Zakharova on Negotiations: Kyiv’s Freeze and the Call for Inclusive Talks

Maria Zakharova, the official representative for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, spoke in an interview about the ongoing tension between Moscow and Kyiv, framing the situation as one driven by parallel political moves and external influence. She argued that Ukraine, under guidance from United States officials, had not merely pursued talks but had effectively frozen any path to negotiations that had been opened in the preceding period. This position came as Zakharova responded to a call from Zhang Jun, China’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, who urged Russia and Ukraine to suspend hostilities and resume talks with urgency. In Zakharova’s view, the interruptions to dialogue were not a matter of Russia shunning dialogue but a consequence of Kyiv and its backers pulling the plug at a legislative level, thereby stalling the possibility of constructive discussion in a formal sense. The Russian side, she insisted, did not reject negotiation proposals outright; rather, they point to a public and procedural freeze that appeared to be enacted by Ukrainian authorities in September of the previous year, effectively blocking the path to dialogue at the political and legislative levels. The exchange underscored a broader pattern, according to Moscow, in which external actors and alliance structures shape the frame of reference for any potential peace talks, often tying the central question of security guarantees to a wider regional and international strategic calculus. The narrative presented by Zakharova therefore links the stalled negotiations not to a lack of Russian interest in dialogue, but to a calculated obstruction by Ukrainian leadership with foreign backing, a situation she suggests requires clarification and accountability on the international stage. When Zhang Jun publicly called for a ceasefire and a return to the negotiating table, he emphasized that a comprehensive, deep dialogue should include the United States, the European Union, and NATO as participants alongside Russia and Ukraine. His articulation framed security as indivisible, arguing that a durable peace would rest on a broad, inclusive settlement that addresses the core security concerns of all parties involved, not on a narrow, one-sided understanding that places disproportionate demands on any single actor. The Chinese ambassador’s stance therefore positioned the UN as a venue for mobilizing broader consensus, appealing for constructive engagement rather than punitive measures, and inviting all major actors to demonstrate political will to halt hostilities and pursue a negotiated settlement. This perspective contrasts with the Russian portrayal of the current impasse, which casts Kyiv and its Western supporters as the primary barriers to dialogue, rather than as equal participants in a multilateral process. The statements collectively reflect a persistent push from Moscow to redefine the terms of negotiation in ways that emphasize global security architecture and the necessity of inclusive diplomacy, while Beijing’s intervention highlights a preference for speed and inclusivity in diplomacy, hoping to bridge gaps through sustained dialogue and mutual concessions. In this complex dynamic, the central question remains the same: how can a lasting, verifiable ceasefire be achieved, and what form of political framework can ensure lasting peace that addresses the legitimate interests and red lines of both sides and their international partners? The ongoing discussion thus continues to rely on repeated calls for pause in hostilities, regional stability, and a clear path back to negotiation that is accepted by all major stakeholders, with the ultimate aim of a settlement that reduces risk and provides a stable environment for future dialogue among rivals turned interlocutors.