"The current lead that Russia has in missile and defensive systems might persuade the US to agree to verifiable arms control, but this is the work of years.
In the meantime, the West provokes Russia relentlessly, across all dimensions of life. This is dangerous. It is time for nations to comply with their obligations under the UN Charter. A mechanism must be found accelerate a move to universal security and the peace dividend it brings.
And Russia has done this, in a stunning and unexpected move, a move missed by the entire media."

"Embassy employees are being evacuated and Anglo-Saxons are urged to leave Ukraine as soon as possible. Some food for thought: what if the Anglo-Saxons are preparing something of their own and this is why they are evacuating their staff? We see their actions."
Sergey Lavrov 10 February 2022

"Even some seemingly respectable media outlets write about an “operation” that we are supposedly preparing with the aim of seizing Kiev and other Ukrainian cities or that some “coup” is being prepared with a view to putting a puppet regime in power in the Ukrainian capital."
Sergey Lavrov 10 February 2022

Question: [...] Does Russia intend to demand that Kiev additionally recognise independence of the Kherson Region and part of the Zaporozhye Region currently controlled by the Russian forces, or their accession to Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: This question will be answered by the people living in the liberated territories. They are saying that they want to choose their future on their own. We fully respect this position.
Sergey Lavrov 6 June 2022

"The Donetsk People's Republic, as well as the Lugansk People's Republic, Kherson region and Zaporozhye region, overwhelmingly supported joining Russia during their September referendums.

Russia's Federation Council ratified the treaties on the DPR's and LPR's admission to Russia on Tuesday, as well as Zaporozhye region and Kherson region. At the same time, the parliaments of the DPR and LPR also voted to ratify the agreements.

The DPR and LPR, Zaporozhye region and Kherson region held referendums on joining the Russian Federation on September 23-27. Despite shelling by Ukraine and the constant threat of attacks, voter turnout was considerably high, and most people backed the idea of becoming part of Russia: 99.23% in the DPR, 98.42% in the LPR, 93.11% in Zaporozhye region and 87.05% in Kherson region.

Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council, former President Dmitry Medvedev addressed the votes, saying the outcome is clear and adding "welcome to Russia!"

Following the votes, President Vladimir Putin and the heads of two republics and two regions signed agreements on the accession of the territories to Russia.

Addressing the historical moment during the ceremony, the Russian president stressed that the people of the four territories had "made their unequivocal choice." He added that "the people living in Lugansk and Donetsk, in Kherson and Zaporozhye have become our citizens, forever," noting that Moscow will use every means to protect them."
Sputnik News 4 October 2022

"Citizens of Russia, citizens of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, residents of the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, deputies of the State Duma, senators of the Russian Federation,

As you know, referendums have been held in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. The ballots have been counted and the results have been announced. The people have made their unequivocal choice.

Today we will sign treaties on the accession of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Lugansk People’s Republic, Zaporozhye Region and Kherson Region to the Russian Federation. I have no doubt that the Federal Assembly will support the constitutional laws on the accession to Russia and the establishment of four new regions, our new constituent entities of the Russian Federation, because this is the will of millions of people. (Applause.)

It is undoubtedly their right, an inherent right sealed in Article 1 of the UN Charter, which directly states the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."
President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin 30 September 2022

"We call on the Kiev regime to immediately cease fire and all hostilities; to end the war it unleashed back in 2014 and return to the negotiating table.

We are ready for this, as we have said more than once. But the choice of the people in Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson will not be discussed. The decision has been made, and Russia will not betray it.

Kiev’s current authorities should respect this free expression of the people’s will; there is no other way. This is the only way to peace."
President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin 30 September 2022

"Our greatest concern and the main task is to increase people’s incomes. This is our priority, our number one task, and we are not going to resolve it by simple linear methods. To do this, we must ensure the growth of the economy and a change of its infrastructure.

This is a long-term goal.

We are not going to use populist methods.

It is based on qualitative economic growth that we intend to resolve major social tasks - including an increase in the incomes of the Russian people and the demographic problem, which is our second most important task.

It implies a package of social issues: healthcare, education and support for families with children.

To resolve all these tasks, we have mapped out certain national development goals...Therefore, we should resolve the two main problems ‒ improve demography and increase people’s incomes, raise their quality of life on this serious economic foundation I have just mentioned. This is what we are going to do in the near future"
Vladimir Putin 14 October 2021

• deal with the flow-on effects of the demographic mismatch of an aging population and low birth rate
  
• improved and affordable healthcare
• a more highly educated population
  
• better housing and urban environment
  
• protection of the natural environment and clamp down on pollution
  
• safe and high-quality motorways
• improve labour productivity and employment support
  
• support research in order to compete in modern economies
  
• support the digital economy
  
• support and preserve Russia's culture
  
• support for small and medium-sized businesses and individual entrepreneurs
  
• encourage international cooperation and increase exports

• nuclear missile strike
• conventional war
• biological war
• economic war

"But for Europe, they pay back their money. It’s a loan. Think of that. And we should’ve had a loan, too, but we had an administration that was incompetent."
Donald Trump 19 February 2025

"Any conflict ends sooner or later. This will happen to the conflict in Ukraine too, we are sure of that. By all means, the longer it lasts thanks to Western weapon deliveries to the regime in Kiev, the worse peace conditions will be for Ukraine."
Vassily Nebenzia, Russian Federation Permanent Representative to the United Nations 23 February 2024

"The end, ways, and means, they lack that, to be able to go back to the pre-2014.

The second point that I would make is, you know, as you look at the DIME—diplomatic, informational, military, and economic—we’re woefully lacking on the diplomatic piece of this. If you notice, there’s no diplomacy going on at all to trying to get to some type of negotiations. And I don’t think that we can lead that, given where Putin thinks about us.

But if you sit back and think about those that could possibly be a part of this negotiation team, you know, you have the—two of them are in—that I’m going to list are in NATO. One is President Orbán out of Hungary. Perhaps he can help out in the negotiation effort. The other one is President Erdoğan of Turkey. Longtime friends of President Putin, although some view that relationship as transactional. I don’t know. Let’s put it to the test and see."
Stephen Twitty, former Deputy Commander of the United States European Command  (2018–2020), May 31 2022

"Vladimir Putin: First, we have never refused – as I said a thousand times – to participate in any talks that may lead to a peace settlement. We have always said so. Moreover, during the talks in Istanbul, we initialed this document. We argued for a long time, butted heads there and so on, but the document was very thick and it was initialed by Medinsky on our side and by the head of their negotiating team – I think his name is Arakhamia but I don’t remember exactly. We actually did this but they simply threw it away later and that’s it....

...ultimately it is about the United States’ interests. We know that they hold the key to solving issues.

If they genuinely want to end today's conflict via negotiations, they only need to make one decision which is to stop supplying weapons and equipment. That’s it. Ukraine itself does not manufacture anything. Tomorrow, they will want to hold talks that are not formal, but substantive, and not to confront us with ultimatums, but to return to what was agreed upon, say, in Istanbul.

Ukraine's security issues are spelled out in great detail there. In fact, much of what is written there makes us wonder whether we should agree to it. To reiterate, it was initialed by both sides.
Vladimir Putin 13 June 2023

"As for the negotiations – we haven’t mentioned this yet, but I hope I won’t be criticised for it – what guarantees did that Istanbul document include? We were ready to provide extremely serious guarantees, as the Ukrainian delegation wanted.

Is Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty serious enough? We did not reproduce it verbatim, but agreed upon a formula that was close. What I am saying is, those were very serious security guarantees. However, the document specifically stated that those guarantees did not apply to Crimea or Donbass. This meant that they could not be touched, otherwise no guarantees would work.

In terms of Ukraine’s demilitarisation, the document stated that there would be no military bases in Ukraine.

As President Vladimir Putin said during the Russia-Africa Summit in St Petersburg in the summer of 2023, the Istanbul document outlined the limits of the relevant weapons, personnel, etc.

It said that the armed forces of Ukraine would hold no manoeuvres or military exercises involving third countries unless all guarantor countries, Russia and China included, agreed. We were ready to sign the treaty.

It also said that the negotiations on other issues would continue, but only after the cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, provision of security guarantees, and abolition of Ukrainian laws of a racist, neo-Nazi, and discriminatory nature.

When all this was agreed, Ukrainian negotiators came back and said they disagreed with some details, including the ban on exercises involving third-country forces with the consent of all guarantors. They wanted that clause to say “unless the majority of guarantors agree.” That was it. That was a red flag, which could mean they had been forbidden to sign the document overnight. Or that they decided to fool “those Russians” even more. This was a short story to illustrate that situation."
Sergey Lavrov 19 April 2024

"...the G20 countries in the statement all stood up for the importance of territorial integrity, sovereignty, and that’s very clear. 

I was in the room when all the leaders spoke today with President Biden, and it was very clear from everything that they said that not only do they want to see this war end, but they want to see it end on just and durable terms, and it was also very clear that the consequences of Russia’s aggression are being felt throughout the G20 countries and throughout the developing world. 

So there was, I think, real clarity from the leaders in the room...I think it’s very important that the G20 spoke as one... what really speaks loudly, again, are the leaders in the room itself.  And I think if you were on the receiving end of what so many of them said, if you were in the Russian seat, it’s pretty clear where the rest of the world stands."
Anthony Blinken, USA Secretary of State, 10 September 2023


"...thus far, we see no indication that Vladimir Putin has any interest in meaningful diplomacy. If he does, I think the Ukrainians will be the first to engage, and we’ll be right behind them.  Everyone wants this war to end, but it has to end on just terms and on durable terms that reflect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

...So they have to make the basic decisions about how they’re going to defend their territory and how they’re working to take back what’s been seized from them.  Our role, the role of dozens of other countries around the world that are supporting them, is to help them do that. 

And ultimately, what we all want is an end to this Russian aggression and an end to the aggression that, again, is just and is durable.  That’s what Ukrainians want more than anyone else.  That’s what we’re working toward."
Anthony Blinken, USA Secretary of State, 10 September 2023 


"...this is the 21st century.  This wasn’t supposed to happen again.  And not just here, the heart of Europe, but around the world.  So we’re committed – the State Department and the United States – to do everything we possibly can to try to prevent conflict, to try to stop it, and to stand with those who are the victims of aggression."
Anthony Blinken, USA Secretary of State, 7 September 2023


"...we stated that peace formula is the foundation for stopping war and there is a historical moment in this.

And it’s first time, to my – in my memory, that the rules of the end of the war decided not – not by the aggressor, by – but the rules of stopping the war is setting by the country that was attacked. 

It’s very important for the international diplomacy, international law.  It’s very fair and just approach, and that’s why we agreed upon next steps we are going to take together...And I would like to thank also the State Secretary for everything that we discussed, all of the efforts like peace formula...
Dymytro Kuleba, Foreign Minister of Ukraine, meeting with Anthony Blinken 6 September 2023

"When Putin invaded Ukraine, he thought he would take Kyiv and all of Ukraine in a matter of days.  Well, over a year later, Putin has failed, and he continues to fail".
Biden 

"Vladimir Putin has commented on the situation that emerged in connection with the arrival of the new weapons. I can only add that the longer-range arms you supply, the farther will we push from our border the line where the neo-Nazis will be able to threaten the Russian Federation...let me reiterate the following.  The West has decided to supply weapons that, in all evidence, are capable of reaching not only the border areas of the Russian Federation but also its more remote points. Politicians and legislators in Ukraine itself are laughing at the Americans, who said they believed Vladimir Zelensky’s promise not to shell Russia. ...I will stress once again: the longer-range are the systems supplied to the Kiev regime, the farther will we push the Nazis from the line from which threats emanate for the Russian population of Ukraine and the Russian Federation. "
Sergey Lavrov 6 June 2022


"...[The West] has significant leverage in the operation. We are now trying to move the Ukrainian artillery to a distance that will not pose a threat to our territories, but the more long-range weapons they send to Kiev, the further they will need to move them away from the territories that are part of our country."
Sergey Lavrov 2 February 2023

"With regard to “what Ukraine are they talking about,” Ukraine, such as it may be, does exist and we must treat it with respect. However, this does not mean that this is a reason for us being treated without respect. That is what it is about.

... For some reason, Vladimir Lenin decided to give up the entire Black Sea Region. Why on earth did he do this? In strictly historical terms, these are Russian lands. Of course, there was nothing linked with Ukraine there, nothing at all. Ukraine really only appeared in 1922, and this fact was sealed in the Constitution. Huge Russian territories were given away there – just for nothing. And, as I mentioned, I have read papers and letters from the archives. They made a decision at first, I think at the congress or a Politbureau meeting about one republic".

"If some of the people residing in these territories believe that they want to live in a separate and independent state, their preference must be treated with respect. The only question is why they should live at our expense and in our historical territories? If they want to live in our historical territories, then they should influence their political leadership so that it establishes proper relations with Russia and no one poses a threat to us from these territories. This is the issue. This is what the issue is all about....

...As for those who want to feel Ukrainian and live in an independent state, for God’s sake, do what you want. It is necessary to treat this with respect, but then don’t create a threat for us."
Vladimir Putin June 13 2023

"No one would ever have thought about starting a conflict with Ukraine if we had normal relations as persons...But what they did there was they created an anti-Russia. They created it as a basis underlying their own existence. They created the anti-Russia and began to strengthen it. This is the problem."
Vladimir Putin June 13 2023  

"There is a NATO issue as well. After all, when Ukraine gained independence, the Declaration of Independence explicitly stated that Ukraine was a neutral state.
Who was it that, in 2008, when things were just fine with no Crimean events in sight, suddenly said they wanted to join NATO, and NATO opened its doors to them, declaring at the summit in Bucharest that NATO’s doors were open to Ukraine?

Not only did they cheat everyone when they said NATO would not expand to the east, but they planned to have our historical territories with a Russian-speaking population join NATO. This is totally out of line, is it not? It is. They are aware that they are creating a threat to us, but they are still working to this end despite our attempts to establish proper relations. This is the problem."
Vladimir Putin June 13 2023  

"You know, Odessa is indeed one of the most beautiful cities in the world.As you know, Odessa was founded by Catherine the Great, and I think even the extreme nationalists do not dare to tear down the monument to the city's founder. Odessa can be an apple of discord, a symbol of conflict resolution, and a symbol of finding some kind of solution to everything that is happening now. It is not a question of Russia. We have said many times that we are ready to negotiate, and I recently mentioned this publicly once again speaking in the Kremlin."
Vladimir Putin, 27 October 2022

In the Greek poet Homer's epic poem (The Iliad), the Trojan War was started by Eris, the goddess of Discord. She was known as an ungracious guest, well known for stirring bad relations between the Gods. In a fit of pique at not being invited to an Olympian God-wedding, she used her powers to throw a golden apple amongst the guests. The inscription on it read “For the Fairest”. Paris, a Trojan prince was picked to decide the winner. Aphrodite, one of the leading candidates, bribed him with the offer of the fairest woman on Earth. Unsurprisingly, Paris picked Aphrodite as the fairest of the assembled Goddesses.

The Greek Helen was acknowledged as the most beautiful woman on earth. Helen's father, King Tyndareus had agreed to chose a husband for Helen from the bevy of suitors on condition that, regardless who he chose, they would all unite and come to the 'chosen ones' aid if he found himself in trouble. King Tyndareus chose King Menelaus. But Aphrodite later caused the already-married Helen to fall for Paris of Troy, who then abducted Helen and brought her to Troy. King Menelaus and the eloquent Odysseus went to the King of Troy (King Priam) in a diplomatic effort to return Helen.

King Priam refused to release Helen. A grinding 9 year war ensued, which spilled over into neighbouring regions. Eventually, the Greeks pretended to yield and give up Troy, leaving behind a huge wooden horse, with Greek soldiers hiding inside. The Trojans dragged it into their defensive positions as a trophy of their success. That night, the soldiers crept out and opened the gates to the Greek military, who had returned under cover of dark. The Greeks wreaked havoc and destruction on Troy. King Menelaus found Helen, but could not bring himself to punish her as she was so beautiful...

The USA is Eris, Troy is Ukraine. Russian Federation Oblasts are the suitors. Odessa is Helen. King Menelaus and Odysseus are the Russian Federation Office of President and Minister of Foreign Affairs. King Priam is Zelensky.

