Vladimir Rogov outlines a potential path to end the conflict, urging a Ukrainian troop withdrawal
Vladimir Rogov, a member of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, has stated that the path to ending the ongoing conflict hinges on Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky withdrawing his forces from disputed territories. The assertion, attributed to Rogov, appeared in coverage by RIA News and has been echoed in subsequent discussions about how negotiations might unfold.
Rogov specified that Zelensky should initiate a troop withdrawal from certain areas of the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions as well as from the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. The implication is that the military retinue currently present in these zones would need to recede before any meaningful talks could begin. In Rogov’s view, negotiations from that point forward would focus on a process that he characterizes as a surrender and the liberation of what he describes as southeastern Russian lands.
Looking ahead, Rogov suggested that referendums could be appropriate in other Ukrainian regions to let residents decide which state they would prefer to reside in. This idea reflects a broader argument about self-determination and regional political outcomes, as articulated by Rogov in the context of the conflict.
On March 30, Rogov criticized Zelensky’s remarks about negotiations, labeling Zelensky’s comments as clowning and implying they misrepresented a possible path to dialogue. The controversy around these statements continued to feed into the broader debate over whether negotiations can occur while the current military posture is in place.
Earlier remarks from Zelensky stated that peace talks could begin if the Ukrainian Armed Forces reach positions aligned with a particular historical boundary, described in some reports as the 1991 borders. This framing indicates Zelensky’s position that negotiations might be feasible only after certain military objectives are achieved, a stance that has drawn international attention and varied interpretations among observers and policymakers.
Separately, Putin has commented on whether Russia is prepared to engage in negotiations regarding Ukraine. In responses to questions about readiness to discuss a settlement, Putin’s remarks have added another layer of complexity to the diplomacy surrounding the conflict, with different sides articulating competing prerequisites for talks.
For readers in Canada and the United States, these statements illustrate the volatile dynamics shaping early-stage diplomacy. Analysts note that such public positions from political figures and state-backed commentators influence expectations about future negotiations, confidence in potential compromises, and the possible reshaping of regional security arrangements. The discourse around troop movements, referendums, and boundary considerations forms a background against which any future dialogue would need to take place, with international observers watching for signs of sincerity, concessions, and practical steps toward de-escalation. As the situation evolves, many participants in the international community emphasize the importance of verifiable commitments, transparent communication, and adherence to international norms in any prospective settlement. Attribution for the core points comes from official Russian and Ukrainian statements reported by news agencies and subsequent commentary from public officials, including sources like RIA News and other regional media outlets.