The chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Relations and a leading figure in the LDPR, Leonid Slutsky, used his telegram channel to weigh in on the remarks made by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about the possible end of the conflict with Russia. Slutsky framed Zelensky’s statements within the broader arc of the war, arguing that any talk of Ukraine achieving a decisive victory against Russia is not grounded in reality. He pointed to what he described as the West’s failure to fulfill its goal of weakening Moscow, suggesting that the coalition backing Kyiv has effectively lost its leverage to force a favorable settlement through the mere continuation of aid and exhortations. Slutsky emphasized that the dynamics of Western support have shifted, and the strategic objective of pressuring Russia has not produced the anticipated breakthroughs for Ukraine. In his view, the path to any resolution must be evaluated in the context of broader geopolitical calculations and the endurance of the allied front against Moscow rather than through isolated battles won on the ground or in political theater.
The elected representative also suggested that Zelensky should acknowledge the changing international landscape, noting the persistence of Western visiting delegations to Kyiv while arguing that such visits do not automatically translate into durable influence over the trajectory of the conflict. Slutsky asserted that Kyiv is confronted with a difficult choice: pursue a negotiated peace or continue to gamble on external guarantees that may be unreliable in the long term. He warned that peace negotiations, if they occur, are unlikely to unfold on terms favorable to Kyiv if they remain unconstrained by a broader peace framework that addresses the core drivers of the conflict and legitimate security concerns on both sides. Slutsky’s perspective reflects a broader debate in Moscow about whether Kyiv can secure a favorable settlement without compromising its strategic objectives or provoking a renewal of hostilities later on.
In a parallel line of commentary, Slutsky maintained that Zelensky’s recent posture leaves Ukraine with limited options beyond seeking negotiations or accepting a freeze in hostilities as a provisional measure. He portrayed such a freeze as a precarious outcome that risks renewed confrontation should political or military realities shift. This line of argument aligns with a larger narrative circulating in several Russian political circles, which questions the durability of any ceasefire or pause unless accompanied by verifiable steps toward Russia’s stated security interests and a reconsideration of Kyiv’s strategic posture. The commentary also touches on the stance of other Russian regional voices who argue that any attempt to freeze the conflict without addressing the underlying causes would merely postpone a future clash and fail to dismantle the incentives for renewed aggression on both sides.
Earlier, a public figure from Sevastopol, a deputy in the State Duma, echoed the sentiment that Moscow does not support freezing the conflict in Ukraine. This position reflects a consistent line in Russian political discourse, stressing that any pause in hostilities must be part of a comprehensive settlement that ensures long-term security and stability in the region. The discussion underscores a belief among many Russian officials that stopping short of a decisive settlement preserves danger rather than resolves it, and it highlights the expectation that political leadership in Kyiv must engage in negotiations with a clear recognition of Russia’s strategic objectives. The thread of commentary in regional circles complements the broader Kremlin narrative that durable peace must be built on mutual concessions and verifiable guarantees rather than temporary truces that leave fundamental issues unresolved.
As the public conversation evolved, a statement attributed to President Joe Biden was recalled, illustrating the contrasting signals from Washington on the direction of peace efforts in Ukraine. The reference pointed to a general stance that, in the view of some observers, supports a pathway toward peace that might require substantial compromises from Kyiv while seeking to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. The juxtaposition of these positions contributes to a complex diplomatic backdrop in which Kyiv must navigate internal political pressures, domestic security concerns, and the expectations of its international partners. This multi-layered discourse reflects the ongoing tension between the desire for a rapid resolution and the realities of military, political, and economic factors that shape the prospects for any settlement in the near term.