"In 1794, the city of Odessa was founded by decree of the Empress Catherine the Great. From 1819 to 1858, Odessa was a free port, and then during the twentieth century it was the most important port of trade in the Soviet Union...
During the 19th century, it was the fourth largest city of Imperial Russia, and its historical  architecture has a style more Mediterranean than Russian, having been heavily influenced by French and Italian styles. Some buildings are built in a mixture of different styles, including Art Nouveau, Renaissance and Classicist.
Odessa has 18 universities and higher education centres, with an emphasis on science. As a cultural centre it contains 9 theatres including the world famous opera house, more than 40 museums, 10 art galleries and 11 national cultural institutions.Aside from the tourism and health industries and the port activities, Odessa’s other significant  industry is the oil terminal and related activities."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig

"When at last they [Ukraine] have the grace to suggest resuming the diplomatic process (something, as I understand, the Europeans are insisting they should do, but the Anglo-Saxons do not permit them), we will see what situation has emerged on the ground.
There are liberated areas there. The majority of the population cannot so much as think of returning under the control of the neo-Nazi authorities or the authorities that are in every way conniving at neo-Nazism....
Today I don’t see any possibility for Ukraine to make any proposals, and we are not going to suggest anything either. We have made our proposals long ago. The ball is now in their court. I don’t believe that Kiev will be allowed to resume talks.
Sergey Lavrov 23 June 2022

"And what if the war ends in the US and NATO alliance retreat to Lvov; after which the Polish government will notify NATO HQ it is reviving its treaty claim to the Galician territory of the Ukraine; ...Berlin will then inform Brussels it requires the return of the ancient Danzig Corridor and Breslau, Polish territories currently called Gdansk, Wroclaw, and the Ziemie Odzyskane; and the Hungarian government will follow suit with the announcement of the recovery of historical Kárpátalja (Transcarpathia), the Zarkarpatska oblast of the Ukraine?

These were the spoils of the World War II settlement between the US and the Soviet Union in 1945-46. The territorial reversion claims aren’t new. What is new is that the US and the NATO alliance, plus the Galician regime still ruling between Kiev and Lvov, also in Ottawa, have aimed to change the terms of the post-war settlement by continuing the war eastward on to the territory of Russia itself, all the way to regime change in Moscow.

That is what Russia says it is fighting now to defend itself against. As Russian officials have been hinting in recent days, the foreign and defence ministries and the intelligence services are currently discussing in the Kremlin Security Council whether Russia’s long-term security on its western front may be best served by terms of a Ukrainian settlement in which the German, Polish, and Hungarian territorial claims are recognised.
John Helmer 'The US war in Europe isn't hot enough - dropping the climate bomb on Russia' 8 June 2022

"Second, it can lead to serious geopolitical consequences. If, say, Polish troops enter Ukrainian territory, allegedly for the protection of, say, the border between Belarus and Ukraine, or some other parts, to release Ukrainian troops and enable them to fight along the contact line, I think, Polish troops will stay there.

That is what I believe. It is their heart's desire to get back the lands they have historically regarded as theirs, the lands that ”Father of the Peoples“ Joseph Stalin took from them and gave to Ukraine. They certainly want to have these lands back. So if Polish troops enter Ukraine, they will hardly ever leave it.

In such a case, this example might be followed by other countries that lost parts of their territories after the Second World War. I think that Ukraine would face geopolitical consequences – at least as regards preserving its current statehood – in their full and unappealing magnitude."
Vladimir Putin 13 March 2024

• remain with Ukraine (albeit a smaller Ukraine)
  
• autonomous region of Ukraine
• independent state
• merge with Russian Federation

"In all, after that act of 1654, 32 years later, I think, a peace treaty with Poland was concluded, “the eternal peace,” as it said.

And those lands, the whole left bank of the Dnieper, including Kiev, reverted to Russia, while the entire right bank of the Dnieper remained in possession of Poland.

Under the rule of Catherine the Great, Russia reclaimed all of its historical lands, including in the south and west. This all lasted until the Revolution."
Vladimir Putin 9 February 2023

"...Poland fell prey to the policies it had pursued against Czechoslovakia, as under the well-known Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, part of that territory, including western Ukraine, was to be given to Russia.

Thus Russia, which was then named the USSR, regained its historical lands.

After the victory in the Great Patriotic War, as we call World War II, all those territories were ultimately enshrined as belonging to Russia, to the USSR.

As for Poland, it received, apparently in compensation, the lands which had originally being German: the eastern parts of Germany (these are now western lands of Poland) "
Vladimir Putin 9 February 2024

"...In 1922, when the USSR was being established, the Bolsheviks started building the USSR and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before....

Stalin insisted that those republics be included in the USSR as autonomous entities.

For some inexplicable reason, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, insisted that they be entitled to withdraw from the USSR.

And, again for some unknown reasons, he transferred to that newly established Soviet Republic of Ukraine some of the lands together with people living there, even though those lands had never been called Ukraine; and yet they were made part of that Soviet Republic of Ukraine.

Those lands included the Black Sea region, which was received under Catherine the Great and which had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever."
Vladimir Putin 9 February 2024

"Should we begin the same negotiations, there’s a completely different reality now. And this new reality, no matter how painful it may be for the Kiev regime, must be recognized..."
Dmitry Peskov, RT 11 February 2024

"Realities on the ground are common knowledge. First, this is the situation on the battlefield, and, second these are lawful interests (they are lawful from all points of view, including international law) of the people living in Novorossiya and Donbass. The Kiev regime has trampled underfoot their rights linked with education, the media, the use of the Russian language and the preservation of their history and memory of the Great Patriotic War. These realities will have to be recognised."
Sergey Lavrov 28 March 2024

"...they are now talking about territorial concessions. ...The Ukrainian people contributed to our common Great Victory, Victory of all Soviet peoples over Nazi Germany, but then something went awry. The nationalist sentiment was brewing in Ukraine, first quietly and then quite openly, especially after the Soviet Union crumbled and ceased to exist.

This nationalist, to the point of being Nazi Banderite, sentiment of those who collaborated with Nazi invaders grew stronger. People were not so shy about openly expressing it. This sentiment was becoming part of public consciousness.

Work was underway to recruit supporters and to create clandestine and later overt combat formations, which flaunted SS division insignia.

Ultimately, emboldened by the US administration, these forces carried out the coup in 2014. First thing they did was they announced their plans to abolish the status of the Russian language. When people in Crimea and Donbass said, “Don’t touch us, and we won’t touch you, even though you grabbed power illegally, just leave us be,” they were declared terrorists and a war was unleashed against them with the use of the army, aviation, artillery, and tanks.

Numerous international conventions and treaties prohibit the use of the army against one’s own people in internal conflicts.

The coup did take place. We tried to avert the tragedy of the Ukrainian people (you are aware of the Minsk agreements), but failed...

With these Nazi attitudes on display, do you expect anyone to even discuss the issue of ceding territories?

How should we cede them? With or without the Russian people? Should we just leave the rare-earth metals there and go?

...If we are serious about diplomacy, we’d be better off if we first look into the roots of the issue and see why the Russian language was banned in Ukraine in all spheres of life, why the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church is banned there (this represents a gross violation of numerous conventions and Article 1 of the UN Charter), and why none of the numerous initiatives that came to us from different parts of the world mentions the human rights enshrined in the UN Charter.

The only thing they are saying is that territorial concessions must be made. Why? To have Russians in these territories destroyed the way they are being destroyed now in the Kursk Regions and elsewhere in the Russian Federation? I will probably leave it at that.
Sergey Lavrov 17 February 2025


"... there are people living in these territories, but Vladimir Zelensky views them as species rather than humans. He has called them this way many times even before the special military operation started. And he suggested that people who identify with the Russian culture pack up and move to Russia. These were his words, and he said this before the special military operation. In one of his recent interviews, Vladimir Zelensky said that the feeling of hatred towards Russians was his main driving force. And when asked whether he hated Vladimir Putin as a person, he responded by saying that no, he hated all Russians. He hates them all.

Putting this man in charge of these people once again would be unthinkable. We will never do that."
Sergey Lavrov 11 April 2025

"...our country, formerly protected by the most powerful defence system along the length of its external frontiers overnight found itself defenceless both from the east and the west....

...As I have said many times already, we have found ourselves confronting crises, revolts and terrorist acts on more than one occasion. But what has happened now, this crime committed by terrorists, is unprecedented in its inhumanness and cruelty.

This is not a challenge to the President, parliament or government. It is a challenge to all of Russia, to our entire people. Our country is under attack...

...such wars do not end quickly. In this situation we simply cannot and should not live in as carefree a manner as previously. We must create a much more effective security system..."

Vladimir Putin addressing the nation on 4 September 2004 regarding the terrorists who murdered children in the Russian town of Beslan

"...we need to strengthen the border, and if any of you work there, you surely can see that this process is moving quite quickly, and this task of strengthening the borders will also be solved. But the possibility of shelling our territory from the territory of Ukraine certainly remains. And there are several solutions here.

First, increasing effectiveness and counter-battery combat; but this does not mean that there will be no missiles flying at our territory.

And if this continues, then we will apparently have to consider the issue – and I say this very carefully – in order to create some kind of buffer zone on the territory of Ukraine at such a distance from which it would be impossible to reach our territory.

...We have to see how the situation develops...

...the problem will be solved, either this way or the way I mentioned.
Vladimir Putin June 13, 2023

"The focus is on the developments on the outskirts of Kharkov... I made it clear publicly, I think it was six months ago, that if they continue to target residential neighbourhoods, we will have to create a security area. Not long ago, we started doing what I said back then....We warned them against making incursions into our territory, shelling Belgorod and neighbouring areas, or else we will be forced to create a security area.

...No one is talking about shelling Belgorod or other adjacent territories...Not a word. ..They did it with their own hands. Well, let them reap the fruits of their ingenuity. The same thing can happen in case the long-range precision weapons which you asked about is used."
Vladimir Putin 28 May 2024

"Yesterday, the Russian president said that it is necessary to create a demilitarized zone (‘cordon sanitaire’) for the security of our country.

Given the enemy’s decision to supply the Kiev regime with increasingly long-range weapons, such a line should run along the borders of Lvov (Polish Lemberg) (historically, Lvov was known as Lemberg in German and Lwow in Polish - TASS) in order for it to play a real defensive role.

These would be the new, secure borders of what used to be called ‘Country 404’ (Ukraine — TASS)."
TASS News 14 June 2023 

"Still, the idiotic NATO strategists sincerely want almost all of Ukraine to come under Russian control. That is why they are giving the Bandera government ever longer-range weapons.

But this is not the first time President Putin has said that for a peaceful life, our country will have to create a sanitary zone, within which the neo-Nazi regime will not have the opportunity to hit targets on Russian territory (including, of course, all the lands that have returned to our state).

It is not difficult to calculate that if the Kyiv regime uses Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG type missiles with a range of at least 550 km and with a distance between Belgorod and Kiev of 429 km, almost the entire central and significant part of the western territories would be destroyed. Ukraine falls into such a sanitary zone. In other words, Russia should be everywhere there (550 km plus another 70-100 km to be sure).

Otherwise, the security of our cities and villages cannot be ensured. Even if we imagine that some kind of document has been signed with Kiev (or rather, with Washington), any new Bandera idiot with missiles is quite capable of violating it. The consequences are obvious.

If this continues, the guaranteed sanitary zone will be somewhere on the border with Poland.

Or already in Poland itself.

And this is completely dangerous.

Moreover, non-strategic nuclear weapons, which our country announced about conducting exercises with, are a very loose concept. Such weapons (tactical or non-strategic), as everyone knows, include nuclear charges that significantly exceed the power of Little Boy and Fat Man.

So carefully calculate the range of what you allocate to the Nazis, gentlemen."
Dmitry Medvedev May 18 2024 (machine translated, Telegram)

"In Novorossiya and Donbas, projects are taking place to revitalize these regions and promote their integration into the country's unified legal and socio-economic field. Industry, agriculture and infrastructure are being restored. There is a goal to bring the regions to the all-Russian level by 2030 in key areas that determine the quality of human life. Most importantly, our new citizens are enthusiastically participating in all these processes and associate their future with Russia."
Vassily Nebenzia Russian Federation Permanent Representative at the United Nations 24 February 2024

Regulations: Article 42
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Regulations: Article 43
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Hague Conventions 'Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land.' 18 October 1907

"The point of view of the current and former Kiev authorities is that they were forced to sign the Minsk agreements in a difficult situation back then, because they were driven into a corner, and that the Minsk agreements are akin to an act of capitulation. Well, then, “colleagues,” let us draw a historical parallel and remember May 1945. Supposedly, Germany signed the Act of Surrender and failed to comply with it for seven years citing a variety of circumstances such as getting into pockets in the streets of Berlin and the like. This is an analogy.

So, what can we talk about today when our foreign partners invite us to play a fair game at the negotiating table? We can play a fair game only when we have honest and trustworthy partners at the table. However, when you have partners with marked cards who are trying their best to justify official Kiev’s hypocritical and deceitful position, what is there to discuss then? Who is inviting us to start this dialogue? We are encouraged to do so by our foreign partners who, having presented a vial with white powder, proceeded to bomb Iraq, change the legitimate government, and drown the people in blood. Having done that, they are inviting us to a dialogue."
Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokoltsev 21 February 2022

"..last September [2022] Vladimir Zelensky passed a decree prohibiting anybody in the Ukrainian government from having any negotiations with the Russian Federation. And the fact that people keep asking us when Russia is going to be 'ready for negotiations' does not do credit to the people who raise this issue - especially in the media.
Sergey Lavrov 14 April 2023


"We have to state that the regime of Vladimir Zelensky is not inclined to make peace. Its representatives think in terms of war and resort to highly aggressive rhetoric. There is no talk of ending hostilities. On September 30, 2022, Zelensky banned talks with the leadership of Russia, and this ban remains in force. You are free to draw your own conclusions."
Sergey Lavrov 28 December 2023 


"Kiev’s current authorities should respect this free expression of the people’s will; there is no other way. This is the only way to peace."
President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin 30 September 2022

"The procedure for terminating the bilateral treaty with Ukraine on its sovereignty is hampered by the absence of such a treaty. In Article 1 of the Treaty on the Principles of Relations between the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR of November 19, 1990, the two republics recognised each other as ‘sovereign states.’ The 1990 treaty was then replaced by the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between the Russian Federation and Ukraine of May 31, 1997 (Article 39), which was denounced by Ukraine and terminated on April 1, 2019."
Maria Zakharova 21 June 2023

"...it is no secret that President Biden, who remains in office, proposed exactly this to me back in 2021. He suggested postponing Ukraine’s NATO membership for 10 to 15 years, as it was not ready at that time. To which I replied sensibly, “Well, it is not ready today, but you will prepare it and accept it.” In the grand scheme of history, this is merely a fleeting moment. What difference does it make to us whether it happens today, tomorrow, or in 10 years?

I am not acquainted with the statements from the President-elect’s future team. But if this is true, what’s the difference between the current administration’s position and the proposals you’ve just mentioned? There is no difference whatsoever."
Vladimir Putin 26 December 2024

"..the special military operation’s goals set by President Putin. In addition to demilitarisation, it is to denazify Ukraine. In Ukraine, we are at war against the West and against Nazism, which has reared its head in that country and is being thoroughly cultivated by our Western colleagues.

Take, for example, their approach to talks. Every time this issue comes up, they say there is only one baseline for the talks, which is the Zelensky formula (10 items).

Lately the West has been trying to use every avenue to talk the leading developing countries of the Global South into supporting this formula. The West's position is the only basis underlying the Zelensky formula. The president of Ukraine and his administration are saying there can be no other baseline whatsoever.

...it is about Russia withdrawing from all territories to the borders of 1991, the Russian leadership being put under a special (or already existing) tribunal, our country paying reparations, after which a peace treaty will be concluded.

The West says this is the only way out of the existing situation. In this war, Ukraine is upholding European and Western civilisation’s values. Josep Borrell, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and other Western politicians have made a point of it. No one has any doubt that Ukraine is run by a Nazi regime. This is a racist regime because the Russian language is banned everywhere you go in Ukraine, anyone who dares to break the law that states that Ukrainian is the only language that is allowed to be spoken can be subjected to physical violence.

This means that Europe identifies with racism, Russophobia, and Nazism because it claims that the Kiev regime promotes European values.

Since this is the case, we are left with no other choice than to prevent a revival of Nazism right on our borders.

Question: If I have a correct understanding of Vladimir Zelensky’s position, the conditions you have mentioned are necessary just to begin talks, not for signing an agreement. If I understood him correctly, talks can only be held after Russia surrenders. But who would he talk with?

Sergey Lavrov: ...The preliminary conditions include Russia’s withdrawal to the 1991 border, criminal prosecution and reparations, after which they would be ready to talk.

Question: Can you name a serious power that would accept such conditions unless it had been defeated on the battlefield?

Sergey Lavrov: I cannot. But there are powers that are widely considered to be serious which support this logic. I am referring to those who have gambled their reputation and political future on Vladimir Zelensky.

The West cannot back down from deadlock without losing face.

