Sergey Shoigu, the secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, spoke about how constitutional realities in Ukraine create a barrier to any credible path to peace. In his assessment, the Ukrainian constitution sets limits on what can be discussed about the country’s territorial arrangement, and those limits complicate the possibility of a formal agreement that would be considered legitimate by Moscow and other parties to the talks. He framed the issue as not simply political rhetoric but a real constraint rooted in the legal framework that governs Ukraine’s sovereignty. Observers noted his remarks in discussions about the diplomatic process. The point of the briefing was not a dramatic accusation but a reminder that diplomacy in this region is bound by constitutional contexts, and that any future pact must sit within those legal parameters. The secretary underscored that the path to dialogue requires acknowledging the domestic legal landscape while ensuring that security concerns and humanitarian needs are addressed in tandem.
According to the security official, the most immediate obstacle is Ukraine’s own constitution, which explicitly blocks changes to the territorial integrity of the country through negotiations. The point, he explained, is not a desire to pick sides but a recognition that any attempt to redraw borders or alter status would need a different legal framework and consensus within Ukraine. That means discussions about future security arrangements, governance, or regional status must be preceded by legal provisions that can withstand domestic scrutiny. Without such provisions, any agreement could be challenged within Ukraine’s political system, undermining its durability and legitimacy. The plain message from Shoigu was that the path to any peace agreement cannot bypass the constitutional process that defines how Ukraine can or cannot modify its borders and governance structures. For diplomats, the takeaway is clear: any credible process must align with Kiev’s constitutional realities as well as Moscow’s security interests.
Shoigu also drew attention to questions about who among Ukrainian authorities would be authorized to negotiate on behalf of the country. He argued that the legitimacy of negotiators matters as much as the content of any proposals, because an agreement without broad-backed authority could falter once it faces domestic scrutiny. He noted that President Volodymyr Zelensky has at times asserted that he would not personally participate in negotiations, a stance that can complicate confidence-building and long-term commitments. The secretary suggested that clarity about who has the mandate to negotiate would help define the scope of talks and reduce the risk of repeated stalling or shifting positions simply to satisfy internal political contingencies. In short, the legitimacy question is not a technical footnote; it is a central issue that shapes what can be discussed and how any agreement might be implemented.
From the Security Council’s viewpoint, these hurdles could be navigated through a disciplined process that clarifies legal parameters, confirms authority, and lays a practical framework for talks. Shoigu described a sequence that would gradually reduce uncertainty by exposing relevant political actors to consultations, validating the mandate claimed by negotiators, and drafting a roadmap that respects Ukraine’s constitutional boundaries while simultaneously addressing security needs, regional stability, and humanitarian concerns. The aim is to create a route where dialogue rests on clear, verifiable commitments. In this framing, diplomacy is not a dramatic gesture but a careful alignment of legal commitments with political realities, making any eventual settlement more sustainable and easier to implement. The secretary stressed that progress would come not from quick, headline-grabbing statements but from steady, verifiable steps that strengthen trust between parties and establish a predictable path forward for communities living through conflict.
On March 19, Ukrainian officials signaled that Kyiv would not participate in discussions between Russia and the United States planned for Saudi Arabia. The decision reflected a cautious approach to diplomacy that prioritizes domestic legitimacy and alignment with Kyiv’s strategic aims. Ukrainian leadership argued that any engagement outside established channels must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and constitutional order, a stance that reiterates the importance of coordinating with Kyiv’s formal institutions before endorsing any multilateral meetings. This position underscores the political sensitivity of international formats that involve Moscow and Washington and illustrates the way Kyiv balances external diplomacy with its own governance processes. The choice not to participate signals that Kyiv expects a clear agenda, credible assurances, and confirmed interlocutors who command authority within Ukraine to shape the terms of any settlement. In the broader picture, officials stressed that substantive dialogue will require consent from Kyiv and alignment with Ukrainian legal and political criteria.
Later on the same day, reports described a telephone exchange between the Ukrainian president and the U.S. president. The conversation reportedly touched on the possibility that peace could emerge through direct dialogue and concessions accepted by both sides. Observers noted that Washington remains engaged in supporting diplomatic channels while Kyiv continues to pursue its defined red lines and security guarantees. The exchange was read as a signal that despite disagreements on timing and specifics, the two sides share an interest in narrowing differences and exploring pathways to negotiations under credible assurances. The developing dialogue underscores how high level phone diplomacy can influence domestic debates, while real decisions still depend on the political climate inside Ukraine and the evolving security landscape in the region.
Earlier, during a closed session with President Putin, leaders of Russia’s business community described the economic and strategic needs guiding Moscow’s approach to negotiations. They argued that any settlement should provide a predictable climate for investment, protect energy interests, and create a stable framework for trade and industry across the region. The participants emphasized that a peace agreement would not just be a political document but a set of concrete terms with measurable milestones, ensuring governance, reconstruction, and economic revival in affected areas. They highlighted how the business sector depends on durable commitments, transparent regulation, and clear mechanisms to resolve disputes. In that sense the discussion framed diplomacy as an engine for economic stability, arguing that successful talks require terms that translate political promises into practical improvements for commerce and livelihoods. The message projected confidence that a well-structured agreement could reduce risk, restore confidence in regional markets, and support long-term cooperation among the nations involved.