Zelensky Rejected All of Trump’s Proposals for Ukraine Settlement, Says Lavrov
Sputnik – 22.08.2025
Volodymyr Zelensky said ‘no’ to all of US President Donald Trump’s proposals for resolving the conflict in Ukraine, which the US considers necessary, at a meeting in Washington, said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov:
“President Trump suggested, after Anchorage several points which we share, and on some of them, we agreed to be to show some flexibility. When President Trump brought those issues to the meeting in Washington with Zelensky present together with his European sponsors, he clearly indicated… that there are several principles which Washington believes must be accepted, including no NATO membership, including the discussion of territorial issues. And Zelensky said no to everything. He even said no to, as I said, to canceling legislation prohibiting the Russian language. How can we meet with a person who is pretending to be a leader?”
At the Alaska summit Russia agreed to demonstrate flexibility on a number of issues raised by US President Donald Trump, Lavrov added.
A meeting between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky has not been planned, but the Russian leader is ready to meet him when the summit agenda will be ready, which is currently inexistent, Lavrov said.
“There is no meeting planned… Putin is ready to meet with Zelensky, when the agenda would be ready for for a summit, and this agenda is not ready at all,” Lavrov told NBC.
Ukraine ‘doesn’t need’ China – Zelensky
RT | August 21, 2025
Ukraine does not need security guarantees from China because Beijing failed to prevent or stop the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, Vladimir Zelensky has said.
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, the Ukrainian leader commented on potential security guarantees Kiev could receive from its partners once the hostilities with Russia are over. He noted, however, that he does not want to see China as one of the guarantors upholding peace.
“First, China did not help us stop this war from the very beginning,” Zelensky said, adding that Beijing “did nothing” to prevent the secession of Crimea, which overwhelmingly voted to join Russia in a public referendum in 2014. He went on to accuse China of sitting back when the conflict escalated in 2022.
“That is why we do not need guarantors who did not help Ukraine then, when it was truly necessary after February 24 [2022],” he said.
His remarks came after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested that Moscow supported robust security guarantees for Ukraine while not ruling out that they could be provided by members of the UN Security Council, including Western countries, as well as China. He stressed, however, that these guarantees should be “equal” and never be aimed against Russia.
China has positioned itself as a neutral party in the Ukraine conflict and has refused to join sanctions against Russia. It has called on both sides to hold peace talks while suggesting that one of the reasons for hostilities has been NATO expansion. In 2023, Beijing released a 12-point memorandum calling for a ceasefire, resumption of peace talks, protection of civilians, nuclear safety, and an end to unilateral sanctions.
Following the summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, in Alaska last week, China said it “supports all efforts conducive to the peaceful resolution of the [Ukraine] crisis,” adding that it “is glad to see Russia and the United States maintaining contact, [and] improving relations.”
EU asks “Daddy” to make Hungary stop
The EU wants Hungary to drop its opposition to Ukraine’s membership in the EU
Remix News | August 20, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump called Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán to ask about his position on Ukraine’s accession to the European Union.
The American leader reportedly wanted to discuss the reasons why Orbán is blocking negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the European Union.
“The call was the result of Trump’s conversations with a group of European leaders who had gathered at the White House to discuss ways to end Russia’s war with Ukraine. At one point, they asked Trump to use his influence with Orbán to persuade the right-wing populist to drop his opposition to Ukraine’s EU membership,” Bloomberg writes.
During a telephone conversation with Trump, Hungary expressed interest in holding another round of talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky.
Orbán, a close ally of Trump, is widely seen as an inspiration for the U.S. president’s political ideology as well as other right-wing politicians around the world.
On Tuesday, Orbán issued a statement suggesting that he understood Ukraine’s request for EU membership but did not intend to back down from his position.
“Ukraine’s membership in the European Union offers no security guarantees. Therefore, linking membership with security guarantees is unnecessary and dangerous,” he said.
Previously, Orbán has repeatedly said that Ukraine should not join the European Union so as not to bring the war to Europe, and should instead become a “buffer” country between Europe and Russia. Instead of accession, he offered Kyiv “strategic” cooperation – “pragmatic, flexible and based on common interests.” Orbán also considers EU sanctions against Russia ineffective. He has repeatedly criticized them as useless and harmful to the European economy, and in the past he has managed to secure the lifting of EU sanctions against several Russians.
Hungary on the brink of existential decision: confront Kiev and break with NATO or remain hostage to Ukrainian terror?