On the other hand, they have learned to present their loss of face as an achievement."
Sergey Lavrov 28 June 2023  


"Are we ready to negotiate? We sure are. But we are definitely not ready for talks that are based on some kind of ”wishful thinking“ which comes after the use of psychotropic drugs, but we are ready for talks based on the realities that have developed, as they say in such cases, on the ground."
Vladimir Putin 13 March 2024


"As for various [peace] “initiatives,” one of these that has been put forward by Vladimir Zelensky is well known and sets one’s teeth on edge. It is an ultimatum pure and simple.
So, we have never taken the “Zelensky formula” seriously and only marvelled that there are still people ready to buy it."
Sergey Lavrov 9 September 2024

"I had two meetings with the ambassadors of the Global Majority in Moscow. Another meeting will be held in early April. We explained to them our assessments of the Ukraine situation and developments. The last time we talked was about two months ago, and we reviewed Vladimir Zelensky’s formula. They asked us questions. I suggested that we focus on just one aspect of this formula – Russia must vacate Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya and go back to the 1991 borders. First, in 1991, the Ukrainian SSR seceded from the Soviet Union under the Declaration of Independence, which stated that Ukraine was a neutral and non-aligned state, was a good neighbour with all former republics, and respected human rights and the rights of ethnic minorities. None of this is the case now.

Second, let’s hypothetically fantasise that Ukraine is back to its 1991 borders.

Look up online what Ukrainian politicians and parliamentarians have been saying about their plans for the people who now live in Crimea, in the Lugansk and Donetsk republics, in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. What they are calling for does not even sound like a “cleansing.” There is one lady in the Verkhovna Rada who said that 25,000 people in Crimea should be executed for show. If this is what this formula is about, it is an invitation to genocide.

Our colleagues from Africa, Asia and Latin America must understand where they are being invited.

Now the Swiss are initiating another get-together as part of the Copenhagen format, where everyone is invited and forced to agree with Vladimir Zelensky’s formula, to support it or at least declare their readiness to discuss parts of it.

In addition to what I said, it also includes food security, energy security, and nuclear safety issues. This is all just for appearances’ sake, precisely to lure people by this seemingly innocent agenda.

I met with Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis in New York in January 2024. He told me they realised that nothing can be solved without Russia, that it is unfair and our country must participate. He said they would convene another meeting in Switzerland and invite Ukraine, the West and as many countries of the South as possible. Russia would not be invited, he said, but they would fine-tune and finalise the Zelensky formula and try to make it more acceptable.

More acceptable – how? Does this mean that Russia would be told to leave not tomorrow, but the day after tomorrow? When they finally agree on it, when it evolves into something they all share, they say they will be happy to invite us and present it at the next meeting.

This is a serious and mature person talking. A minister, and former President of Switzerland. You would expect someone with this kind of experience to be more aware of what they are saying and doing.
Sergey Lavrov 28 March 2024  

Regulations: Article 37 
An armistice may be general or local. The first suspends the military operations of the belligerent States everywhere; the second only between certain fractions of the belligerent armies and within a fixed radius.

Regulations: Article 39
It rests with the Contracting Parties to settle, in the terms of the armistice, what communications may be held in the theatre of war with the inhabitants and between the inhabitants of one belligerent State and those of the other.

Hague Conventions 'Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land.' 18 October 1907

Regulations: Article 40
Any serious violation of the armistice by one of the parties gives the other party the right of denouncing it, and even, in cases of urgency, of recommencing hostilities immediately.

Regulations: Article 41
A violation of the terms of the armistice by private persons acting on their own initiative only entitles the injured party to demand the punishment of the offenders or, if necessary, compensation for the losses sustained.

 "Nazi leaders assumed that there was no need to storm the city because this made it possible to avoid troop casualties. At the same time, they did not want its people to surrender because surrendering is part of warfare implying that they would have been obliged to care for the civilian population."
Maria Zakharova, Foreign Ministry spokesperson 12 January 2023


"In March of this year, the Ukrainians asked for negotiations. After several rounds on March 29 in Istanbul, they finally gave us something on paper. We agreed with the principles of the settlement contained in that document. Among them was ensuring Ukraine's security through respect for its non-aligned status (that is, its non-accession to NATO), its nuclear-free status (Vladimir Zelensky would no longer be able to declare that abandoning nuclear weapons in 1994 was a mistake); and the provision of collective guarantees not by NATO, but from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as Germany and Turkey.
We agreed to that.

In a day or two, the American handlers said to the Ukrainians: “Why are you doing this?” It is clear that the United States expected to wear out the Russian army by using Ukraine as a proxy, as well as have European countries spend the maximum amount of their weapons, so that later, Europe would be buying replacements from Washington, securing revenue for the American military industry and defence corporations.

They said the Ukrainians were too early in expressing their readiness to receive security guarantees from the Russians and reach a settlement on this basis.

They keep accusing Russia of seeking negotiations all the time in order to “buy time to raise and send in reinforcements for the special military operation.” This is both ridiculous and frustrating. These people are blatantly lying.

We have never sought any negotiations, but we have always said that if someone is interested in negotiating a solution, we are ready to listen. The following proves my point – when in March of this year, the Ukrainians made such a request, we not only met them halfway, but were also ready to agree to the principles that they put forward.

The Ukrainian side was not allowed to do this at the time, because the war had not yet brought enough wealth to those who are supervising and directing it – and this is primarily being done by the United States and the British.
Sergey Lavrov 01 December 2022

"And let me be clear about something: We send Ukraine equipment sitting in our stockpiles. And when we use the money allocated by Congress, we use it to replenish our own stores — our own stockpiles with new equipment..."
Joseph Biden 20 October 2023

"President of Russia Vladimir Putin has said many times that we never reject any proposal to achieve diplomatic agreements. The terms on which we agree to discuss them are well known. The fact that four territories belong to the Russian Federation is an indispensable condition for talks. But this is not all that must be discussed....

The second large block of problems, in addition to the destinies of the people who do not want to live under the current regime with its open Nazi and racist views is the security of the Russian Federation that has been subjected to numerous threats created on Ukrainian territory."
Sergey Lavrov 28 December 2022

"In general, as you know, we have never rejected a peaceful settlement of disputes. Moreover, this is what we were inclined to do... Once again, I would like to emphasise that we are in favour of talks."
Vladimir Putin 11 April 2024

"Sergey Lavrov again emphasised the possibility of a peaceful solution but only with due regard for the new realities and Russia’s interests and concerns."
Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Türkiye Mevlut Cavusoglu 7 April 2023

"When he [Victor Orban, President of Hungary - Ed] asked me about the possibility of a peaceful settlement, I said what I have said many times before, that if the Ukrainian side really wants to negotiate, it should not make any theatrical gestures but instead start by cancelling the presidential executive order prohibiting talks [with Russia].

It is rumoured that they are presumably ready for negotiations now. Several high-ranking officials in charge of foreign policy, who only recently spoke about inflicting strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield, have changed their tune and say that such issues should be decided through peaceful negotiations. It is a reasonable change, a shift in the right direction...but it is not enough. Practical steps must be taken if there is a real desire to hold negotiations."
Vladimir Putin 18 October 2023

" I would like to stress that it is impossible to reach a peaceful solution to the Ukraine crisis and to overall European security without Russia’s participation, without an honest and responsible dialogue with us.

Right now, the West ignores our interests, while prohibiting Kiev from negotiating, and keeps hypocritically calling on us to negotiate. It looks simply idiotic: on the one hand, they are forbidden to negotiate with us, but we are called on to negotiate implying that we refuse to do so. It is nonsense. It looks like we are living in some kind of a fantasy world."
Vladimir Putin 14 June 2024

"Right now, talks are off the table. We are tired of saying that the President has made this point many times. Those who are implying that Russia is “turning negotiations down” while Ukraine is ready for them should take President Putin’s advice and tell Vladimir Zelensky (when he is of sound mind and lucid memory) to cancel the executive order that bans talks."
Sergey Lavrov 31 August 2024

[[enumerations added for clarity ]
"It started out as the “Copenhagen format” and morphed into the “Burgenstock conference.” However, all these processes rely on an absolutely bleak non-starter “peace formula” proposed by Zelensky. Only dreamers in Kiev and the West can expect Russia to fall for any of the functions promoting this “formula” as the only viable solution.

It is about a game, nothing else. They want to put us in a situation where we jump at something that Zelensky finds suitable. President Putin has repeatedly said that negotiations where no one imposes ultimatums on anyone are the way forward.

It was the case in February 2014, when Viktor Yanukovich, then President of Ukraine, came to terms with the opposition (under the guarantees provided by France, Germany, and Poland) to create a government of national unity and hold nationwide elections.
[1] The next day, this honest deal was shattered by the opposition incited by the United States and other Western countries, which instantly recognised the results of the bloody unconstitutional coup. Had they fulfilled this agreement, Ukraine would now be within the 1991 borders, including Crimea.

[2] That was followed by an agreement in Minsk in February 2015 that was approved by the UN Security Council. You know how the President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko, former Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and then French President Francois Hollande admitted that none of them intended to comply with the UN Security Council resolution. They needed to gain some time. Honest talks were held in Minsk, where presidents and the chancellor discussed and negotiated things for long 17 hours. It was a balance of interests, but they chose not to act on it. Now it’s clear why.

[3] By the same token, in Istanbul, they refused to fulfill the initialed agreement, because neither putschists in February 2014, nor Petr Poroshenko in February 2015, nor Vladimir Zelensky in April 2022 needed an honest agreement. All they needed was a piece of paper with an ultimatum on it.

Not all Ukrainians are naive. They were fully aware of the fact that an ultimatum these days, especially with Russia, is an utterly senseless proposition. However, the calculus relied on the Anglo-Saxons and all kinds of Borrells in Brussels, Ursula von der Leyens and Macrons from Paris telling them in unison that Ukraine must defeat Russia on the battlefield, and they were doing their best to make it happen.

If the West (this is not about Zelensky) is truly interested in normalising the situation in Europe, which is making the Europeans themselves groan and suffer, we should sit down for talks without clutching pieces of paper that read “Zelensky’s formula” and start having candid talks.

The President of Russia confirmed that we were ready for this. I just cited three examples of us supporting such talks. Now that they have lied three times, who will trust them? But let’s see. They must draw their own conclusions."
Sergey Lavrov 27 August 2024     

"Tucker Carlson: ...[the conflict in Ukraine] seems like it could...evolve into something that brings the entire world into conflict, and could initiate a nuclear launch, and so why don’t you just call Biden and say “let’s work this out”?

Vladimir Putin: What's there to work out? It's very simple. I repeat, we have contacts through various agencies.

I will tell you what we are saying on this matter and what we are conveying to the US leadership: ”If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks. That's it. And then we can agree on some terms before you do that, stop.“

What's easier? Why would I call him? What should I talk to him about? Or beg him for what? ”You're going to deliver such and such weapons to Ukraine. Oh, I'm afraid, I'm afraid, please don't. What is there to talk about?"
Vladimir Putin 9 February 2024

"As for where we should go....We need to fully ensure our interests. What does it mean to fully ensure our interests?
First, we need to complete the tasks of the special operation that our president spoke about.
Secondly, we need to create the necessary protective cordon that will insure against all kinds of encroachments on our lands. Not only from shelling, but also from active offensive operations. And so on.
And only in this case will we be able to admit that our tasks have been completed."
Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council 25 February 2024

""The only people who could settle the war against Ukraine are the Americans. During the peace negotiations in March 2022 in Istanbul with [then-Ukrainian chief negotiator] Rustem Umerov, the Ukrainians did not agree on peace because they were not allowed to. They first had to ask the Americans about everything they discussed," Schroeder said in an interview with the newspaper on Saturday.
The former German chancellor said that Kiev had contacted him in 2022 to learn whether he could mediate talks with Russia, after which he had meetings with Umerov and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Schroeder told the newspaper that the potential peace agreement included five key points.
First, under the draft deal, Kiev was supposed to abandon its NATO aspirations.
Secondly, Ukraine should have restored the official status of the Russian language.
Thirdly, Donbas was supposed to remain part of Ukraine, but with a special territorial status, like South Tyrol, an autonomous province in Northern Italy.
Fourthly, Ukraine should have received security guarantees from the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany.
The final, fifth issue under discussion was the status of Crimea, Schroeder told media.
He said that Kiev had demonstrated willingness to compromise, including on the provision about NATO membership, but the talks still failed because everything "was decided in Washington."
"I think the Americans did not want a compromise between Ukraine and Russia," Schroeder was cited as saying by the newspaper."The opportunity has now passed.
https://sputnikglobe.com/20231022/us-forbade-ukraine-to-make-peace-with-russia-in-march-2022---former-german-chancellor-1114405707.html"

"As for the negotiations – we haven’t mentioned this yet, but I hope I won’t be criticised for it – what guarantees did that Istanbul document include? We were ready to provide extremely serious guarantees, as the Ukrainian delegation wanted.

Is Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty serious enough? We did not reproduce it verbatim, but agreed upon a formula that was close. What I am saying is, those were very serious security guarantees. However, the document specifically stated that those guarantees did not apply to Crimea or Donbass. This meant that they could not be touched, otherwise no guarantees would work.

In terms of Ukraine’s demilitarisation, the document stated that there would be no military bases in Ukraine.

As President Vladimir Putin said during the Russia-Africa Summit in St Petersburg in the summer of 2023, the Istanbul document outlined the limits of the relevant weapons, personnel, etc.

It said that the armed forces of Ukraine would hold no manoeuvres or military exercises involving third countries unless all guarantor countries, Russia and China included, agreed. We were ready to sign the treaty."

It also said that the negotiations on other issues would continue, but only after the cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, provision of security guarantees, and abolition of Ukrainian laws of a racist, neo-Nazi, and discriminatory nature."
Sergey Lavrov 19 April 2024

"Istanbul is history."
Sergey Lavrov 19 April 2024

"The actual work was done by the delegations. On our side, the delegation was headed by Presidential Aide Vladimir Medinsky, on the Ukrainian side by Head of the Servant of the People parliamentary group David Arakhamiya. You know the rest.

They met several times in Belarus and finally came to terms in Istanbul based on the principles proposed by Ukrainians. These principles are still valid.

President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that if they want talks, Zelensky should first revoke the executive order that bans them.

The Istanbul Principles guaranteed Ukraine non-joining NATO, its continuing non-aligned status and described security guarantees for Ukraine to feel at ease.

Ukraine’s non-accession to NATO is part of the Russian Federation’s guarantees. These principles remain valid. At least, we are ready to return to them, but, of course, taking into account the new reality, because more than 30 months have passed since then.

President Putin outlined these realities on June 14 in a speech at the Foreign Ministry. He articulated the path towards settling the situation between Ukraine and Russia and the West"
Sergey Lavrov 6 September 2024

"c) not to participate in military conflicts on the side of any guarantor state and/or any third state;
d) not to join any military alliances and not to enter into any other military agreements with any states;
e) not to allow entry into Ukraine or deployment in any form on its territory, including temporarily, of foreign armed forces and formations, including military personnel,"

"We are in no hurry. President of Russia Vladimir Putin talked about this. We would like to finish, as soon as possible, the war the West was preparing for and eventually unleashed against us through Ukraine.

Our priority is the lives of the soldiers and civilians that remain in the zone of hostilities. We are patient people. We will defend our compatriots, citizens and lands that belonged to Russia for centuries, proceeding from these priorities."
Sergey Lavrov 28 December 2022

"This is the gist of the EU’s mediation. Some process started in the Balkans after Kosovo proclaimed “independence” unilaterally and without any referendum. The UN General Assembly invited the EU to mediate between Pristina and Belgrade and its effort was rather successful: in 2013, the agreement was reached on establishing the Community of Serbian Municipalities of Kosovo.

In 2014, when a coup was staged in Ukraine and the “counterterrorism” forces launched an operation against Donbass and Russians in Ukraine, the EU also acted as a mediator. This led to the signing of the Minsk agreements that established certain rules, just as with regard to the Serbian municipalities in Kosovo.

The EU made a solemn promise to support a special status for northern Kosovo and eastern Ukraine. The status did not imply any complicated things: to let people speak their native tongue (Serbians were supposed to be allowed to speak Serbian and Russians in Ukraine to speak Russian), teach children in schools in their native tongue, use it in daily life and have a certain autonomy as regards law-enforcement and economic ties with neighbouring regions (northern Kosovo with Serbia and eastern Ukraine with Russia).

Identical agreements were made, which urged respect for national minorities in full conformity with international European conventions on the rights of these groups.

The EU announced that it had succeeded in both cases.

But it shamefully failed in both cases and had to admit it later on by saying it could not persuade Kiev to fulfil the Minsk agreements [pdf] or make Pristina abide by its agreements with Belgrade.

There is something in common as regards the EU’s treatment of different areas in our common geopolitical space, its goals, its competence and its ability to make deals...I have repeatedly emphasised the main geopolitical conclusion from this situation: it is now impossible to agree with Europe on anything and be sure that they will deliver on their obligations."
Sergey Lavrov 6 June 2022

"When asked by reporters over possible bilateral talks with Washington on Ukraine, Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko replied, “No, we are not.”
However, the diplomat stated that Moscow is ready to hold negotiations with Ukraine “without any preconditions,” except for the key condition – “that Ukraine shows goodwill.”"
Andrey Rudenko, Deputy Foreign Minister, RT News, 8 November 2022


"Recently, these instructors received the right to acquire Ukrainian citizenship in a simplified way. This is sacrilegious and humiliating. People who have lived in Donbass forever are deprived of the opportunity to have the legal right to their own language, while those who have never lived in Donbass and have come there obviously not to establish peace are granted the right to receive Ukrainian citizenship easily and without any ties. ...

