The Switzerland-based Ukraine conference currently appears unlikely to yield a meaningful breakthrough in the conflict. Moscow’s position has not softened, and Russia is expected to abstain or disengage from the talks that focus on the core issues driving the war. Reports carried by multiple outlets attribute remarks to Dmitry Polyansky, the first deputy permanent representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, via RIA News. He has stressed that discussions about a so-called peace conference do not advance real progress and that any forward motion requires all major stakeholders to participate with real representation from both sides. This framing reinforces Moscow’s stance that a genuine peace conference must include Russia as an equal participant rather than treat Kyiv as the sole initiator of proposals. Polyansky’s comments reflect a broader strategy in which Russia positions itself as a necessary counterbalance to any initiative that excludes its interests or imposes terms it cannot accept. The statements imply a preference for a conference format that recognizes Moscow as a full participant, a view echoed by other states sharing concerns about process legitimacy and the scope of topics to be discussed. In this light, substantive progress at the Swiss gathering in June seems remote from the Russian vantage point, which views only a negotiated solution that accommodates its own proposals as viable. He also signaled that there is little reason for Russia to move the conversation forward around the so-called peace formula proposed by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, arguing that any agreement must reflect the realities on the ground and the strategic interests of all parties, not just Kyiv’s preferences. This aligns with Moscow’s long-standing position that the framework for resolving the conflict cannot be dictated unilaterally by one side but must emerge from a balanced process that includes other major players and regional concerns. Earlier statements attributed to Russian officials have consistently argued that Kyiv’s proposals alone cannot form a viable peace framework. The ongoing dialogue centers on who should participate, what topics should be on the table, and what constitutes credible progress, with attention turning to implications for regional stability, international law, and the credibility of diplomacy. Observers note that while the Swiss venue signals a willingness to engage, the practical question remains whether participants can reach a durable compromise that respects national sovereignty and security concerns on both sides. This dynamic highlights a broader pattern where Moscow seeks parity among involved parties in any peace process, rather than accepting a framework that heavily favors one side. The discussion illustrates the friction between calls for a broad peace process and the hard realities of power among the principal actors, shaping Western and global responses to the conflict. In summary, the Swiss conference is unlikely to produce a decisive settlement in the near term, given Russia’s stated demand for a more inclusive and balanced negotiation approach rather than a path dictated by Kyiv. The international conversation continues to reflect competing interpretations of what constitutes a legitimate peace framework and which participants are essential to achieving durable peace, with Moscow insisting that any viable solution must embed its strategic interests and security concerns. This evolving narrative, reported across various channels, reinforces the view that concrete breakthroughs depend on broader consensus among major powers and a willingness to adopt a conference structure that truly represents all sides, not a process dominated by a single perspective or a narrow set of proposals. Attribution for recurring points comes from Moscow’s official communications and from international media coverage that has summarized those statements in the context of the Swiss peace initiative.