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 21, 2025
The recent Ukrainian attack on the Druzhba pipeline — vital for the oil supply of Hungary and Slovakia — marks a turning point in the geopolitical conflict in Eastern Europe. The strike was confirmed by Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces, with commander Robert Brovdi publicly celebrating the act of energy sabotage. Far from an isolated incident, this was a deliberate act of aggression against EU member states that have pursued a sovereign foreign policy contrary to NATO’s warmongering agenda.
The attack was not merely military. It was political, economic, and — above all — symbolic. By targeting the core infrastructure that sustains Hungary and Slovakia, Kiev is sending a clear message: dissent within the EU will not be tolerated. Budapest and Bratislava’s opposition to sending weapons to Ukraine and denouncing illegal sanctions against Russia has made them, in practice, targets of the Ukrainian nationalist regime.
Budapest responded firmly. Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó did not hesitate to call the attack “outrageous and unacceptable.” But Kiev’s arrogance remains unshaken. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sibiga not only dismissed Hungary’s criticisms but also claimed that the blame lies with Moscow, demanding that Hungary abandon its “dependence” on Russian energy. This is a perverse inversion of reality, typical of the Zelensky regime, propped up by Washington, London, and Brussels.
But the issue goes beyond oil supplies. Ukrainian hostility toward Hungary is not new — it is only deepening. Since 2014, Hungarians in Transcarpathia have lived under what can only be described as an ethnic apartheid regime. A barrage of cultural and linguistic persecution measures has taken hold: systematic closure of Hungarian-language schools, bans on national symbols, restrictions on the use of the mother tongue in public spaces, and even efforts to erase Hungarian place names in historically Hungarian areas.
Even more alarming is the practice of forced military conscription, disproportionately targeting young Hungarians in the region. There are growing reports, confirmed by independent observers and human rights organizations, that Hungarian recruits are being sent to the most dangerous frontlines in eastern Ukraine — used as cannon fodder in a campaign of collective punishment and population control. Cases of murders during forced enlistments by Ukrainian recruiters have already been documented — but are systematically silenced by a Western media eager to portray Kiev’s crimes as “democratic resistance.”
In this context, Hungary faces a question that can no longer be postponed: how much longer can Ukrainian terror be tolerated? This is no longer a mere diplomatic dispute. It is an existential issue for the Hungarian nation and for the 150,000 ethnic Hungarians who live under oppression in Transcarpathia. The logical answer would be the launch of a Hungarian special military operation on Ukrainian territory — much like what Moscow undertook in defense of the Donbass’ Russians. The objective would be clear: to liberate the ethnic Hungarians and restore historical justice in the region.
At the same time, Budapest must reconsider its membership in NATO and the European Union — structures that have proven hostile to national sovereignty, complicit with the Kiev regime, and sources of regional instability. NATO has armed Ukraine, dragged the continent into war, and now remains silent in the face of aggression against one of its own members. The EU, for its part, treats Hungary’s legitimate concerns over security and cultural identity with contempt, all while financing a failed war machine.
The decision that Viktor Orbán and his government must make is difficult — but inevitable: remain a hostage to the Western powers, or lead the way in a new European realignment, alongside nations that respect sovereignty and traditional values — such as Russia.
The attack on the Druzhba pipeline was not merely an assault on Hungary’s energy infrastructure. It was a warning. Just as the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev is willing to kill its own citizens because of their Hungarian ethnicity, it is equally willing to attack its own territory and sabotage its own infrastructure just to hurt Hungary.
The continued existence of the Kiev Junta is an existential threat to Hungary. And like all existential threats, it demands a response of equal magnitude.
Lavrov outlines terms for Putin-Zelensky meeting
RT | August 21, 2025
Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky if all the issues relating to the settlement of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev are worked out, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.
Following his recent talks with Putin and Zelensky, US President Donald Trump suggested that the Russian and Ukrainian leaders should next meet one-on-one before a potential trilateral summit with him. Zelensky, who visited Washington on Monday, claimed he is eager to negotiate with Putin.
Lavrov stated on Thursday that the Russian president “repeatedly said that he is ready to meet, including with Zelensky, if there is understanding that all issues that require consideration at the highest level have been worked out thoroughly” by experts and ministers.
The Ukrainian leader is pushing for a swift meeting with Putin because he wants to remain in the spotlight and is concerned that the attention of the international community towards him is declining, Lavrov said.
