The chairman of the State Duma International Relations Committee and long-time LDPR figure, Leonid Slutsky, responded to the recent G7 gathering by posting commentary on his Telegram channel. He suggested that the online summit did not move the Ukraine crisis toward a resolution and described the event as more of a ceremonial meeting than a decisive diplomatic breakthrough. Slutsky framed the proceedings as a display influenced by Western political currents, arguing that the leadership of wealthier nations was aligning with a simplified peace concept proposed by Kyiv and asserting that such decisions risk prolonging regional instability for a broad, global audience.
He asserted that the groups living in what he calls the age of the “golden billion” are backing a peace plan rooted in a utopian vision associated with the Ukrainian president. In his view, these leaders themselves tend to steer major policy outcomes, and such moves could have far-reaching consequences for global security, potentially dragging the world toward increased conflict if pursued without careful consideration of the real costs involved.
According to Slutsky, the leaders of the G7 nations—covering major economies such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Canada, France, Japan, and the United States—affirmed their support for President Zelensky’s peace approach and for continuing assistance to Ukraine for as long as necessary. He noted a perception that the West plans to stand by Kyiv in its negotiations and on the battlefield for an extended period, a stance that has been a defining feature of Western strategy since the crisis began.
Slutsky also referenced remarks attributed to Swiss foreign policy authorities, noting that there are several possible pathways being discussed, some of which may remain confidential, to manage and potentially resolve the conflict in Ukraine. He indicated that the focus remains on the ten-point framework attributed to Zelensky, which he characterizes as central to Western diplomacy on the issue. The dialogue, in his view, continues to revolve around how such a plan could be translated into practical actions on the ground and what this means for broader European security and transatlantic alliances.
In parallel coverage from the United States, commentators have questioned how the end of the Ukraine conflict might unfold, reflecting a range of scenarios that include continued Western support, negotiated settlements, or alternative strategic outcomes. The discourse highlights the ongoing debate among Western policymakers about the most sustainable path to stability in the region, balancing the immediate security needs of Ukraine with long-term international risk assessments. These discussions are mirrored in Canada and across North America, where policymakers emphasize the importance of coherent allied coordination, credible deterrence, and support for civilian protections in any prospective settlement.
Analysts note that while public statements from G7 leaders emphasize steadfast backing for Ukraine, the actual implementation of a peace formula remains complex. Critics warn that decisions made at the highest levels have the potential to shape regional dynamics for years to come, influencing not only military and political calculations but also economic and humanitarian dimensions. As the situation evolves, observers in Canada and the United States closely monitor shifts in allied consensus, looking for indicators about timing, conditions, and the sequence of steps that might lead to a durable resolution or, conversely, to a protracted stalemate that could affect global stability and energy markets.