...What are the Ukrainian authorities after? They are trying not only to legalise the presence of military instructors in the country but also to skirt around the demand of the Minsk Package of Measures on the withdrawal of foreign armed formations, combat hardware and mercenaries from Ukraine.

If it transpires that foreign military instructors are present on their territory, they will tell us that these are not military instructors but holders of Ukrainian citizenship."
Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, 24 December 2021

"But we are also aware of Kiev’s position – they kept saying they wanted talks, and even sort of asked for them, but have now passed an official decision that bans such talks. Well, what is there to discuss?

As you may be aware, speaking at the Kremlin when announcing the decision on the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, I said we are open. We have always said that we are open. We reached certain agreements in Istanbul, after all.

These agreements were almost initialled. But as soon as our troops withdrew from Kiev, the Kiev authorities lost any interest in the talks. That is all there is to it.

If they ever get ready for this, we will welcome it. At that point, the mediation efforts of all the stakeholders may come in handy.
Vladimir Putin, October 14 2023

"Today, when I talked with Prime Minister of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Ms Sheikh Hasina, she asked when this [conflict in Ukraine] all might come to an end. 

Many people ask this question, including what Russia is able to do. But it should be addressed to others.

...almost every time President of Russia Vladimir Putin speaks in public, he makes a point of stressing, in response to such appeals, that Russia is not against talks.

It was not we who disrupted the signing of a peace agreement as early as April 2022, when, soon after the start of our military operation, the Ukrainians suggested that we have talks and presented to us, in Istanbul, a number of principles that could serve as a basis for signing the agreement.

We accepted them. But when the agreement itself was drawn up, an agreement that was based squarely on the Ukrainian proposals and originally initialed both by us and the Ukrainians, the British and the Americans forbade its signing (although already a venue was being discussed for the presidents to meet), saying that if the Russians were ready to come to terms, this meant they were weak and could be “squeezed” for more concessions and “let’s wear them out some more.” So, all of this has continued ever since.

When they ask us whether it is possible to end this process, and whether the talks have any future, we should recall that, as far back as September 2022, Vladimir Zelensky had signed an executive order banning any talks with the Government of Russia headed by Vladimir Putin.

...those elites that have now gained power in most Western countries, and that have no historical memory are acting in accordance with precisely these positions....They are saying that it must either be defeat and capitulation (which are by definition impossible), or the problem must be resolved on the battlefield. There is no other choice.

If they change their minds and realise that it is foolish to support a Nazi regime headed by drug addicts and to waste such huge sums of money, then, perhaps, we would be ready to hear them out."
Sergey Lavrov 8 September 2023

"First, we have never refused – as I said a thousand times – to participate in any talks that may lead to a peace settlement. We have always said so.

Moreover, during the talks in Istanbul, we initialed this document. We argued for a long time, butted heads there and so on, but the document was very thick and it was initialed by Medinsky on our side and by the head of their negotiating team – I think his name is Arakhamia but I don’t remember exactly. We actually did this but they simply threw it away later and that’s it. This is the first point.

Second, you said the Europeans have their approach and the Americans also have their approach.

But, you know, it’s like in every joke about the Europeans versus the Americans.
Point one – the Americans are always right.
Point two – if the Americans are not right, see point one.
So, that’s why there isn’t anyone to talk to especially...

...there is point three: if the interests of Ukraine are not in sync with point two, see point one, because ultimately it is about the United States’ interests.

We know that they hold the key to solving issues.

If they genuinely want to end today's conflict via negotiations, they only need to make one decision which is to stop supplying weapons and equipment.

That’s it.

Ukraine itself does not manufacture anything.

[Then] Tomorrow, they will want to hold talks that are not formal, but substantive, and not to confront us with ultimatums, but to return to what was agreed upon, say, in Istanbul.

Ukraine's security issues are spelled out in great detail there. In fact, much of what is written there makes us wonder whether we should agree to it. To reiterate, it was initialed by both sides.

Therefore, if they want to get back to it, we are ready to talk to them. But for now, they want to defeat Russia and to achieve success in their counteroffensive operation."
Vladimir Putin June 13, 2023

"For us to hold negotiations now just because they are running out of ammunition would be ridiculous. Nevertheless, we are open to a serious discussion, and we are eager to resolve all conflicts, especially this one, by peaceful means.

However, we must be sure that this is not just another pause that the enemy wants to use for rearmament, but rather a serious conversation with security guarantees for the Russian Federation."
Vladimir Putin 13 March 2024

"We have always been in favour of negotiations. ...The problem is that I consider it improbable that the conflict can be settled through mediators alone, above all because a mediator will not be authorised to sign any final documents, and moreover, even bring them for signing. The competencies of these mediators are not the only crucial issue, but their authority, too.

Who can vest the authority to any mediator to put this conflict to an end? I find this improbable. However, we welcome mediation, for example, like that of Mr Erdogan during our negotiation process in Istanbul."
Vladimir Putin 4 July 2024

"as I have said many times, we reached an agreement with Ukraine during our talks in Istanbul. I must mention that we had an agreement on matters that are being raised all the time these days and are viewed as something impossible. I am referring to de-Nazifying and demilitarising efforts.

In fact, we had a deal on these issues, and it was all set forth in the agreement, I mean its draft. Ukraine’s head negotiator initialled a summary of this document. They initialled and signed this document, which means that it was acceptable to them."
Vladimir Putin 27 March 2025

"...he has boxed himself into a corner by signing an order banning peace treaty talks with the Russian Federation. He was the one who stopped these talks. What is this all about? What this means is that he evades talks. Why? Because once the talks begin, sooner or later, and probably quite quickly, they will bring about an end to martial law. Once this happens, he will have to hold an election. In that case, there will be no grounds for not holding an election anymore, since martial law currently serves as a pretext for not holding an election. But if you initiate the talks and they quickly bring about an end to martial law, this means that you need to hold an election right away. The current head of the regime has a problem with that.

Why? His approval rating, be it four percent or any other number, does not matter all that much. What matters is that his approval ratings – and according to the information at our disposal this is objective data – is exactly half that of his closest potential political rival. I am referring to Mr Zaluzhny, the former commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces who was sent, or should I say exiled, to London. His approval rating is twice as high as that of the current regime leader.

Once we consider the possibility that other political leaders, including former prime ministers and presidents, may support Zaluzhny’s possible candidacy, it becomes clear that the current regime leader will stand absolutely no chance of winning an election. His chances are zero – unless, of course, he blatantly rigs the election in one way or another, which would also be detrimental for him since everyone would be able to see through these attempts.

This is why he has become a destabilising factor for the army, society and the state. I am certain that the current US President, Mr Trump, understands this, which explains why he has been pushing the head of the Kiev regime to hold elections. As I see it, Trump’s goal is to restore political stability in Ukraine, consolidate society and enable the Ukrainian state to survive. Overall, this benefits Ukraine more than Russia, since our conflict is with the current regime, not the country itself.

All other things aside, the current [US] President has openly stated that he wants to achieve peace. By the way, this is something we want too, and the quicker this happens, the better. But the current [Ukrainian] regime leader stands in the way of achieving this goal. That, in my view, is the reasoning behind Trump’s position.

It is not about advancing Russia’s interests. But it probably serves the interests of Ukraine, Ukrainian statehood and could help preserve it. We have no objection to that, even if we do not want this territory to be used as a launchpad for aggression against the Russian Federation, or as a hostile outpost targeting us.

At the end of the day, we want it to evolve into a friendly neighbourly state."
Vladimir Putin 24 February 2025

"I remember how we initiated negotiations first in Gomel and later in Belovezhskaya Pushcha mere days after the conflict’s outbreak: “Let us reach an accord – war is unacceptable under any circumstances,” I said at that time. Concurrently, I also talked to and urged Vladimir Zelensky: “Do not seek culprits now – that comes later. This war is unfolding on your soil; you bear responsibility for its presence in Ukraine.”

I later cautioned him: “History’s lesson is clear – American leadership will shift tomorrow, and where will you stand?” I must have had second sight.

Three Slavic peoples that used to live normally, in peace and harmony, could always sit down, talk and come to terms. Look, nobody will help Ukraine. Was the issue of rare earth metals raised by the Americans at the beginning of the war? No. And now, it is...now they will have to fulfill the agreements: they will be deprived of their black soil, rare earth metals, and God forbid everything else.

That is why he will come back here [Russia and Belarus -ed] – if not him, then a new, different president – who will rely on our internal forces here.

Someone wants us to kill each other. We understand this, and the other side doesn’t. So let them think."
Alexander Lukashenko, President of Belarus, 13 March 2025

"The offer is to stop the shooting.  The goal here is the only way out – to end this war is to negotiate out of it.  There’s no military solution to this war.  The solution to this war and the way to end it and to achieve the President’s objective of peace is to negotiate. 

But before you can negotiate you have to stop shooting at each other, and that’s what the President has wanted to see, and that’s what – that’s the commitment we got today from the Ukrainian side, their willingness to do that.

 Obviously, now that will be delivered to the Russians.  It’ll be delivered to them directly through multiple channels, meaning not only will they obviously see it – we’ve – it’ll be communicated to them through our diplomatic channels, through conversations, and other methods.  But they’ll obviously be well aware. 

And our hope is that the Russians will say yes, that they will also agree, so the shooting will stop, the killing will stop, the dying will stop, and the talks can begin about how to end this war permanently in a way that’s acceptable and enduring for both sides...

...our hope is that the Russians will answer yes as quickly as possible so we can get to the second phase of this, which is real negotiations – not never-ending dialogue, talk forever, but real negotiations to end this conflict in a way that’s acceptable to both sides, sustainable, and that ensures the stability and security of Ukraine for the long term."
Marco Rubio 11 March 2025

"Question: It is well-known that the United States is an empire of lies. Once again, their words contradict their actions. Donald Trump claims to desire peace in Ukraine, yet pursues the exact opposite. On March 11 this year, the unipolar world launched its largest drone attack on Russia to date. On March 18...the past week saw the highest civilian casualties since the start of the year!...How does the Russian Foreign Ministry respond to Donald Trump’s blatant falsehoods regarding US intentions to end the war with Russia?

Maria Zakharova: Of course, genuine aspirations for peace must first be reflected in rhetorical shifts.

Secondly, such rhetoric must be matched by policy changes. Those professing peace must recognise that supplying arms – not to a legitimate state, but to a terrorist regime – only prolongs conflict...

A clear distinction must be drawn between realism and conclusions of this nature.

We assess developments through the prism of demonstrable actions. This applies foremost to the American approach.

Where overt falsehoods exist, we do not mince words...

Where diplomatic avenues remain viable, we afford them every opportunity to succeed."
Maria Zakharova 20 March 2025

"...the bulk of our conversation was what a negotiation process would look like in terms of not the specific conditions, but rather the timing of it, sort of the steps they would like to see taken...

... the Europeans have issued a series of sanctions against the Russian Federation, and I would imagine that in any negotiation...with the Russians that they will raise...the European sanctions that have been imposed upon them.  So I think that the issue of European sanctions are going to be on the table, not to mention what happens with the frozen assets and the like. Now, whether they’re involved at the front end of it or at the back end of it, it’ll have to play itself out. 

And then obviously there is also all sorts of security promises that European countries have made to Ukraine, that that will also be, I imagine, a part of this conversation as we move forward."
Marco Rubio 12 March 2025 

"...when we met with them last, they expressed a willingness under the right conditions, without elaborating on the right conditions, to bring an end to this conflict. That was our question when we met with them...

The point of meeting with them was to find out is this a war they wanted to end or is this a war they just wanted to continue in perpetuity until they achieved whatever goals they have in mind, and they expressed a willingness, under the right circumstances, which they did not define, to bring an end to this conflict."
Marco Rubio 12 March 2025

We agree with the proposals to cease hostilities but proceed from the assumption that this cessation should lead to long-term peace and eliminate the root causes of this crisis.

...on the face of it, the US-Ukraine meeting in Saudi Arabia may look like the Ukrainian side made this decision under pressure from the United States. In fact, I am absolutely convinced that the Ukrainian side should have asked the Americans for this decision most emphatically, in view of the situation evolving on the ground...

...the grouping that invaded our territory has been isolated. It is completely isolated and under complete fire control. ...just a week or two ago, Ukrainian servicemen tried to get out of there in small groups. Now it is impossible. They are trying to get out in very small groups of two or three men because everything is under our complete fire control..If this area is physically blocked in the next few days, then no one will be able to leave. There will only be two options: surrender or die. I think in these conditions it would be good for the Ukrainian side to achieve a ceasefire for at least 30 days.

We are also in favour of it, but there are nuances. What are they?

First, what will we do about the incursion section in the Kursk Region? What would that mean if we cease fire for 30 days? Does this mean that everyone who is in there will just walk out without a fight? Do we have to let them go after they committed numerous heinous crimes against civilians? Or will the Ukrainian leadership issue a command for them to lay down their arms and just surrender? How will this happen? It is not clear.

How will other issues along the entire contact line be solved? It is almost 2,000 kilometres long. As you know, Russian troops are advancing in almost all areas of combat contact. Conditions are also very favourable there for us to block rather large units there.

So, how would these 30 days be used? For forced mobilisation to continue in Ukraine? For more weapons to be supplied there? For retraining the mobilised units? Or would none of this be done?

If so, how will issues related to control and verification be addressed? How can we guarantee and receive guarantees that nothing like this would happen? How will control procedures be organised? I hope everyone understands the complexity of all this at the level of common sense. These are all serious issues.

Who will order to cease fire? What is the price of these orders? Just imagine: almost 2,000 km. Who will be able to determine who violated the potential ceasefire agreement over a distance of 2,000 km and where exactly? Who will be held responsible for violating the ceasefire? All these issues must be meticulously worked upon by both sides. The idea itself is right, and, of course, we support it.

However, there are issues that must be discussed. I think we must talk them over with our American colleagues and partners, perhaps have a telephone conversation with President Trump and discuss them with him. However, the idea to put an end to this conflict by peaceful means gets our full support."
Vladimir Putin 13 March 2025

"Let me reiterate: under Russian law, all Ukrainian military personnel, especially foreign mercenaries who entered our territory and committed crimes against civilians, shall be, and are, legally classified as terrorists.

Their atrocities must be identified, documented, and meticulously investigated. I instruct prosecution bodies, including military prosecutors, to fully deploy this work in liberated territories – in Sudzha and other localities – in coordination with relevant services. These criminals, punishers, and those who issued unlawful orders and abused civilians must be identified and brought to justice."
Vladimir Putin 19 March 2025

"I would like to start by thanking the President of the United States, Mr Trump, for paying so much attention to the Ukraine settlement. We all have enough of our own domestic affairs to attend to.

But many leaders of states, among them the President of the People’s Republic of China, the Prime Minister of India, the Presidents of Brazil and the Republic of South Africa are addressing this issue and give it a lot of their time.

We are grateful to all of them for that, because this activity is aimed at achieving a noble mission – the mission of ending hostilities and loss of life."
Vladimir Putin 13 March 2025

"We respect our friends and partners, whom I consider to be sincerely interested in resolving all the issues pertaining to this conflict. This is primarily the People's Republic of China, Brazil and India. I am in constant contact with our colleagues on this issue. I have no doubt that the leaders of these countries – we have trustful relations with them – are genuinely keen to help sort out all the details of this complicated process
Vladimir Putin 5 September 2024


"Let me stress that none of the initiatives, including those put forward out of best intentions by our good colleagues and partners, address the rights of Russian speakers in areas that Zelensky regards as his own.   

Today, I discussed this topic with my counterparts from Brazil and India, because they display a certain concerned approach, one that we understand, to facilitating crisis resolution. I drew their attention to the fact that this was the key problem.

People were branded as terrorists solely because they refused to accept the coup and obey the coup-makers, who declared right away that their goal was to wipe out all things Russian and banish Russians from Crimea, among other areas.   

We are urging our colleagues to focus on this."
Sergey Lavrov 9 September 2024

"Question: How feasible is China’s peace plan in current conditions? We know that a discussion aiming to allow China to take part in this conference is now underway in Switzerland....

Sergey Lavrov: ...China’s 12-point plan and Switzerland’s formula are incompatible....China’s idea implies that, at first, it is necessary to resolve systemic security issues in our common region and to deal with the root causes of the current situation in Ukraine.

The latter reflects a hybrid war against Russia that has prepared for a long time now and was eventually unleashed by the West. ...According to China’s approach, it would only be possible to seriously discuss an agreement (that would, I repeat, heed legitimate security interests of all parties) after eliminating these root causes....

