The Kremlin said that Russia’s goals in Ukraine have not changed but that they could be achieved by negotiations, Reuters reported on Thursday.
“The direction has not changed, the special military operation continues, it continues in order for us to achieve our goals,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, as quoted by the Russian newspaper Izvestia.
“However, we have repeatedly reiterated that we remain open to negotiations to achieve our objectives,” Peskov added.
Peskov’s remarks were the latest comments from Russian officials stressing that they are open to negotiations, although Ukraine has hardened its stance on peace talks with Russia after Moscow formally annexed the territory it controls in Ukraine.
The US has also made clear that it has no interest in negotiating with Russia over Ukraine, which Peskov recognized. “It takes two sides to have a dialogue. As the West is now taking a very, very hostile stance towards us, it’s unlikely that there will be any such prospect in the near future,” he said.
President Biden said this week that he has “no intention” to meet with Putin and negotiate over Ukraine and The Washington Post reported that US officials have ruled out the idea of pushing Ukraine to talk with Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin was expected to discuss a Turkish proposal for peace talks when he met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Thursday. But another Kremlin official said the issue of Ukraine didn’t come up in the meeting.
Also on Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia had not received serious proposals from anyone in the West for negotiations. “No one [in the West] has approached us with serious proposals. We are not going to run after them,” Lavrov said, according to TASS.
Lavrov said a deal was in reach after in-person talks were held in Istanbul back in March, but said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was told not to accept the agreement. “At the end of March, a result was achieved in Istanbul based on the Ukrainian side’s proposals, which we accepted. Then, apparently, Kyiv was told: ‘It’s too early for you to decide, Mr. Zelensky,'” he said.
According to Ukrainska Pravda, when former British Prime Minister Borish Johnson went to Kyiv back in April, he told Zelensky not to negotiate with Russia and said even if Ukraine was ready to sign a deal, the West was not.
Oh horror! The Russian is willing to — use his words!! What an outrage! and he expects that the US will respond — in kind — with words??
Yes, the Russians are willing to use their words like they did prior to the Invasion when they claimed for months they wouldn’t invade. That kind of words.
Like the words NATO will not expand an inch to the East.
Leaving out the fact that the ones using Ukraine as a sacrificial lamb, the US/NATO, refused talks outright before the invasion and put a halt to negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in April. But you like leaving out facts or making up your own.
I think don picked that up from NPR or some other fine journalistic enterprise…
Oh, so you agree no negotiations?
Well in the months preceding the invasion there were talks going on between Moscow and Washington which stopped abruptly in January of 2022. Perhaps you’re referring to the period when the possibility of negotiations still existed – as opposed to the period when DC stopped returning calls in January and Zelensky’s goons picked up the pace of bombarding the east in early February.
I smell weakness.
On the part of Russia?
I smell sarcasm so I upvoted.
This is exactly the problem right now. As soon as anyone shows any level headedness I.e. let’s have negotiations, everyone starts “analyzing” it as weakness. No, dude, we’re on the brink of nuclear war. The west is only pushing harder for it. Someone has to stay “stop, let talk”. The west thinks it’s a sign of weakness if you say that, not a sign of common sense.
Well, your explanation works if you can also explain the basis for moving NATO to Russia’s doorstep over a 30 year period after the Warsaw pact was dissolved…, all while the Russians were asking for security guarantees in an age when weapons could be placed within minutes of reaching Moscow.
Sorry, I don’t buy your simple explanation for what has happened.
Well, your explanation works if you can also explain the basis for moving NATO to Russia’s doorstep over a 30 year period after the Warsaw pact was dissolved…, all while the Russians were asking for security guarantees in an age when weapons could be placed within minutes of reaching Moscow.
Sorry, I don’t buy your simplistic explanation for what has happened.
I would presume this ends in negotiation, maybe if they ask really nicely they can keep Crimea, I am pretty sure there can be some kind of deal to keep Uk out of NATO.
I think that to end sanctions Russia will have to leave Crimea and to maintain peace it will be necessary that Ukraine is free to apply for NATO membership, but naturally the war can be ended without the sanctions being ended.