The foreign minister noted that Zelensky previously rejected any talks with Putin and even signed a decree in 2022 banning such negotiations, which he still has not canceled.
“Clearly, his activity in relation to staging a summit with the Russian leader also has a goal of displaying his supposedly constructive focus on the settlement process, but in reality, it is simply about replacing the serious, hard, difficult work on agreeing the principles of a sustainable resolution of the crisis… with special effects and tricks in the style of KVN and Kvartal 95,” he said, referring to shows in which Zelensky appeared during his time as a comedian.
According to Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, during their phone call on Monday Putin and Trump supported the idea of continuing direct talks between Russia and Ukraine, which restarted in Istanbul in May, and discussed the option of raising the level of officials participating in them.
Moscow maintains that any lasting settlement must eliminate the root causes of the conflict, address Russia’s security concerns, and recognize current territorial realities, including the status of Crimea and the four former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022.
Russia ‘has won the war’ – Orban
RT | August 13, 2025
Russia has already won the Ukraine conflict and it is now up to the West to acknowledge this, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said.
Orban made the remarks on Tuesday, shortly after he snubbed the latest joint EU statement in support of Ukraine issued ahead of the meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, scheduled for Friday in Alaska. Speaking to the ‘Patriot’ YouTube channel, the Hungarian leader said he partly opposed the statement as it only made the EU look “ridiculous and pathetic.”
“When two leaders sit down to negotiate with each other, the Americans and the Russians … and you’re not invited there, you don’t rush for the phone, you don’t run around, you don’t shout in from the outside,” Orban stated. “If you are not at the negotiating table, you are on the menu.”
Moscow has already won the conflict against Ukraine, the Hungarian leader added, claiming that Kiev’s backers were in denial.
“We are talking now as if this were an open-ended war situation, but it is not. The Ukrainians have lost the war. Russia has won this war,” he stressed. “The only question is when and under what circumstances will the West, who are behind the Ukrainians, admit that this has happened, and what will result from all this.”
A member of both the EU and NATO, Hungary has consistently opposed Brussels’ policies on the Ukraine conflict since its escalation in February 2022, including weapons supplies to Kiev and sanctions against Russia. Budapest has also opposed the idea of Kiev joining either of the blocs.
Relations between Budapest and Kiev have been further soured by tensions around the Hungarian ethnic minority in Western Ukraine. Last week, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said Kiev has no place in the EU and “doesn’t even belong among civilized nations,” citing the recent death of an ethnic Hungarian allegedly at the hands of Ukrainian draft officers.
Russia Possesses Advanced Weapons Other Than Oreshnik Systems – Ryabkov
Sputnik – 10.08.2025
MOSCOW – In addition to the Oreshnik missile systems, Russia possesses other advanced weaponry, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said on Sunday.
“There is Oreshnik. But there is more, and we have been wasting no time. I cannot name what I am not authorized to name. But it exists,” Ryabkov said on the Rossiya 1 channel.
Russia has many options in advanced weaponry at its disposal, the deputy foreign minister said, adding that “we never rule anything out for ourselves in advance.”
Ryabkov also made statements on lifting the moratorium on INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces):
- Russia must use such methods to cool down the heated heads in NATO countries.
- In today’s realities, it is inappropriate to use the term “détente” in relations between Russia and the US.
- What we need now is not détente, but political will to begin lowering the temperature in international relations.
- Everything Moscow does in terms of weapons deployment is a reaction to the steps taken by the Americans and their allies.
- Apart from the Oreshnik systems, Russia also has other advanced weapons.
- The first signs of common sense are appearing in Russia-US relations, which were absent for several years before.
- The risk of nuclear conflict in the world is not decreasing.
- Russia sees the risk that after the expiration of the New START Treaty, nuclear arms control will be completely absent.
Istanbul Talks: Russia’s Constructive Stance vs. Ukraine’s Theater
Sputnik – 24.07.2025
Russia’s proposal demonstrated a constructive approach focused on a real political and diplomatic settlement, deputy director of research at the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy Dmitry Suslov tells Sputnik.
Ukraine, meanwhile, must address the issue of the illegal detention of Russian civilians taken hostage in the Kursk region.
“These peaceful Russian residents, who were illegally taken to Ukrainian territory or, more precisely, are currently being illegally detained, are in fact being treated as hostages. If this is the case, then the Kiev regime is once again proving its terrorist nature,” Suslov noted.