China and Switzerland voice incompatible approaches. Switzerland’s “initiatives” merely fulfil the “order” of the United States and its allies. I do not see any way we can “hitch the restive steed and the timid deer into one cart.” This is hard to imagine.

China’s approach completely meets our common philosophy, including in the context of a more active current discussion on how to facilitate Eurasian security on our entire continent, in its European section, in Central Asia, in the Caucasus and in other regions of the continent where the situation is unstable, and where conflicts are flaring up."
12 April 2024

"Naturally, we will talk about security issues in the western borders of both Belarus and Russia....In general, as you know, we have never rejected a peaceful settlement of disputes. Moreover, this is what we were inclined to do. It was not Russia that started this war in 2014. Everything began with a coup d’etat in Ukraine. Later, when everything moved to a hot phase, you [President Lukashenko of Belarus]  initiated the conduct of peace negotiations in Belarus. We launched them in two cities.

Later, the negotiating teams moved to Turkey, to Istanbul.

We largely completed this work there, which took us much time and effort. We initialed it on both sides. Ukraine also initialed it. This paper, this document was initialed.

As you know, later, under pressure from the West, the Ukrainian side opted out of these agreements. I would like to remind you that at the time we were told that we could not sign the document in this manner, that Ukraine could not sign the document “with a gun to its head,” that we had to withdraw our troops from Kiev. So we did. Immediately after we did that, our agreements were discarded.

Now, as you know, the idea of holding some kind of conference in Switzerland is being promoted. We are not invited there. Moreover, they think that we have nothing to do there, and at the same time they say that nothing can be solved without us.

Since we are not going there (it has now turned into a kind of nonsense), they say that we refuse to negotiate. We were not invited, but they say that we refuse.

It would be funny if it were not so sad.

Once again, I would like to emphasise that we are in favour of talks. But not in the format of being imposed any schemes that have nothing to do with reality. Why do I say that? Because if the need arises, I will allow myself to turn to you, and maybe we will continue consultations with you in this area.

...if everything gets down to solving the issues we talked about from the outset, and in the energy sector they are related...to solving one of the tasks that we set for ourselves, which is demilitarisation… Above all, we proceed from the fact that in this way [destroying power generation and European gas reserves/reverse flows in Ukraine - editor's interpretation] we directly impact the military-industrial complex of Ukraine.

But if we do get to the point where I started, if we move on to talks about resolving all the issues in other ways, then of course, as I have already said many times, we are ready for that.

You and I will talk about it in greater detail, I will tell you everything in detail.

President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko:...you and I revisited these issues on numerous occasions...and discussed them, including the peace settlement. They are planning to hold what they call a peace conference in Switzerland. But if they want to talk about peace in Ukraine without us, let them do it....we believe that the only thing they can agree on there is how to intensify the escalation of this conflict. Without Russia, what peace process are we talking about? No peace settlement is possible without Russia.

...there is actually nothing to talk to them about when they try to invite more than 100 states and dictate something to us or enforce something on us. This does not sound like a proposal for peace talks....

Vladimir Putin: But our goal is not putting everyone in a tough spot. Just the opposite: we are ready for constructive efforts. But clearly, nothing detached from reality can be imposed on us.

Alexander Lukashenko: ..I wholeheartedly support, absolutely wholeheartedly, the Russian authorities and you personally when it comes to the peace process in this conflict.

There are all the conditions for sitting down and negotiating the issue. If they do not want it, the reason is clear to us...Ukrainians should know, especially the ordinary people, that the issue does not depend on us...the ball is in their court.

I remember the process that began in Belarus. ..First you showed me the document...then you forwarded the copy to me, just as we had agreed. It was the initialled document. It registered major concessions from both Russians and Ukrainians. And then a visitor called them [Ukrainians] down and ordered them to keep fighting to the last Ukrainian.

..we wholeheartedly support the peace process, which Russia never refused to discuss, including today. If we can contribute to this, you are aware of our capabilities. We will always stand together and act in the same spirit as you...

Mr Putin, I believe – and my instincts have never failed me – that your initiatives for a peaceful settlement of the conflict will find a response in Ukraine. They will. Strange as it may seem, they will draw a response among the military...

Take the document that you once showed me, put it on the table and negotiate...It includes acceptable terms for Ukraine as well. They have agreed with that. Therefore, I think we will have an extensive discussion on these issues as well."
Vladimir Putin and  Alexander Lukashenko 11 April 2024

The Russian President and the Belarus President are discussing two possibilities. On the one hand, the prospect of a militarily imposed, non-negotiated settlement with Ukraine.

"Only recently, I said that we would squeeze them into a corner, but now we have reason to believe that we are set to finish them off. I think that people in Ukraine need to realise what is going on...

...The Lugansk People’s Republic has been 99 percent liberated, while the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions stand at over 70 percent. Our forces, our troops, are advancing daily, liberating territory after territory, area after area."
Vladimir Putin 27 March 2025

Mr. Putin is pointing out that the Ukrainian people need to wake up to the fact that neo-nazi element fanaticism is responsible for unnecessary and pointless death of Ukrainian citizens. Reasonable de-militarisation is reasonably complete. But de-nazification is not. So the military solution has to continue until the neonazis within Russia's new borders are defeated by force.

De-militarisation would solve Russia and Belarus security concerns, at least. The specifics are not mentioned, but would probably include imposed demilitarised zones, some form of military policing of the zones, short and medium range missiles in Belarus (at a minimum) and so on.

On the other hand, there is the possibility of a negotiated settlement, based on the principles in the Minsk 2 agreement (which in turn are loosely based on the Kosovo agreement imposed by the west on Serbia - in violation of Security Council resolution 1244).

A potential consequence if Ukraine refuses to negotiate is the 'return' of Ukrainian territory that was historically southern Belarus.

"The northern part of the territory of Ukraine, a significant part - Volyn, Rivne, Zhytomyr, Kiev, Chernihiv and Sumy regions - Ukrainian Polesia, historically and ethnically closely connected with Belarusian Polesia. Polesia - one of the largest forest areas on the European continent, a marshy space divided between Ukraine and Belarus has been a relatively isolated region for many centuries, where a special ethnic, cultural and linguistic community of “Poleschuks” was formed.

One of the founders of the Ukrainian political movement in the Russian Empire and one of the authors of the use of the term "Ukrainians" as an ethnonym and polytonym, historian Nikolay Kostomarov, in the middle of the 19th century, separated "Poleschuks" from "Ukrainians". The first, in his opinion, are the descendants of the East Slavic tribe of the Drevlyans. The second are the descendants of the Polyans.

Later, Ukrainian nationalist discourse shifted towards classifying the inhabitants of these territories as "Ukrainians". In Soviet times, the Poleshchuks, who lived north of the administrative border of the Belarusian and Ukrainian USSR, were recorded as Belarusians, who lived to the south - as Ukrainians. However, in reality, the inhabitants of the border areas used the land on both sides of the border.

In the 1990s and 2000s, the question arose of demarcating the border in Polesia. Started after 2014, it met with resistance from illegal amber miners from the Ukrainian side. As noted by the Belarusian political scientist Petr Petrovsky, Belarus could “give a helping hand, take under humanitarian and political protection and guardianship the inhabitants of Ukrainian Polesia, Volyn and Podolia, those who have been in the same state with us for many centuries. Those with whom we share a common history and mentality.“

A guardianship, protectorate system or the creation of a temporary security zone under the control of Belarus could decriminalize this area, which otherwise would become a concentration of "Bandera and uncontrolled gangs that escaped from the left-bank Ukraine to Podolia, Volyn and Polesia." Theoretically, residents of the border regions could also choose whether to remain part of the new Ukrainian state entity or join Belarus...."
See the article for details 11 March 2022

On the other hand, Ukraine may agree to negotiate. President Lukashenko's "instincts" tell him that Ukraine military hierarchy is at a point where a revised version of the original peace agreement would be acceptable to them, at least. The Ukrainian Rada is reportedly barely functioning anyway, so Mr. Lukashenko's instincts that there is a military coup in the wings may be well founded.

This is why the choice of mediator, if mediators are needed, is very important.

Security guarantees for west Eurasia and beyond - ultimately a BRICS commitment? Added 10 September 2024.

The problem of insecurity on Russia and Belarus western borders remains. This issue is with NATO and the EU, primarily. Ideally, bilateral security agreements with those countries would solve the issue - at least to the extent that the west actually honors them.

"According to China’s approach, it would only be possible to seriously discuss an agreement (that would, I repeat, heed legitimate security interests of all parties) after eliminating these root causes.

We voiced nearly the same proposals in December 2021, and we suggested agreeing on indivisible security, and how it would be embodied in the form of practical measures, including the non-expansion of NATO, essential guarantees and all the rest.

We have been advancing our well-known initiatives since 2007 when the President Vladimir Putin addressed delegates of the Munich Security Conference and warned the West against a temptation to conquer additional geopolitical space using an openly anti-Russia approach. We repeated this in 2008 and 2010.

We agreed on indivisible security within the OSCE framework. The West solemnly pledged at the top level that not a single country or organisation in the OSCE region would strive to aspire to domination. In fact, what NATO engaged in was none other than domination.

...China’s approach completely meets our common philosophy, including in the context of a more active current discussion on how to facilitate Eurasian security on our entire continent, in its European section, in Central Asia, in the Caucasus and in other regions of the continent where the situation is unstable, and where conflicts are flaring up.
Sergey Lavrov 12 April 2024

"We discuss this with our Chinese friends, too. No success will be achieved unless we get to the root of this problem. In this context, we appreciate the global security initiative announced by PRC President Xi Jinping, which says that it is necessary to start analysing any conflict from its prime causes. This refers fully to the Ukraine crisis. The prime causes will go for good if they are laid bare and condemned."
Sergey Lavrov 9 September 2024

Russia initially used the Ukraine problem as an opportunity to pressure the west into a much larger and much more important 'universal' security treaty. This failed. The west, and particularly the European west, seem obdurately opposed to a fair agreed security treaty.  It is now clear to me that it has no prospects.

But some form of open-ended security agreement for Eurasia and adjacent regions would still be useful, even if it only a guide to good manners. It would supplement, but not replace, the UN Charter. Its most useful purpose would be as a document that BRICS countries must commit to.

But the NATO countries are now most unlikely to agree. So the problem of Russia's (and Belarus) security at the border will have to be solved by Russia with antimissile complexes and advanced hypersonic missiles stationed as close as possible to the borders of those countries, Russian bases in Belarus, Russian  nuclear weapons on aircraft stationed in Belarus, shared satellite data.

...we understand who we are dealing with. They [the west] are people who do not value, and treat without any respect, the interests of other countries and nations. Such people...easily break all the commitments they have made, even signed documents.

So, what is to be done? We just need to look for such forms and guarantees that could work somehow or to any extent. Still, the core security guarantee is the growth of the economy and military potential of the Russian Federation itself, reliable and sustainable relations with our partners and allies."
Vladimir Putin 5 September 2024

"Modern Russian-Chinese relations are a more advanced form of interstate ties compared to the military-political alliances of the Cold War era. There is no bloc or confrontational focus in them; they are not directed at third countries. This is really important...Our relations with China...are being adjusted to new challenges and threats...

Our double counteraction is exclusively a measure of defence. Our relations are not proactively directed against other countries but are designed to align our potential in the face of aggression or attack policies."
Maria Zakharova 11 September 2024

"At today’s meeting with the Gulf Cooperation Council, we discussed this Eurasia-based organisation’s promising potential for promoting the continent-wide processes and contributing to what President Vladimir Putin referred to as the Greater Eurasian Partnership.

This will provide the material basis for creating a security architecture open to all countries across the Eurasian continent but not forming part of the Euro-Atlantic equation imposed by the US within the framework of NATO and the OSCE.

Now the European Union became part of the North Atlantic security model by signing an agreement with NATO in 2023 whereby it sealed its complete submission to the alliance.

We want the nations of the Eurasian continent – the largest, fastest-growing, and most resource-rich part of the world – to decide their fate on their own.

President Vladimir Putin repeatedly said as much, emphasising that the door was not shut on the western part of Eurasia either. However, they must realise that their prospective engagement with other participants in the process in Eurasia should be equal and honest and devoid of forbidden tricks.

I want to emphasise once again that we are not shutting the door on contacts with the West. This is what the UN is all about. But they ought to behave decently and refrain from using its rostrum for making accusations without end or false assertions. They should better look for a balance of interests." 
Sergey Lavrov 9 September 2024

"The head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergei Naryshkin, has stated that the SVR had obtained intelligence showing that Ukraine was working on building its own nuclear weapons."
- Sputnik News 03 March 2022

"It is perfectly clear to everybody – including the brazen Western liars – that in war time, even in much easier circumstances, peace can be achieved either through the parties’ good will based on sensible compromise, or by means of one of the conflict parties’ surrender."
Dmitry Medvedev 15 March 2024

"The so-called former Ukraine doesn’t show any will to enter negotiations – in any case, based on recognizing the realities that V.V.Putin noted yesterday. For them, realities are nothing but the mind-numbing “peace formula” by a green tricot-clad provincial clown [France]. Just that. It looks so far-fetched that the only way out is to come up with our own Russian formula, orderly and quite realistic, humane to everyone.
Like what? For example, like this:"

1. Recognition by the former (further, f.) “Ukraine” its military defeat in the conflict; total and unconditional surrender of the f. “Ukraine” represented by the neo-nazi clique in Kiev; demilitarization of the f. “Ukraine” and banning the creation of military formations within its boundaries in the future.

2. Recognition by the international community of the nazi character of the f. political regime in Kiev, and carrying out –supervised by the UN – forced denazification of all of the government agencies of the f. “Ukraine”.

3. Assertion by the UN the f. “Ukraine’s” loss of its international legal personality, and inability of any of its legal successors’ to join military alliances.

4. Resignation of all the constitutional bodies of the f. “Ukraine”, and holding immediate election to a provisional parliament of the f. “Ukraine’s” territory, self-governing under the UN aegis.

5. Approval by the provisional parliament of the bills concerning all due payments to Russia, including those to our country’s deceased citizens’ relatives, and health damage compensation for the wounded; establishing order of compensating for property damage done to the subjects of the Russian Federation.

6. Official recognition by the provisional parliament of the f. “Ukraine” that all of its territory is the territory of the Russian Federation; adoption of an act of unification of the f. “Ukraine’s” territory with Russia.

7. Self-dissolution of the provisional parliament; recognition of the unification act by the UN.

Such can be a soft Russian peace formula. This is a compromise position, right? I believe, following this very formula can we seek benevolent consensus with the international community, including the Anglo-Saxon world, and hold productive summits, counting on mutual understanding of our close friends the western partners.
Dmitry Medvedev 15 March 2025

"The issue is not just this uncertainty; it is that these neo-Nazi formations, such as Azov, among others, are effectively beginning to run the country. This raises the question: how is it possible to conduct negotiations with them?

In such situations, international practice follows a well-established path. Within the framework of the United Nations peacekeeping operations, there have been several cases of what is termed external governance or temporary administration. This occurred in East Timor, I believe in 1999, in parts of the former Yugoslavia, and in New Guinea. In short, such precedents exist.

In principle, it would indeed be possible to discuss, under UN auspices with the United States and even European countries – and certainly with our partners and allies – the possibility of establishing a temporary administration in Ukraine.

To what end? To conduct democratic elections, to bring to power a competent government that enjoys public trust, and only then to begin negotiations on a peace treaty and sign legitimate agreements that would be recognised worldwide as consistent and reliable.

This is just one option; I do not claim that others do not exist. They certainly do. At present, there is no opportunity – and perhaps no possibility – to lay out every detail, as the situation is evolving rapidly. But this remains a viable option, and such precedents exist within UN practice, as I have already noted.

Ultimately, we advocate for the resolution of all conflicts, including this one, through peaceful means. But not at our expense."
Vladimir Putin 27 March 2025

"As I see it, there has existed a certain danger of late, however theoretical, of a ‘negotiations trap’ that our country might have fallen into, under a certain set of circumstances.
I am talking, of course, about the premature and unnecessary peace talks suggested by the international community and then forced on the Kiev regime.
Talks that had vague prospects and no tangible outcomes. 

Now that the neo-Nazis have carried out their terrorist attack in the Kursk region, everything falls back into place. The casual chit-chat of self-proclaimed intermediaries on the virtuous subject of peace has ceased.

Even if they cannot say it out loud, everyone recognises the reality of the situation.

They understand that there will be NO NEGOTIATIONS UNTIL THE ENEMY IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY DESTROYED! "
Dmitry Medvedev 21 August 2024 (Telegram channel)

"It is now becoming increasingly clear why the Kiev regime rejected our proposals for a peaceful settlement, as well as those from interested and neutral mediators.

It appears that the enemy, with the support from their Western backers, is executing their directives, and the West is using Ukrainians as proxies in this conflict.

It seems the opponent is aiming to strengthen their negotiating position for the future.

