security as essential components, among other points. Later, Zelensky spoke of three steps that could move peace forward, including the provision of modern weapons to Ukraine to bolster energy and financial stability and the organization of a summit to decide how and when the plan’s points will be implemented.
Global reception of Zelensky’s plan
Mid-December saw Zelensky report that the United States viewed the peace formula positively. He said that through conversations with President Joe Biden, the plan received encouragement and offered hope that implementing its points would strengthen security guarantees for Ukraine and Europe. The US ambassador to Ukraine echoed this, noting broad support from the G7 nations for the ten-point proposal.
Nevertheless, several media outlets questioned the likelihood of resolving the conflict through Kyiv’s proposals. Some commentaries argued that a true peace summit would require a broader international effort and goodwill from both Moscow and Kyiv. A Chinese publication suggested that Moscow and Kyiv must demonstrate sincerity and unity in pursuing peace through international cooperation. It warned that without Russian participation, a lasting peace summit would be unlikely.
Meanwhile, European outlets offered a mixed assessment. One German paper viewed the peace talks as unlikely at the current stage, suggesting Kyiv should demonstrate persistent effort toward ending the conflict. An American magazine emphasized that the prospects for a rapid end depend on the realignment of positions from both sides. Analysts noted that Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart on core issues, including territorial controls, making a swift resolution difficult.
Experts argued that Russia’s readiness to negotiate serves strategic aims, including pressuring the United States and NATO to adjust support for Ukraine. Yet the overall hurdle remains the fundamental disagreement over territory and security guarantees, which complicates any agreement about future peace terms. The ongoing impasse underscores how delicate negotiations remain, with both sides holding firm on primary demands and the path to a settlement still uncertain.