Ukraine’s demands for a leaders’ summit and a ceasefire only prove their unwillingness to negotiate. Their goal is to portray Russia as uncooperative to the US president.
“The Ukrainian side has once again shown that its goal is not a political and diplomatic settlement but rather an attempt to portray Russia negatively in the eyes of the West, including Donald Trump,” Suslov added.
Syrian prisoners: A ticking bomb between Beirut and Damascus?
By Mohamad Shamse Eddine | The Cradle | July 23, 2025
A political storm is gathering over a long-festering crisis in Lebanon’s prisons: more than 2,000 Syrians, many detained without charge or trial, remain locked away in overcrowded and crumbling facilities.
The worsening humanitarian conditions are no longer just a domestic issue. It has morphed into a potent diplomatic flashpoint between Beirut and the new interim government in Damascus, with the latter signaling it will not tolerate further delay in resolving the status of its citizens.
The spark came from a Syria TV report quoting an official from the administration of interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa (Abu Muhammad al-Julani), who stated that Damascus is “mulling gradual escalation choices against Lebanon,” starting with the freezing of some security and economic channels if the detainee issue remains unresolved.
Official denials followed, but the message had already landed in Beirut. The prisoner file, dormant for years, is now wide open—and loaded with political implications that stretch far beyond the bars of Lebanon’s Roumieh Prison.
This comes as the Lebanese judiciary teeters on the verge of collapse and its prisons edge into crisis. At the same time, a transformed Syrian state under Sharaa’s Al-Qaeda-rooted administration is recalibrating its regional footing following years of civil war, western isolation, and struggles to assert sovereignty.
Damascus frames the detainee issue as a humanitarian one. However, political observers in Beirut view it as a strategic lever, part of a broader power play unfolding at a time when Lebanon faces internal divisions and competition between Turkiye and Saudi Arabia over influence within its Sunni community.
The detainees also represent more than individual cases—they are a legacy of the previous Syrian order, and a test for Lebanon’s ability to deal with the political costs of its judicial dysfunction.
Who are the detainees?
The Syrian prisoners in Lebanon fall into three categories. First, the political detainees: Syrians imprisoned over the past decade for joining militant factions like the Free Syrian Army (FSA) or the UN-designated terrorist Nusra Front – or for speaking out against the former Syrian government.
Most were never formally charged. Now, with former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gone and a new government in Damascus, these individuals are being recast not as enemies but as participants in a national cause. Their return is being framed by Damascus as part of Syria’s internal reconciliation process.
Second are the jihadist-linked detainees. These prisoners are accused of ties to terror groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Some have faced trial, but many continue to be held without verdicts. Legal definitions of terrorism vary significantly between Beirut and Damascus, complicating any coordinated legal handling.
The lack of evidence in many cases has raised questions about the fairness of prolonged detentions, especially in the absence of transparent legal standards or international oversight.
Third are the criminal offenders: Syrians charged with routine crimes like theft or smuggling. In theory, they fall under Lebanon’s legal system like any foreign national. In practice, a broken judiciary and Kafkaesque bureaucracy have left many in legal limbo, detained for years without resolution.
What unites all three groups is Lebanon’s failure to classify or process their cases adequately. Without access to lawyers, interpreters, or diplomatic support, most Syrian detainees are effectively voiceless and invisible. According to legal advocates, some have waited up to seven years for a single court appearance.
Damascus’ extrajudicial demands
The names requested by Damascus include figures deeply linked to past violence on Lebanese soil. Salafi preacher Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir, sentenced in connection with the 2013 Abra clashes that left several Lebanese army soldiers dead, is among them. His case is closed under Lebanese law, so his inclusion signals political calculation, not legal necessity.
Also on the list are Sheikh Omar al-Atrash and Naeem Abbas, both tied to Al-Qaeda’s operations in Lebanon and implicated in the 2013 bombings in Beirut’s southern suburb of Dahieh. Their convictions are firm. Their extradition, if attempted, would ignite a political firestorm.
Damascus is not seeking the return of petty criminals. It aims to influence what it considers political actors tied to the Syrian conflict—individuals it now views as part of its national narrative. Beirut, however, sees potential manipulation.
Syrian sources inform The Cradle that any returnees would undergo formal security and judicial oversight. But victims’ families fear the deals may serve regional interests, not justice. The Lebanese judiciary, lacking independence and burdened by years of foreign and sectarian interference, offers little public confidence.