However, what kind of negotiations can we have with those who indiscriminately attack civilians and civilian infrastructure, or pose threats to nuclear power facilities? What is there to discuss with such parties?"
Vladimir Putin 12 August 2024

[The Istanbul document] also said that the negotiations on other issues would continue, but only after the cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, provision of security guarantees, and abolition of Ukrainian laws of a racist, neo-Nazi, and discriminatory nature."
Sergey Lavrov 19 April 2024

"We were promised that the Minsk agreements would be honoured...instead they only took a pause to arm the Bandera regime in Ukraine.

We were promised a lot of things...promises alone are not enough.

...we must be sure that this is not just another pause that the enemy wants to use for rearmament."
Vladimir Putin 13 March 2024

"[1] Meanwhile, they should first command Kiev to lift the ban on negotiating with Russia, and second, we are ready to get down to negotiations as soon as tomorrow....there are legitimate authorities there, even in accord with the Constitution, ...we are ready. Our conditions for starting such talks are simple, and come down to the following.

I am going to ...make it clear that what I am about to say is not just about today for us, but that we have always adhered to a certain position and always strived for peace.

So, these conditions are simple.

[2] The Ukrainian troops must be completely withdrawn from the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and Kherson and Zaporozhye regions...they must be withdrawn from the entire territory of these regions within their administrative borders at the time of their being part of Ukraine.

As soon as Kiev declares that it is ready to make this decision and begin a real withdrawal of troops from these regions,

[3] and also officially notifies that it abandons its plans to join NATO,

our side will follow an order to cease fire and start negotiations will be issued by us that very moment. I repeat – we will do this expeditiously...

we also guarantee an unhindered and safe withdrawal of Ukrainian units and formations.

We would certainly like to expect that such a decision on
troops withdrawal,
on a non-bloc status and
on launching dialogue with Russia,

on which Ukraine’s existence in the future depends, will be adopted in Kiev independently, proceeding from the established realities and guided by genuine national interests of the Ukrainian people, and not at the behest of the West, although there are, of course, great doubts about it."
Vladimir Putin 14 June 2024

"The President spoke at the Foreign Ministry collegium. What, in my opinion, should be paid special attention to, taking into account what the head of state said or what he carefully hinted at in his speech:

First. Russia has repeatedly offered Washington, Europe and NATO to resolve the Ukrainian crisis in its infancy, avoiding a large-scale tragedy. The answer was only cynical manipulation and outright deception. The first time on this topic happened in 2014. It was then that the promise to stop the atrocities and provocations of neo-Nazi forces in Kyiv, which the US President personally made, ended in a coup d’etat. The result was a referendum on the return of Crimea to Russia.

The second time, the deception was clothed in the Minsk agreements, which turned into a disgusting falsification, cooked up only to arm the Kyiv authorities. This is what its Western signatories admitted.

The third time this happened after the start of the Northern Military District [?operation] in the form of a forced refusal by the Kyiv regime from the neutrality treaty initialed by it in Istanbul. This was the result of boorish pressure from individual American officials and the British freak Johnson, as well as the animal cowardice of the ruling Ukrainian clique, which was afraid of getting a new Maidan.

(By the way, the foreign leader mentioned by V.V. Putin, who visited Moscow in March 2022, is none other than Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who went to Kiev after Moscow and proposed a compromise peace with the determination of the fate of the then-disputed territories. His they simply sent him [away], calling him an agent of the Kremlin, [they are] complete idiots [those] who rejected the offer of a possible peace on the best terms for them).

Second. Now the situation is completely different. According to the Constitution [of the Russian Federation], all new territories became part of Russia. And this is forever. Are further negotiations possible? Yes, they are possible. This is exactly what the head of our state said today, formulating a new idea about ending the conflict, but only taking into account the current realities on earth [i.e. on the ground] on the basis of the Istanbul Treaty and the current version of the Constitution of the Russian Federation .

Third. It is obvious that events are developing according to a catastrophic scenario for the Bandera regime. It will only get worse, our President directly said this when defining the basis for possible negotiations. The space for compromise is shrinking, like shagreen leather, along with the shrinking territory of a dying country. And the day is not far when only a narrow strip of it may remain.

Russia must protect itself for many years to come. Hence, by the way, the idea of a sanitary zone, which was put forward by V.V. Putin. All b.c. can fall into this zone. Ukraine right up to the borders with Poland, because it is from there that the constant threat comes. And what's next? The President did not directly say this, but it is obvious that such territories, if the people living there wish, could become part of Russia.

Fourth. The “summit of the doomed” starting tomorrow will end in complete fiasco. After all, meaningless “negotiations” in the absence of Russia on the stillborn formula of the Kyiv clown are just the recruitment of new extras to participate in a stupid play to legalize the Kyiv clown as a full-fledged head of state. But everyone, even our opponents, understands that he is just a pathetic usurper, shaking with fear and drug withdrawal. The systematic interpretation of the Constitution of Ukraine, which was given by V.V. Putin, leads to a very simple conclusion: it is impossible to extend the powers of the president under it; they pass to the head of parliament.

And fifth. Now Zelensky – no one can even call him. There is no power behind him, and his orders should not be carried out by anyone. And all the persons appointed by him after the expiration of their powers have no right to make decisions at all. These persons are illegitimate, and their decisions are illegal. Therefore, any Ukrainian military personnel commits a criminal offense when they carry out unlawful instructions from officials appointed by illegal authorities.

So the usurper, who seized power in the country, turned all the inhabitants of Ukraine into hostages. And every day he sends soldiers to their deaths, without having any rights to do so. A trial or mob violence awaits him, and b. Ukraine – capitulation."
Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council 14 June 2024 (telegram channel - machine translation)

Words in square brackets were added by me for clarity.

"It has long been clear to everyone holding unbiased positions that it can be settled only in the context of agreements on lasting security and stability in Europe, which would take into account the interests of the Russian Federation and the legitimate interests of all other countries.

Everyone thinks the arrival of the Trump Administration will change things....

...we have no illusions. There is a fairly robust bipartisan consensus in Washington on supporting the Kiev regime. US doctrinal documents describe our country as an adversary that needs to be strategically defeated...

...We need reliable and legally binding agreements aimed at eliminating the root causes of the conflict, addressing problems such as common security in Europe, NATO expansion, the European Union’s recent decision to become an appendage of the North Atlantic bloc, in fact, erasing all differences between these organisations

...to avoid being mislead by empty hopes...we need a final, fully-fledged, legally binding and lasting settlement of problems in Europe, including the Ukrainian crisis.”
Sergey Lavrov 25 December 2024

We have never claimed that with the Trump Administration in the White House the negotiating process on global security and Ukraine will begin no matter what.

This will not be, as many are now hoping, an inevitable outcome...

...We need to see serious, concrete proposals. When we have them, we will decide on how to respond to them based on our national interests, the goals of the special military operation, and President Vladimir Putin’s June 14 speech at the Foreign Ministry."
Sergey Lavrov 25 December 2024

"...As Trump’s team is getting ready for action on the Ukrainian issue, there is no shortage of trumped-up ‘settlement scenarios’ concocted in rotten brains and other body organs. So far, they are all worthless, as one concrete proposal is much more important than hundreds of half-baked hypotheticals"
Dmitry Medvedev, 14 January 2025, Telegram

ARTICLE 1
Strengthening defence capabilities

The Parties shall deepen defence cooperation, strengthen their military and defence industrial capabilities, including force development and collaboration between their defence industrial bases, strengthen Ukraine’s defence procurement, and transfer technologies for joint production of defence products (including through joint initiatives), with a focus on innovation and strengthening intellectual property rights protection of transferred technologies, and aligning with NATO requirements.

ARTICLE 2
Strengthening security and building consensus on Ukraine’s NATO membership

The Parties shall build on areas that benefit Euro-Atlantic peace and stability well beyond the war, recognizing Ukraine’s integral role in Euro-Atlantic security, with a focus on Ukraine’s inter-operability and contribution as a future NATO Ally.

ARTICLE 3
Building a partnership in the field of maritime security

The Parties shall endeavour to address long-term systemic threats and challenges to maritime security in order to restore freedom of navigation.

The Parties shall establish a maritime security partnership, including with the objective of strengthening of Baltic Sea, Black Sea, and Azov Sea security.

ARTICLE 4
Increasing economic and trade cooperation

The Parties shall seek to strengthen conditions for investment and trade in both of their nations, and cooperate across a range of sectors, including but not limited to transport, infrastructure, and energy to make both of their economies more modern, resilient, and prosperous. They will also strengthen economic inclusivity, supporting efforts to reduce inequality, tackle poverty and leave no one behind.

ARTICLE 5
Strengthening energy, climate, and clean energy transition cooperation

The Parties shall deepen their collaboration on energy based on principles of sustainability and clean transition, on a mutually beneficial basis, and strengthen conditions for investment in Ukraine’s energy sector.

"You said this speech “contains conditions.” By and large, there are no conditions there. It contains a demand to fulfill what has been repeatedly agreed upon over many years:
militarisation of Ukraine (which is a direct violation of the agreements that NATO will not “gobble up” an increasing number of countries to the east and approach directly the border of the Russian Federation), and respect for the obligations under the UN Charter, including with regard to human rights, language and religious rights among them. Can these truly be called conditions?

This is the bare minimum of what any normal member of the international community must do.

Is the expression of the will by the regions in the DPR, LPR, and Kherson and Zaporozhye regions a pre-condition? No. The UN Charter explicitly says that all countries must respect the territorial value of those states that respect the right of nations to self-determination, as happened during the above-mentioned referendums.

Most importantly, the Charter calls for respecting the territorial integrity of the countries whose governments represent the entire population living on the territory in question. Can the people of Crimea, Donbass, and Novorossiya say that their interests are represented by a Nazi regime that has announced the extermination of everything Russian, in fact, its main goal...

The principles formulated by President Vladimir Putin are not preconditions. They actually derive from international law.

...above all, upholding the rights of the people living in these territories who have supported reunification with the Russian Federation. This does not mean that the demand for respect for the linguistic and religious freedoms, which have been legislatively abolished by Vladimir Zelensky, does not apply to the rest of Ukraine. Most of the people who live there speak Russian as their native language. The linguistic aggression started by the Kiev regime will certainly not be tolerated."
Sergey Lavrov 25 December 2024


"Importantly, they do not constitute preliminary conditions of any sort. They represent a demand to fulfill what everyone signed up to when adopting the Charter of the United Nations."
Sergey Lavrov 26 December 2024

''...the prevailing discourse we are hearing both in the West and in Ukraine today is about a truce and only truce. It is about buying time to allow the Kiev regime to regain strength, with the help of the West, and resume its attempts to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, acting on their Western bosses’ instructions....We will not be satisfied with a truce."
Sergey Lavrov 25 December 2024

"Despite assurances made to the Soviet leadership and our numerous warnings over the past 20 years, the North Atlantic Alliance has been expanding eastward with undue haste, creating direct military threats to Russia immediately along our borders. It was this aggressive course of action that ultimately precipitated the Ukraine crisis, instigated by the state coup in Kiev in February 2014, orchestrated by Washington and its European allies.

This coup brought ultra-nationalists to power, who then declared a campaign to eradicate all things Russian and commenced hostilities against millions of Russians and Russian-speaking people who refused to recognise the illegitimate authority of the putchists.

These are the root causes of the crisis, which Western leaders today prefer to overlook...

Since 2014, Ukraine has consistently enacted laws prohibiting the Russian language in education, media, culture, and all other spheres. Recently, Ukrainian parliament banned the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Let me remind you that Article 1 of the UN Charter mandates respect for human rights for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Yet, the West turns a blind eye to the gross violations of the Charter perpetrated by the Russophobic, racist regime in Kiev."
Sergey Lavvrov 21 October 2024

"We remain open to consultations. If someone finds it hard to understand where we stand, even though we made it clear on many occasions, we are ready to reiterate our position.

We are open to talks, if they focus on the substance and the root causes and the principles mentioned by President Vladimir Putin in his speech at the Foreign Ministry in June. Importantly, they do not constitute preliminary conditions of any sort. They represent a demand to fulfill what everyone signed up to when adopting the Charter of the United Nations....

Before they set up a negotiating team of the Kiev regime, the root causes of this crisis need to be addressed. We want these causes eliminated.

As long as they are in place, there can be no agreement.

I have discussed these root causes in detail, and I hope that anyone who is interested in advancing the negotiations knows what I am talking about. Again, these are not preconditions.

These are the steps that all parties to this process and conflict should have taken long ago, in accordance with the commitments they had made, including under the principles of the UN Charter, which must be applied in their entirety and interconnectedness.

With this understanding, we are open to any serious proposals. I hope everyone realises that we will not agree to a temporary ceasefire only to resume the conflict later.

We insist on the need to end this conflict in a sustainable and legally impeccable settlement by eliminating its root causes.

I trust that all interested parties will become increasingly convinced that this approach has no alternative."
Sergey Lavrov 26 December 2024

1. Ukraine must recognise all new territorial realities.
That is, territories Russia has occupied and held referendums which confirm a majority desire to join Russia must be recognised by Ukraine as part of Russia (Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions).

"I do not know what will happen to Western Ukraine. A lot of politicians also voice their opinions on this matter. However, the future of the originally Russian Ukraine, which wants to be part of the Russian world, speak Russian, educate its children in this language, and bring flowers to the monuments of those who shed blood for this land during the time of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and the Great Patriotic War, is beyond any doubt."
Sergey Lavrov 19 April 2024

Mr. Lavrov's words are rather ambiguous. The future of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporozhye have been sealed. They are constitutionally Russia. This was made crystal clear by Mr. Putin on the 14th of June 2024.

"...the situation has fundamentally changed. The residents of Kherson and Zaporozhye have expressed their position in referendums, and Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, as well as the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, have become part of the Russian Federation. And there can be no talk of disturbing our state unity.
The people’s will to be with Russia shall be inviolable. This matter is closed forever and is no longer a matter for discussion."
Vladimir Putin 14 June 2024

The future of other oblasts that were also once part of Russia - Nikolaev, Odessa, Kharkov - is far from certain. They may be taken by military force and decome a 'sanitary zone' along the lines of Mr. Medvedev's statements of 14 June 2024 (although he was referring to all the land in west Ukraine, right up to the Polish border). After 10 or 15 years the 'sanitary zones (policed by Russia and a third country) could formally be released to Ukraine, or become autonomous, as decided by a referendum. The oblasts status would have to be put 'beyond any doubt' by a new Ukrainian constitution making them autonomous regions. These regions would control their own affairs (except for foreign affairs), but remain legally part of Ukraine even while preserving their own culture (including language). Autonomous regions are not uncommon in various states around the world, including Russia (namely the Chukotka Autonomous region).

On the 14th of January 2025, Dmitry Medlevdev commented that the 'Slavic' people shouldn't be divided from each other. He referred to Ukraine as Malorussia (little Russia), reflecting the fact that a large part of today's Ukraine was peopled by 'Russians', except for the far western regions. Further, he scotched the idea of eventually 'handing over' people who he regards as Russia's "own" to "Banderistan" "when the time comes", saying "The proposed scenario tries to sell the thoroughly rotten idea that one Slavic people can be divided into two distinct groups, which is indecent to even mention out loud in principle. And finally: who would seriously consider an option where a nuclear superpower gives something up to an ugly runt with a name which is literally translated as the ‘Outskirts’?" He states that "national jurisdiction over contested territories is not up for negotiation". In other words, the areas that Russia contests will be under Russian jurisdiction, in some form or other.

Ukraine has stubbornly refused to negotiate terms even after western arms supplies slowed down. This intransigence, coupled with strikes on Russian infrastructure lauched from the port of Odessa makes the incorporation of Odessa (and maybe Nikolaev) into Russia more likely, but if they are to be incorporated, it would have to be done while the current repressive anti-Russian speaking constitution is in place, as that is the only basis for a region to legally break away from it's current political entity. And it will have to be subject to a popular referendum of the residents - Mr. Lavrov has as much said so in the past. But the sequence is unacceptable to Russia. The Ukrainian constitution must be changed before such details are worked out.

It is possible that a new settlement agreement will include some sort of agreement for Odessa, in particular, to be a free port, with the oblast to hold a referendum in 10 so years time to see if it wishes to remain with Ukraine, become autonomous, or join the Russian Federation. Nikolaev may be included with Odessa. Kharkov, a majority Russian speaking oblast, until recently has had very little military action, so at 15 May 2024 there was relatively little damage there. However an attritional' northern front was opened up in Kharkov (and probes into Sumy, further north) in mid May, forcing the hugely depleted Ukrainian military personnel to be constantly robbing forces from one front to reinforce another more active front.  Attrition warfare carried out by Russia means less damage to infrastructure (Kharkov city is more likely to be encircled and put under siege than stormed) than would be the case in a full-blown war of maneuver of massed combined forces. It seems to me increasingly likely that Kharkov, too, might ultimately be taken by referendum. Once again, a new Ukrainiane constitution will have to be in place.