I think this because:
1) Ending sanctions without Russia leaving Crimea would effectively reward Putin for starting the war – not a good option for the west if they do not want other nations to start their own SMO’s.
2) Ukraine was already given other security guarantees and these did not prevent Putin from invading, so the only credible security guarantee that can be given is NATO membership – the other NATO members will then have to back-up Ukraine or put themselves at risk.
I could naturally be wrong, but I would love to hear sound arguments why you would think so 🙂
The issue with Crimea is it is the most Russian of Ukraine and contains a naval base so is kind of strategically important. I believe the vote on staying with Russia taken a generation ago was about 50/50. It would suck to win back your territory only to immediately be faced with an insurgency. It may not be worth it to the Ukrainians in the end. Certainly for now the position is all of Ukraine and join NATO but for peace sooner maybe some of that gets negotiated away.
There was a vote to leave the Soviet Union in 1991 (won very handsomely) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_referendum
Then there was a vote in 2014 under Russian control where a lot of Ukrainians had already left Crimea – having seen how they carried out referendums nor in Kherson, Luhansk, Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia, I’m not terribly convinced that the results from 2014 are that trustworthy – but I would suggest that the Ukrainians solve this problem as Zelenskyy suggested with a referendum after about 15 years, because it certainly would not be great to face an insurgency as you point out.
Oh, there are very good reasons to be suspicious of that referendum.
“Kremlin Says Russia’s Goals in Ukraine Can Be Achieved Through Talks”
Retarded will not talk to President Putin!
This is Russia basically saying, we can stop the war now if you let us keep the land we just stole from you plus we have a few more unacceptable demands we expect Ukraine to accept.
And you know this because you sat in on the earlier negotioa…..Oh wait, we refused to negotiate and then stopped Ukraine and Russia from negotiating.
“This is Russia basically saying, we can stop the war now if you let us keep the land we just stole-”
Russia knows those conditions are unacceptable to Ukraine, meaning a ‘forever war.’
Just like Ukraine – in the months before the annexation, when Russia announced that it was planning to annex the east – knew saying it would take back the east and Crimea by military means meant a ‘forever war.’
Just like the neocons in Washington – who likely had a hand in sinking the tentative Russo-Ukrainian peace deal in March – knew annexation would lock in a ‘forever war.’
The neocons are fine with that. They wanted a war. They knew their brinkmanship in Ukraine would eventually lead to war. They got their war. And now they’ve got their forever war – ‘cept it’s escalating on a nuclear precipice, so it might not last forever.
Kosovo comes to mind. Syria comes to mind. Iraq comes to mind. Afghanistan comes to mind. Libya comes to mind. Serbia comes to mind. Nicaragua comes to mind. Chile comes to mind. Laos comes to mind. Cambodia comes to mind. Iran comes to mind. Vietnam comes to mind….
Borish Johnson. lmao
How can you win with this type of language?
I can’t help thinking that it is very likely that a good chunk on these conscripts are gays and here they are listening to this Macho Glory speech.
https://youtu.be/9gCA_lJHvbg
Nice bit of bigotry. This your new take on the war?
That’s from Russian state media, dear. Anti-gay sentiment in Russia shouldn’t be a shocker to you:
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2015/1/21/russias-rising-anti-gay-hysteria
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2015/9/14/russias-lgbt-victimised-by-gay-propaganda-law
https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/12/12/no-support/russias-gay-propaganda-law-imperils-lgbt-youth
https://www.humanrightscentre.org/blog/chechnya-and-anti-gay-purge-year-later
“I can’t help thinking that it is very likely that a good chunk on these
conscripts are gays and here they are listening to this Macho Glory
speech.”
Dear
Up to 10 percent of the population is gay.
Do YOU think any potential gay recruits would be inspired to fight harder for Russia by hearing, “Satanists are fighting us, people who insist that we have to attend LGBT parades, that our children should be some sort of LGBT, that we would have gay pride parades. I believe that the men here are the very men who under no circumstances would want to see their children in gay parades. We are precisely those men who don’t want to see our neighbors, our friends, ourselves as part of their world and their society.”
Borish Johnson. lmao
Not even a typo.
IKR?