Reports from Washington and Moscow indicate that Russia and the United States are prepared to begin negotiations right away to address the Ukrainian crisis. A briefing circulated on Real Social quoted the U.S. president, Donald Trump, as saying that both sides had agreed to start diplomacy without delay and would channel the discussions through their respective teams. The plan reportedly centers on direct dialogue aimed at de‑escalation, with a clear timetable for talks that would keep Ukraine in the loop. Observers note that such an approach requires tight coordination with allied governments, including Kyiv, and a framework covering security guarantees, border arrangements, and humanitarian corridors. Analysts in Washington see this as a shift toward pragmatic diplomacy rather than public posturing, seeking a path to reduce hostilities while protecting national interests. In Moscow, voices in the Kremlin signaled a similar openness, urging channels to remain open for a sustainable settlement. The statements point to a changed tone, suggesting high‑level talks could become substantive in the days ahead. (Real Social, cited)
Trump stressed in a Real Social post that the diplomatic teams had already begun negotiating and wasted no time. He suggested the substantive groundwork had moved into a practical phase, with professional emissaries working out the specifics of a settlement, including ceasefires, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and security guarantees. He emphasized that the messaging would be coordinated to avoid mixed signals and to keep public expectations aligned with the evolving talks. (Trump, Real Social, assertion)
Trump noted that the involved sides would inform Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, about the negotiations as they progressed. The idea of including Kyiv in the dialogue marks a significant shift, given Kyiv’s central role in any peace process. Analysts will watch how information is shared and what commitments surface publicly. The dynamic raises questions about the roles of NATO allies, European partners, and how the United States and Russia plan to navigate security guarantees, demilitarization steps, and humanitarian concerns.
On February 12, the Kremlin’s official representative Dmitry Peskov reported that President Putin supported one of Trump’s ideas that Washington and Moscow should work toward a peaceful settlement in Ukraine. The Kremlin account described Putin as endorsing the possibility of cooperation toward a settlement that would reduce hostilities and set a framework for future relations. The move signals a possible thaw in the bilateral posture and a willingness to explore formats that include joint statements, confidence‑building measures, and perhaps a multilateral mechanism. (Kremlin press service, 12 February)
CNN reported on Wednesday that a phone call between Putin and Trump had taken place on Wednesday morning. Details remained cautious, but the report indicated that the two leaders touched on the broad contours of a peaceful settlement and the need for practical steps on the ground. Analysts cautioned about the gap between speaking in support of diplomacy and making hard commitments; turning talk into a verifiable agreement would require extensive work by diplomatic teams, with a focus on verification and enforcement. The coverage underscored how the bilateral exchange could influence regional alignments, energy politics, and the security architecture of Europe, depending on how the talks are structured and whether there are parallel discussions with Kyiv and Western partners. (CNN report)
In a Kremlin briefing opening the session, officials outlined the essence of Putin and Trump’s discussions: a common interest in a peaceful path forward and a framework for de‑escalation. The briefing described core elements under consideration, including a possible ceasefire, a timeline for withdrawal of nonlocal forces, and guarantees for Ukraine’s sovereignty. Observers noted that while diplomacy is the language, practical steps will require careful balancing among the parties, with monitoring mechanisms, international assurances, and a role for international organizations. The prompt move toward dialogue suggests a potential shift in the conflict’s trajectory, though observers remain cautious about what can be achieved given competing interests and volatile regional dynamics. The public tone from both capitals implies that conversations are moving toward formal negotiations with momentum, albeit within a tightly choreographed diplomatic process. (Kremlin briefing, early briefing)