But the sequence can just as effectively be by conquest first, then June 2024 pre-conditions for agreement met, then final agreement. Which, in conquered territories may include refendum now or referendum later. But Russian jurisdiction always.

2. There must be bilateral security guarantees provided (to both parties) on Russia's western borders.
The countries on Russia's western borders are Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, and maybe Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Guarantees would relate to the size of armed forces, inadmissibility of hosting nuclear weapons etc. This is the subject of the December 2021 Security Guarentee Agreement with NATO, which Russia demanded that NATO countries individually sign with Russia. (This, by the way, is an application of coercive diplomacy.). The west's collective position is that Russia hasn't defeated them in an actual 'declared' war, so Russia cannot demand anything. They are probably right. The time is not yet ripe.

"Our position has not changed radically. We are open to dialogue, but we will be guided by our legitimate interests, and our stand on a possible settlement will be adjusted in accordance with the situation on the ground.

Because the conflict...has a geopolitical dimension, its settlement must include security guarantees on Russia’s western border.

I would like to remind you that this is the essence of the initiative which President Vladimir Putin advanced in December 2021. The West represented by the United States and NATO contemptuously rejected it."
Sergey Lavrov 13 July 2023

"...We agreed with the principles of the settlement contained in that document. Among them was ensuring Ukraine's security through...the provision of collective guarantees not by NATO, but from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as Germany and Turkey."
Sergey Lavrov 01 December 2022

The implication is that if Ukraine is threatened by external forces, the Security Council will authorise a UN force to go to Ukraine's aid. The west has unecessarily extended the conflict (with the complicity of top Ukrainian government figures), causing the death of many more Ukrainians and Russians. Perhaps the lineup of guarantors may change, or the mandate may change.

Under the Biden administration, the USA would never agree, and would never cooperate. The tone has changed under the Trump administration. On the 18th of April, following a meeting with the Zelensky government and the Europeans, the American Secretary of State mentioned - almost in passing - that the US doesn't see bilateral security guarantees for Ukraine as a particularly big problem.

 
"...the term “security guarantees” came up because they come up in every meeting.  We’ve heard about it.  And it’s not an illegitimate desire.  Every sovereign nation on Earth has a right to defend itself. Ukraine will have a right to defend itself and to enter into whatever agreements it wants to enter into on a bilateral basis with different countries and so forth.

...in order for there to be peace, we recognize that Ukraine has to feel like it has the ability to defend itself from a future attack from anyone. Every country in the world has that right...I think that’s something we can fix and solve in a way that’s acceptable to everyone."
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, 18 April 2025

Russia's 2008 Security Treaty meets both the Russian and the Ukrainian sides needs. It has the enormous advantage that it can be implemented immediately between bilateral partners. It is immensely flexible - others can become party to any one agreement, or leave as changes of governments may demand (yet they won't find anything better). The Security Treaty can be registered with the United Nations, forming part of International Law. There are numerous other advantages (see my 2022 article for details). It is time for the 2008 Treaty to be brought back into the light.

3.  All Ukrainian anti-Russian sanctions must be lifted.

4. All claims against the Russian government and Russian legal entities and Russian individuals must be withdrawn.

5. All attempts to prosecute Russian government officials, entities and individuals must be terminated.

6. Ukraine must respect the rights of its both its Russian population and other ethnic populations, including the right to speak and read in their own language.
The Russian language must be given official status, as other languages are already. This must be embedded in the constitution. ("abolition of Ukrainian laws of a racist, neo-Nazi, and discriminatory nature" Lavrov April 2024)

7. Ukraine must restore friendly relations with all neighbours (i.e. Russia and Belarus).
It must do this by re-opening the borders and re-establishing all the legal frameworks (including all former Soviet States such as Belarus) previously in place before the coup.

8. Ukraine must restore Ukraine's founding principles of neutrality and non-bloc (non-aligned) status outlined in the 1990 declaration of independence.
Ukraine will have to embed this principle in its constitution.

9. Ukraine must de-militarise
This is already largely accomplished by Russia's attritional military strategy and the Ukrainian leaderships contempt for the lives of its conscripts.

Ukrainian arms and personnel will be restricted in size. "the Istanbul document outlined the limits of the relevant weapons, personnel, etc." Lavrov 19 April 2024.

Buffer zone to be on Ukrainian territory

Russia will probably impose a temporary 'de-miltarised zone' on Ukrainian territory where Ukraine's rockets and artillery will have to be kept a 'maximum-range restricted' distance away from Russia's border.

".. if this [shelling by Ukraine] continues, then we will apparently have to consider the issue – and I say this very carefully – in order to create some kind of buffer zone on the territory of Ukraine at such a distance from which it would be impossible to reach our territory. ...We have to see how the situation develops..."
Vladimir Putin June 13, 2023 

"President Putin put it clearly when answering the question of how to make our territory safe. He said that we should move back the line from which they can target our territory. I understand that Kharkov plays not the least role in this respect."
Sergey Lavrov 19 April 2024


"We warned them against making incursions into our territory, shelling Belgorod and neighbouring areas, or else we will be forced to create a security area.

Look at what your Western colleagues are reporting. No one is talking about shelling Belgorod or other adjacent territories. The only thing they are talking about is Russia opening a new front and attacking Kharkov.

Not a word. Why is that? They did it with their own hands. Well, let them reap the fruits of their ingenuity.

The same thing can happen in case the long-range precision weapons which you asked about is used.
Vladimir Putin 28 May 2024

Sergey Lavrov's remark suggests that Ukraine's Kharkov might remain Ukrainian territory, but become a de-militarised buffer zone. Logically, Sumy and parts of Chernihiv would complete the buffer up to the Belarus border. (Perhaps plus parts of Kiev, Zhytomyr, Rivne and Volyne as autonomous oblasts or buffers for Belarus). Dnepropetrovsk and Poltava oblasts might form the western buffer, and Nikolaev the southern buffer (I suspect it will be absorbed it into the Russian Federation by one or other means). If Russia is forced to end the conflict through use of a massive military strike, then logic suggest the buffer zones would be targeted by Russian forces moving from all directions simultaneously, including from Belarus. The current banderist government would be deposed, elections held, and buffer zones formalised by agreement and under threat of force of arms for non-compliances.

In early August 2024 Ukraine made an incursion into the undisputed Russian territory of Kursk. In response Dmitry Medvedev said on 8 August 2024 that "another important political and legal consequence of what happened" was that "from this moment on" the special military operation was no longer a limited operation "to return our official territories and punish the Nazis", but to exact " a carefully thought-out retribution". He said retribution should be an official change in the operation to an "openly extraterritorial character".

He considered it necessary to openly talk about moving into the currently undisputed part of Ukraine, specifically Odessa, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Nikolaev. Even "to Kiev and beyond."
In my opinion, this makes it likely that Nikolaev and Odessa, at least, will now definitely be taken, with the other 2 oblasts that make up Novorossiya (Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk) now also likely, if only as part of the buffer zone. Possibly with a referendum on autonomy to ultimately follow.

Buffer zone tracks missile range

Just how wide a buffer zone is needed is a crucial question.

The range of the Storm Shadow/Scalp missile is around 400 kilometers. Any missile of this type located in Kiev can hit Russia's northwest. A buffer zone here to a depth of 400 kilometers would mean all military equipment in Kiev would have to move to the central west region of Ukraine, about where the city of Vinnytsia is.

A buffer in southern Ukraine would go to the Moldovan border and also extend north to Vinnytsia.

In effect, most of the military equipment would be quarantined to the Volyn, Rivne, Transcarpentia,and Lviv general area in the west of Ukraine. But Ukraine has modified some older missiles to increase their range to 1,000 kilometers. This would require virtually all of Ukraine to be a giant buffer zone.

If Russia takes Odessa, the 400 kilometer buffer zone will go almost to the Polish border. Some form of compromise will probably be agreed.

In any case, if some Ukrainian (or NATO provocateurs) cheat on the buffer zone and fires at Russia (almost certain, in my opinion) it will take either a massive punitive strike to dissuade further breaches, or a massive peace-keeping force to make sure there is no cheating or breach in the first place. Such a force should probably come from the Russian-speaking CSTO countries, maybe UN supervised. No western foreign forces will be allowed in Ukraine, including dual citizen foreigners posing as Ukrainians.

"President Putin has said many times, both in January and early February, that Russia will not tolerate a model of European security that relies on NATO as the dominant force. Especially when it's right on our doorstep.

We've repeatedly said that we want to find an alternative solution - a solution that would reliably address security concerns of Ukraine, the nations of Europe, and, naturally, Russia. And that's the direction we should take.

President Zelensky said that he was interested in security guarantees for Ukraine. I see this as a positive development. Our negotiators are ready to discuss these guarantees..."
Sergey Lavrov 2 March 2022

This is a crystal clear indication that Russia and all the countrys bordering the Russian Federation, and the Russian Federation itself, can achieve security with some version of Mr. Medvedev's 2008 Security Agreement. As I wrote on the 18th of February 2022:

"1. The 2008 Treaty is styled as a 'European Security Treatment'. It encompasses:

"all States of the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian space from Vancouver to Vladivostok as well as by the following international organizations: the European Union, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Collective Security Treaty Organization, North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Community of Independent States"

It was designed to deal with the urgent needs of the times. But once the US and NATO are forced to make a decision on bilateral security with Russia - and they have to make a decision right now, they are cornered and can't wriggle out - then it settles the matter, one way or the other. Space then opens up for Russia to offer the world either a 'mother of all security deals' or a whole series of identically worded regional security treaties.

Everybody is treated equally, as the wording is the same.

There is no real delay to implementation. These treaties are designed to come into force with only some countries signing. No one needs to wait for a 'holdout' to come on board. There could be a treaty for Europe, a treaty for Eurasia, for Asia, South East Asia, for Asia Pacific, for the Americas (minus the North), for the Caribbean...Russia could initiate treaties in whatever regional designations that would work best."

Clearly, absolutely clearly, this is the direction both the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China will take for decades to come. (I wrote about it here). And in late May 2024 China as much as said so. With China and Russia on board, with BRICS beckoning, with the lure of overland transport routes to the East, to India, to Iran, to the Middle East, to Africa - how can Ukraine refuse?

10. Ukraine must de-nazify
This must be embedded in the constitution. Appropriate laws passed banning white supremicist and nazi and neonazi symbols, groups, meetings etc. A meeting was held by the Russian Security Council on the 22nd of March 2024 to address the problem of neonazism, probably mainly in a post-operation Ukraine, but also at home.

11. Ukraine must never join NATO.
Again, the security treaty signed with Russia must preclude Ukraine joining any security organisation that secures Ukraine's security at Russia's expense. This is for Russia's security.

12. Ukraine must re-affirm its non-nuclear status.
This must be embedded in Ukraines constitution.

13. Ukraine must never join the EU without the issue of subsidised trade being resolved.
Russia wants to allow trade to flow between Ukraine and Russia. But if Ukraine joins the EU, Russia will be flooded with cheap EU (not Ukrainina) goods, destroying Russian businesses. Russia will never.allow this. A solution, such as equalising tariffs, must be found.

12. The west must pay for the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure destroyed by Ukraine’s military.
The launch of the Ukraine government's military attacks on the eastern oblasts under the pretext of fighting secessionists has caused a great deal of damage to what is now Russia. Ukraine is in no position to pay reparations, but the west is. This condition can be satisfied outside Ukraine, using the Law of State Responsibility.

Implementation of settlement terms edited 29 May 2024
Most elements are political, and are a matter of a series of political steps:

1. Statement by the current government of Ukraine that they recognise they are militarily defeated and that they surrender unconditionally.
This creates certainty in the mind of Ukrainian citizens that there is no point in resistance, and it indeed would be prohibited as a breach of terms and therefore subject to punitive action.

"Recognition by the former (further, f.) “Ukraine” its military defeat in the conflict; total and unconditional surrender of the f.[former] “Ukraine” represented by the neo-nazi clique in Kiev..."
Dmitry Medvedev 15 March 2024

Mr. Medvedev distinguishes between "former" Ukraine neo-nazi clique part of Ukraine's government, which must be the one to surrender, and a "further" Ukrainian government. This probably refers to the House of Representatives, the Ukrainian Parliamentary branch of government that will be voted in when elections are held after martial law is ended.

The current President's 5 year term has ended, so Presidential elections will be held more or less at the same time as Parliamentary elections.

But first, the current executive branch of government (whose legitimacy has probably ended) must surrender and their government dissolve. Or the military leadership must get together and determine to capitulate in the interests of the nation. After all, they no longer have a Commander-in-Chief. And Russia has a warrant out for his arrest, presumably on charges of terrorism.

On 22 March 2024, 'ISIS in Khorasan (IS–KP)' Salafi Muslim terrorists attacked and killed over 139 people at the Crocus City Hall near Moscow.  US advisories publicly suggested an attack might happen about the 8th or 9th, the date a Shaman concert was due to be held there. I believe the Shaman concert was timed to boost national determination just before the Presidential elections in Russia. It is likely the terrorists initially planned to attack on that date, as it would have made people fearful of congregating to vote. Heavy security at the Shaman concert made them postpone their attack. In any case, Russia, it seems, believes the terror group has been supported and enabled by the SBU, the Ukrainian Secret Service (at least), and so Russia subsequently bombed one of their headquarters.

The Russian President said on the 23rd of March:

"All perpetrators, organisers and masterminds of this crime will face fair and inevitable punishment, whoever they may be and whoever directed them. I emphasise once more: we will identify and bring to justice each and every individual who stands behind these terrorists, those who orchestrated this atrocity"
Vladimir Putin 23 March 2024

Mr. Medvedev said on 25 March 2024 "...those who are involved, regardless of the country of origin and status, are now our main and legitimate target." As it happens, the Russian Security Council had convened at 1425 hours on the 22nd to discuss measures to counter neonazism. Most likely the meeting related to measures to deal with neo-nazis in a post-conflict Ukraine. The Terror operation at the Crocus venue was 'given the signal to go' that same evening, suggesting the customer who ultimately purchase this attack was a government agency seeking to show the impotence of the Russian government.

These statements suggest that Russia regards the Ukrainian government as being the orchestrators. Or rather, the executive branch, at least. By specifying "whoever they may be" he allows the inclusion of state figures who would ordinarily be protected by their status and diplomatic passport. In effect, if the current Ukrainian government executive branch (President and advisors, some of the top armed forces officials, and members of the security service) is found to be involved in this crime, it will automatically mean it will be regarded as an illegitimate entity, and therefore can be targeted for retribution.

At that point - and this is very important - the current executive branch, including the 'President', cannot be a partner in any negotiation process.

On May 30th 2024 Dmytro Tabachnik, one of the co-authors of the Ukrainian Constitution, pointed out that if negotiations are blocked by the west, the key to side-stepping the pretender-President and precipitating the initial steps regardless of what he or his advisers say, is simple. Military Capitulation.

"In the case of accepting capitulation, [legitimacy] becomes secondary," Tabachnik argued.

For instance, after Adolf Hitler's suicide, the Third Reich was headed by Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz, solely based on Hitler's will — Dönitz was neither elected nor approved by the German parliament.

"Nevertheless, the delegation formed was recognized by all allies and agreed in Potsdam on the night of May 8-9 that these individuals would sign the capitulation,""
Sputnik 30 May 2024

2. Elections
Technically, the Zelensky presidency ended in late May 2024. Then there must be Presidential elections. This is an inflection point. According to Vladimir Putin (a lawyer by training)

"..we, of course, must understand with whom we need and can deal with a view to signing legally binding documents. In this case, we must be absolutely sure that we are dealing with the legitimate authorities. This question must be answered in Ukraine itself, primarily, I think, by its parliament, the Constitutional Court or some other government authorities."
Vladimir Putin 24 May 2024

" the law of Ukraine on the legal status, legal position and martial law reads that presidential elections are not held during martial law. However, this does not mean that they are extended. They are not held but who said that they must be extended? The Constitution says nothing about this...Ukrainian statehood is based on the idea of the parliamentary-presidential republic rather than the presidential republic. The main levers of power are concentrated in the representative state body....

...in a tentative estimate...the parliament and the Rada Speaker remain the only legitimate power... if they wanted to hold presidential elections, they should have simply repealed martial law at that time and held elections. But they did not want to do this for a number of reasons...