Roumieh: A prison on the brink
Roumieh Prison was built to house 1,500 inmates. It currently holds over 4,000, including hundreds of Syrians. Many have been held without charges. Conditions in the Islamist wing, “Block B,” are dire—overcrowded, unsanitary, and deprived of basic medical and psychological care.
In February, more than 100 Syrian detainees began a two-week hunger strike. The protest followed months of inaction on promised reforms, including improved legal access and prison conditions. Security officials acknowledge the risk that unrest could escalate into a full-blown revolt, especially as external actors view the prison crisis as an opportunity to stir instability. Lebanese security sources warn that militant groups could exploit grievances inside Roumieh, turning a detention center into a flashpoint for wider conflict.
No legal architecture
Despite the gravity of the issue, there is no formal prisoner exchange treaty between Lebanon and Syria. An older extradition agreement remains on paper, but it does not cover sentenced prisoners. Lebanese law bars deportation unless a detainee has received a final verdict—and even then, not for crimes committed on Lebanese soil with Lebanese victims.
This legal grey zone explains why detainees like Abbas and Atrash remain in Lebanon, at least for now. However, a new judicial agreement is reportedly being negotiated between the justice ministries in Beirut and Damascus that may allow the repatriation of 370 convicted Syrians.
Lebanese judicial sources tell The Cradle that the draft agreement includes provisions for sentence continuation and post-transfer monitoring, but faces political opposition from factions aligned with western interests.
While Damascus demands its citizens back, Lebanon is silent on its nationals imprisoned in the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)-run detention camps in northeast Syria. Hundreds of Lebanese citizens—many detained alongside their families—languish there without trial, without consular access, and without official advocacy. Some have been held since 2019, captured during the final battles against ISIS.
This silence exposes Lebanon’s deeper dysfunction. Its institutions are too eroded to defend their own citizens, let alone negotiate a reciprocal deal with a fragile state like Syria, which now speaks from a position of renewed regional assertiveness. The contradiction is glaring: Beirut is expected to process Syrian cases with care, while ignoring its nationals trapped in US-backed detention zones under the SDF.
Is a deal possible?
Senior political sources tell The Cradle that Beirut may begin by releasing detainees with no political baggage, setting the stage for a broader settlement. This would allow both states to test the waters while avoiding immediate controversy. Some Lebanese officials argue this phased approach could also reduce overcrowding in prisons like Roumieh, while fulfilling Syria’s minimal expectations.
But any lasting resolution requires more than tactical moves. It demands a sweeping overhaul of Lebanon’s judicial architecture, the depoliticization of its detention policies, and a binding bilateral framework. Damascus, for its part, will have to offer clear guarantees that repatriated detainees are not used to settle old scores but reintegrated into a legal system that reflects its new political reality.
Until then, Lebanon’s prisons will remain overstuffed, its judiciary paralyzed, and the Syrian detainee file unresolved—exposing the unfinished reckoning between two states still mired in the legacies of occupation, war, and political dependency.
Iran rejects Argentina’s ‘baseless’ accusations in 1994 AMIA case, urges fair probe
Press TV – July 18, 2025
Tehran has dismissed “baseless” accusations leveled by Argentina at Iranian nationals in connection with the deadly 1994 AMIA bombing, urging the country’s judiciary to handle the case fairly without third-party influence.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry issued a statement on Friday, marking the 31th anniversary of the bombing attack on the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) community centre in Buenos Aires on July 18, 1994, that killed 85 people and injured over 300 others.
It said that elements and currents linked to Israel exploited the “suspicious” explosion from the very beginning and diverted the case into a misleading and incorrect path, disrupting the longstanding Iran-Argentine relations.
It also noted that over the past three decades, Iran has repeatedly declared its position in condemnation of any act of terrorism and stressed the need for a transparent and fair trial into the incident.
“Completely rejecting the accusations against its citizens, the Islamic Republic has condemned the insistence of certain domestic circles in Argentine to pressure the country’s judicial system into issuing baseless charges and seemingly judicial rulings against Iranian citizens,” it said. “Iran has called for the real masterminds and perpetrators of the explosion to be identified.”
Meanwhile, the Foreign Ministry added that in the past years, clear and undeniable evidence has emerged indicating that the Zionist regime and its affiliated currents are exerting influence and pressure on the Argentinean judicial system to make accusations against Iranians.
It further highlighted frequent changes in the judicial team investigating the AMIA case, the revelation of corruption among some judicial elements, the resignation of judges and even attempts on their lives, as an evidence of a “purposeful will to divert the Argentinean judicial system from a transparent and fair probe into the case.”
With the sole aim of protecting bilateral ties and restoring the dignity of Iranian citizens, the Islamic Republic entered into talks with Argentina, which resulted in the signing of a memorandum of understanding in 2013, the ministry said. Less than two years later, however, Buenos Aires unilaterally canceled the deal and prevented the formation of a transparent process aimed at revealing the truth and identifying those behind the blast.
“The Islamic Republic strongly emphasizes the baseless nature of claims against Iranian citizens, insists on the restoration of the accused citizens’ dignity and demands an end to the show trial, while expecting the Argentinean judicial authorities to handle the case in a transparent and fair manner free from politicization and undue influence by third parties,” it asserted.
“In accordance with international law, the Islamic Republic reserves its legal and legitimate rights to respond to any inappropriate and unreasonable action against itself and its citizens.”
Iran, US Respond With Attention to Russia’s Proposal to Help Iran Deplete Uranium
Sputnik – 11.07.2025
MOSCOW – Iran, the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have paid close attention to Russia’s proposal to remove excess enriched uranium from Iran, but the matter has not yet reached specifics, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told Sputnik.
“We have conveyed this proposal to both the Iranian side and the American side, and the IAEA is also aware of it. Its purpose is to solve two problems at once – one is related to the fact that the Iranian side, as we understand it, is firmly insisting on the importance of preserving the right to carry out enrichment work on its territory. On the other hand, we see that there are opponents of Tehran who are expressing great concern about the accumulation on its territory of uranium enriched above the levels that are usually used in the manufacture of fuel for nuclear reactors,” Ryabkov said.
If Russia could take this material out of Iran and carry out appropriate work with it in order to produce fuel from it or manage it in such a way that it becomes a commercial product subject to sale, then both of these tasks could be effectively solved, he said.
“Considering that it is still unclear how the dialogue will proceed, whether it will proceed at all, and if it does, in what format, we have not yet reached the specifics of such practical measures. But all interested parties approached this with attention and, perhaps, one can say, perceived this as a reflection of the seriousness of our efforts, the seriousness of our intentions in this regard,” Ryabkov said.
Moscow outlines why Zelensky wants to meet with Putin
RT | July 6, 2025
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky is seeking a personal meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to defend his claims to legitimacy and resist Western attempts to push him out of power, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. Zelensky’s presidential term expired last year, and Moscow views him as illegitimate.
In an interview with First Sevastopol TV released on Saturday, Zakharova was asked why she believes the Ukrainian leader is so insistent on meeting with Putin. “Because he needs to reaffirm his legitimacy, not through legal procedures, but by any other means to prove that he is in power,” she stated.
Zelensky’s five-year presidential term ended in May 2024, but he refused to hold a new election, citing martial law. Moscow has declared him illegitimate, insisting that under Ukrainian law, legal authority now rests with the parliament.
According to Zakharova, Zelensky also seeks a meeting with Putin because he is driven by “a monstrous fear of being consigned to oblivion.”
“He is insanely afraid of being forgotten, of becoming unnecessary for the West. That somehow the West will sideline him. And you can see he doesn’t step away from the microphones. I think he already sleeps with a webcam,” she said.
Zelensky has on numerous occasions insisted that he wants to meet with Putin, describing this as a prerequisite for peace.
In May, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov suggested that a meeting between Putin and Zelensky could be possible, but only after negotiations between Moscow and Kiev reach “specific arrangements” on various diplomatic tracks. This year, Russia and Ukraine held two rounds of direct talks, which did not result in a breakthrough with regard to ending the conflict, but led to several prisoner exchanges.
In June, Putin said he was open to meeting with Zelensky, but suggested that the Ukrainian leader lacks legitimacy for signing binding agreements. “I am ready to meet with anyone, including Zelensky. That’s not the issue – if the Ukrainian state trusts someone to conduct negotiations, by all means, let it be Zelensky. The question is different: Who will sign the documents?”
In autumn 2022, Zelensky signed a presidential decree banning talks with the current Russian leadership, after the regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye voted in referendums to join Russia. Though Zelensky has not canceled the decree, he has since insisted that it only applies to other Ukrainian politicians, not to himself.