...the final say should be made by the political and legal system of Ukraine. It should formulate and explain what is happening in Ukraine. I believe, this is not too difficult.. the 2016 law prohibits holding presidential elections under martial law but nothing is said about extension of these powers. So, what? See Article 111 of the Constitution – all power is transferred to the Speaker of Parliament."
28 May 2024

"...we could address Verkhovna Rada but this makes no sense while the power is usurped by the ruling elite, because the majority at the Verkhovna Rada is under its command. It holds the power illegally and does not even appeal to the constitutional court to confirm its powers....All powers should go to the Rada, but it does not take these powers upon itself."
Vladimir Putin 4 July 2024

"I believe that after this and other unpopular decisions are made, those who are acting today as representatives of executive government would be replaced with people who would not be responsible for the unpopular decisions made. These representatives will be simply replaced in a snap. If this is the idea, the logic is understandable in principle. Let’s see what happens next."
Vladimir Putin 28 May 2024

In other words, the Ukrainian Parliament is 'facing down' the Ukrainian executive branch to continue with their psychopathic policies to their inevitable end, and once the President runs to safety in the UK and the military command surrenders, the Parliament will quickly place the Speaker of the House in charge of the executive branch, he will dismiss most of the current executive responsible for this mess, and replace them all with saner acting executives.

Then Presidential and Parliamentary elections will be held.

3. Change the Ukrainian constitution

4. Demilitarisation

""demilitarization of the f. [furrther] “Ukraine” and banning the creation of military formations within its boundaries in the future."
Dmitry Medvedev 15 March 2024"

Militarily, the template has long been in place - it simply follows the OSCE guidelines (more or less) that were in place to protect Donetsk and Lugansk. And this is more or less what was agreed to in the 2022 draft agreement that Ukraine was persuaded to ultimately refuse. It is about a buffer zone.

1. Restriction on the numbers and types of weapons deployed within a certain distance of the border (the buffer zone). This is the protective cordon to protect Russia that Dmitry Medvedev has previously referred to.

2. Monitoring by agreed outside parties. The OSCE has lost all credibility - it is very biased to the west.

"The way the OSCE has acted and is acting with regard to the crisis in Ukraine is a total fiasco. Its Special Monitoring Mission has not only failed as a mediator within the framework of the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, but has also stooped to a lawbreaking step.

Instead of monitoring activities, some of SMM staff were reviewing and passing intelligence to Kiev.

It is hard to believe that the Mission's leadership was not aware of that...

...It is with ever growing concern that we are watching how virtually every tools and resource at the disposal of OSCE has been assigned to the corrupt tasks of total "Ukrainization" of the Organization’s agenda...We are outraged by the active involvement of the Chairmanship-in-Office in the Western campaign to whitewash the criminal actions of the neo-Nazi Maidan authorities.

I appeal to the Maltese Chairmanship - do not deceive yourselves. By ignoring the heinous attacks by armed formations of the Zelensky regime against peaceful Russian cities, you show solidarity with them. Thus, being an accomplice, you also share responsibility with the Kiev regime for atrocities against Russian servicemen and civilians, committed i.a. on the territory of the Russian Federation."
Vassily Nebenzia, Russian Federation Permanent Representative at the United Nations 19 April 2024

Russia and Ukraine will have to find an acceptable group. Probably Russian speaking Eurasian countries would form the backbone. Intriguingly, as Russia participates in peacekeeping in Africa, it may ask Africa for help in monitoring at least the Russian side.

"Given a common understanding of the root causes and reasons for the crisis in Ukraine, the ministers discussed future opportunities for a contribution by South Africa and a number of other members of the African Union in the search for a peaceful settlement to the conflict."
Sergey Lavrov 22 February 2024

Rebuilding Ukraine - whose responsibility?

According to an interview with Scott Ritter on September 30 2022 with Andrey Gurulyov, member of the State Duma Defense Committee, demilitarisation will require Russia to occupy the remainder of Ukraine. Occupying forces are responsible for the provision of the maintenance of essentials for life - food, water, shelter. Did the Western occupying forces do this in Afghanistan? Most of the aid was from 'foreign donors'. According to the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 'donors' gave $1.67 billion to Afghanistan in humanitarian aid in 2021. The United States gave $425 million of that. Why would Russia penalise it's own domestic economy by replacing the current Western largesse to Ukraine with Russian largesse? It makes no sense.

It does make sense to give carefully targeted aid to Ukraine so that it can rebuild what is left of it's economy. But with full accountability. There may be limited, temporary occupation of Ukraine as part of the terms of settlement of a negotiated settlement, but even this is problematic. I doubt Russia has any intention whatever of an occupation of Ukraine beyond Oblasts that might vote to merge with the Russian Federation.

A good paper written by Christopher Knowles in 2013 lists universal principles for an occupying force to follow to ensure peace and stability returns to the occupied country. While he was discussing post war Germany, after Germany had surrendered, the principles apply anywhere. The summary covers the main points, and nothing much else needs to be said:

• "British experiences in post- war Germany, 1945-1949, highlight some general principles which are relevant today: what happens after the war is won can be more important than the war itself.
  
  
• Restrictive measures to prevent future aggression need to be complemented by positive reconstructive measures so that the occupied can see their own efforts are rewarded. Giving the Germans ‘hope for the future’ was one of Montgomery’s favourite phrases.
  
  
• There is a limit to how much preparation can be done in advance because it is impossible to predict actual circumstances on the ground. Therefore military commanders and civilian authorities need to respond flexibly in light of what they encounter.
  
  
• Democracy cannot be imposed by force or by totalitarian means. Trying to make local people do everything the victor’s way can be counter-productive. If political structures are to last beyond the occupation, they have to be created by local political leaders and accepted by the population as a whole.
  
  
• Personal relationships between occupier and occupied are important. Reconciliation does not happen automatically, but requires a conscious effort on both sides."

"Ukraine cannot continue to fight and to recover without continuing aid from the U.S. and other powers. Moreover, if the war drags on as it well may do, the total costs of both the war and recovery states could easily rise well over $500 billion.

A truly long war could put the total cost of the war and recovery to a trillion dollars or more...while U.S. aid to Ukraine has scarcely been cheap, U.S. spending has been at token levels compared to the economic burden that the cost of the Ukraine war and economic sanctions have placed on Russia....

...moving towards a viable peace settlement is critical to both Ukraine’s survival and limiting the cumulative cost of aid....the U.S. should expend its current efforts at cooperation the build [sic] such a planning and management effort and make current wartime flow of civil aid cost-effective as soon as possible.

It should expand current efforts to develop the kind of longer-term post conflict planning that is really needed. Any realistic peace settlement will depend upon the existence of a functional and credible form of Western recovery aid to Ukraine – one where the U.S. will almost certainly have to pay a major share....

...Past experiences warns that this will require an ongoing management effort with demanding controls of corruption and cost-effectiveness, and a postwar planning effort that will link the Ukraine to the EU and the economy of Europe in ways that would allow it to export without the same dependence on naval routes that Russia might challenge or interdict...

...it is critical to remember that the West is also supporting Ukraine by conducting the equivalent of economic warfare against Russia. Economic sanctions, controlling on the levels and technologies involved in trade, and taking measures to limit European dependence on energy exports are all additional ways of cutting the cost of aid to the Ukraine, and pushing Russia into some form of viable peace agreement...

...Creating truly effective international bodies to plan and manage civil and military aid efforts, with representation from a full range of donors, can limit the future flow of aid to some extent, but the U.S. and its allies must face the possible need for years of future support.

...Any other course of action would leave Ukraine far too weak to offer any clear hope of stability and undermine many of the gains the U.S. has made...

...In any case, the U.S. must accept the fact that the cost of U.S. aid will remain high as long as the war continues and during the peace years of Ukraine’s postwar recovery...it must be stressed that the U.S. also cannot push Ukraine too far in making compromises to obtain an end to the fighting or cut aid to the extent that it effectively abandons it."
US 'Center for Strategic and International Studies' 22 November 2022

"We will not tolerate neo-Nazism on the territory of Ukraine. We are fighting neo-Nazis, rather than the people of Ukraine, and we have nothing against the latter.

This nation is closely related to us, we are intertwined at the level of human destinies, and this concerns millions of families with a multitude of ties, spiritual, cultural and other bonds.

I am convinced that the neo-Nazi government in Kiev will be unable to undermine this genetic code; at the same time, we must also accomplish a lot.

It is necessary to offer specific ideas, involve civil society and facilitate contacts between people in Ukraine and Russia. The Russia-Ukraine-Belarus format existed some time ago, and public organisations and experts met within its framework in Minsk and elsewhere. For obvious reasons, this is not happening today, but we need to think about the future. 

The people of Ukraine will be liberated from neo-Nazi rulers, and they deserve to live in neighbourliness, friendship and prosperity together with fraternal Slavic nations."
Sergey Lavrov 26 November 2022

"..the special military operation’s goals set by President Putin. In addition to demilitarisation, it is to denazify Ukraine."
Sergey Lavrov 28 June 2023


"German militarism and Nazism will be extirpated and the Allies will take in agreement together, now and in the future, the other measures necessary to assure that Germany never again will threaten her neighbors or the peace of the world....

...(a) All German land, naval and air forces, the S.S., S.A., S.D., and Gestapo, with all their organizations, staffs and institutions, including the General Staff, the Officers' Corps, Reserve Corps, military schools, war veterans' organizations and all other military and quasi-military organization, together with all clubs and associations which serve to keep alive the military tradition in Germany, shall be completely and finally abolished in such manner as permanently to prevent the revival or reorganization of German militarism and Nazism...

...destroy the National Socialist Party and its affiliated and supervised organizations, to dissolve all Nazi institutions, to ensure that they are not revived in any form, and to prevent all Nazi and militarist activity or propaganda...

...4. All Nazi laws which provided the basis of the Hitler regime or established discrimination on grounds of race, creed, or political opinion shall be abolished. No such discriminations, whether legal, administrative or otherwise, shall be tolerated...

...5. War criminals and those who have participated in planning or carrying out Nazi enterprises involving or resulting in atrocities or war crimes shall be arrested and brought to judgment. Nazi leaders, influential Nazi supporters and high officials of Nazi organizations and institutions and any other persons dangerous to the occupation or its objectives shall be arrested and interned....

...6. All members of the Nazi party who have been more than nominal participants in its activities and all other persons hostile to allied purposes shall be removed from public and semipublic office, and from positions of responsibility in important private undertakings. Such persons shall be replaced by persons who, by their political and moral qualities, are deemed capable of assisting in developing genuine democratic institutions in Germany...

...7. German education shall be so controlled as completely to eliminate Nazi and militarist doctrines..."
Joint Report With Allied Leaders on the Potsdam Conference August 2 1945

"Today I want to particularly emphasise the significance of the work performed by regional and district courts in recognising incidents of genocide against civilians during the Great Patriotic War.

We continue to collect evidence of the atrocities and crimes committed by the Nazis, and every piece of evidence must be given legal and judicial assessment."
Vladimir Putin, in an address to the 10^th National Congress of Judges, 29 November 2022

"Mikhail Podolyak...said the following about the Ukrainian counteroffensive: “There is only one plan: the most brutal advance, killing as many Russians as possible on this route...Russia will not leave such plans and calls unpunished, as it has been pointed out many times, including by President Vladimir Putin at the SPIEF. The Nazi criminals will be called to account and punished for their crimes...

On June 19, 2023, a conference on the crimes committed by Ukrainian troops in Artyomovsk was held in Donetsk. The evidence of their atrocities included witness testimony by local residents. The Ukrainian thugs massacred the Russian prisoners and wounded soldiers, killed civilians and blew up buildings with people in them during their retreat.

This evidence of the Ukrainian forces’ crimes will be forwarded to the UN and other international organisations. Witness testimony will be used in a series of criminal cases. Human Rights Commissioner of the Donetsk People’s Republic Darya Morozova has said that the assessment of the crimes committed by Ukrainian troops must not be limited to the ongoing work within the framework of Russia’s national legislation. The Kiev regime is flagrantly violating international humanitarian law.

War crimes have no statute of limitations. A tribunal for Ukraine will be held sooner or later, and the thugs and functionaries of the Kiev regime will be called to account.

Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova 21 June 2023

"European leaders are emboldening the Ukrainian government and encouraging neo-Nazi acts...I operate on the premise that Europe is part of the processes that seek to revive neo-Nazism. It’s hard to draw other conclusions."
Sergey Lavrov 26 November 2022

"It is very clear what the West thinks about the current situation. Ukraine is used as an expendable product. The stake of the West is not to allow a single event to cast doubt on its claims to dominate the world order. It is as simple as that. And everything in the minds of some people is limited to the resumption of talks between Russia and Ukraine.

First, we did have such talks in March 2022. The Ukrainians backtracked because the Americans told them that it was not the right time: “keep fighting.”

Second, it is not going to resolve the situation because it is not about the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. It’s about the Western geopolitical struggle for dominance and for the prevention of the creation of a multipolar, polycentric world order.

We have many interesting events and developments ahead of us. Keep watching."
Sergey Lavrov 14 April 2023



"Our Western “colleagues” are fiercely fighting to preserve their domination in world affairs (in the financial, economic, political and security areas). This is exactly what triggered the current situation in relations between the Russian Federation on the one hand and NATO and the EU on the other, as regards the processes in Ukraine....

...Such problems must be resolved not on a momentary basis but on the foundation of long-term agreements that would primarily be multilateral and would consider the security of all states without exception. This is the principle of indivisibility of security where not just one country enhances its security at the expense of the security of other states and will not try to dominate anyone in this area.

This was the essence of the political commitments that the West together with our country, Ukraine and other post-Soviet states solemnly assumed in the OSCE in the early 2000s. But the West has not made a single attempt to fulfil them."
Sergey Lavrov 17 April 2023



"it is also obvious that the crises in Ukraine and other parts of the world cannot be settled without settling the main geopolitical issue, which is the desire of the West to maintain its hegemony and to dictate its will to all and sundry.

It you read China’s 12-point peace plan carefully, you will see that Ukraine is only mentioned once, in the headline.

The rest of the text has to do with ensuring indivisible security and pledging not to pursue one’s own security at the expense of others’ security and not to adopt illegitimate unilateral sanctions.

These issues cannot be settled with Vladimir Zelensky, who is a Western puppet, but only directly with his handlers.

We have long been ready for this dialogue. We submitted our proposals in 2009, and the last time we sent them to the Americans and to the NATO Headquarters in December 2021.

The West arrogantly rejected our proposals. But we will eventually have to discuss this issue, seek solutions to all these problems and return to the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, first of all the principle of sovereign equality of states. This discussion will be held sooner or later. We are ready for this. We are patient people."
Sergey Lavrov 5 May 2023

"The thing is that for twenty years, both you, the British, and the Americans, and all other NATO countries were urged to do what all of you subscribed to in 1999: no country shall strengthen its security at the expense of the security of others. Why can’t you do that? Why is it that the commitments signed by your prime minister, the presidents and prime ministers of all other OSCE countries proved to be lies?...You moved closer to our borders on five occasions (a defensive alliance!). The Warsaw Treaty and the USSR are no more. Who are you defending yourselves against? Five times you decided all on your own where your lines of defence would be. What’s that? This smacks of megalomania."
Sergey Lavrov 6 June 2022


"We are seeking a comprehensive, sustainable and just settlement of this conflict through peaceful means.

We are open to a dialogue on Ukraine, but such negotiations must take into account the interests of all countries involved in the conflict, including Russia's.

They must also involve a substantive discussion on global stability and security guarantees for Russia's opponents and, naturally, for Russia itself.

Needless to say, these must be reliable guarantees.

That is where the main problem is, since we are dealing with states whose ruling circles seek to substitute the world order based on international law with an ”order based on certain rules,“ which they keep talking about but which no one has ever seen, no one has agreed to, and which, apparently, tend to change depending on the current political situation and interests of those who invent these rules."
Vladimir Putin 15 May 2024

"Back in 2008, Russia put forth an initiative to conclude a European Security Treaty under which not a single Euro-Atlantic state or international organisation could strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others. However, our proposal was rejected right off the bat on the pretext that Russia should not be allowed to put limits on NATO activities."
President Putin, February 21, 2022

"We can see that we are dealing with proactive and talented people, but within the elite, there are also many people who have excessive faith in their exceptionalism and supremacy over the rest of the world.

Of course, it is their right to think what they want. But can they count? Probably they can.

So let them calculate the range and speed of our future arms systems. This is all we are asking: just do the maths first and take decisions that create additional serious threats to our country afterwards. It goes without saying that these decisions will prompt Russia to respond in order to ensure its security in a reliable and unconditional manner.

I have already said this, and I will repeat that we are ready to engage in disarmament talks, but we will not knock on a locked door anymore.

We will wait until our partners are ready and become aware of the need for dialogue on this matter."
Vladimir Putin, February 20, 2019


"There are some mutual grievances and differences in approaches to resolving issues but that is no excuse for starting a confrontation like the Cuban Missile Crisis that occurred in the 1960s...If someone wants it, let them have it. I said today what would happen."
Vladimir Putin, February 20, 2019 at a media briefing

"Let me assure you, dear friends, that we are objectively assessing our potentialities: our intellectual, territorial, economic and military potential.
I am referring to our current options, our overall potential.

Consolidating this country and looking at what is happening in the world, in other countries I would like to tell those who are still waiting for Russia’s strength to gradually wane, the only thing we are worried about is catching a cold at your funeral."
Vladimir Putin 22 October 2020