On December 18, 2025, the Kremlin made its stance on the Ukraine conflict unmistakably clear, dashing hopes for quick progress toward peace. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, addressing reporters during a routine press briefing, reiterated Russia's unwavering position: any potential peace negotiations regarding Ukraine would only be considered within a formal negotiation framework, and not as a matter for public discussion.
Peskov’s words were measured but firm. "The issues related to the peace process, if any, can only be considered within the framework of appropriate negotiations and are not a subject for public exchange before the media," he stated, according to Pháp luật & Xã hội. This consistent messaging, Russian officials insist, is not just a matter of protocol but a reflection of Moscow’s strategic caution when it comes to matters of national security and the ongoing war in Ukraine.
At the heart of Russia’s position is a deep-seated opposition to the presence of any foreign military forces on Ukrainian soil. The Kremlin has repeatedly cast such a presence—whether in the form of Western troops, military advisors, or a multinational force—as a direct threat to Russia’s national security and a factor that would only serve to escalate regional tensions. Peskov underscored that this point has been made clear not just by himself, but by President Vladimir Putin and other senior Russian officials on numerous occasions.
"Russia maintains a consistent and cautious approach in handling strategic and core security issues related to the Ukraine conflict," Peskov emphasized. The message is as much for Western ears as for domestic audiences: any Western military deployment in Ukraine, regardless of its stated purpose or international backing, is seen in Moscow as an unacceptable provocation.
This latest restatement of Russia’s red lines comes at a time when the European Union and the United States are actively discussing long-term security guarantees for Ukraine. According to Pháp luật & Xã hội, recent EU statements have floated the possibility of a European-led multinational force, supported by the U.S., that would help rebuild Ukraine’s armed forces, safeguard its airspace and maritime security, and even operate within Ukrainian territory if needed. The aim, from the EU’s perspective, is to provide Ukraine with the security assurances it needs to deter further aggression and rebuild after the conflict.
But for Moscow, such proposals cross a line. The Kremlin views these plans as a fundamental threat, with Peskov and other officials warning that they would breach Russia’s "red lines" on national security. The presence of Western forces in Ukraine, they argue, risks transforming the current conflict into a much broader confrontation—one that could pit Russia directly against NATO. The specter of such an escalation is not lost on observers in either Moscow or Western capitals, and it underscores the high stakes involved in any discussion about Ukraine’s future security architecture.
Russia’s position is not merely a negotiating tactic, analysts say, but reflects a long-standing concern about NATO’s eastward expansion and the perceived encroachment of Western influence into what Moscow considers its sphere of interest. The Kremlin’s messaging has consistently framed the Ukraine conflict not as a simple bilateral dispute, but as the outgrowth of a broader geopolitical struggle between Russia and the West. As Pháp luật & Xã hội notes, this viewpoint sees the war in Ukraine as a consequence of NATO’s persistent push towards Russia’s borders—a narrative that has been echoed in Russian official statements for years.
Despite the hard line, Peskov was careful to leave the door to negotiations slightly ajar. His refusal to comment on the specifics of any potential peace deal was paired with an insistence that Russia’s rejection of public peace talks does not mean Moscow is closing the door on negotiations altogether. Instead, it signals a desire to tightly control the messaging and conditions around any talks, especially as diplomatic tensions remain high and Western proposals for deeper involvement in Ukraine become more pronounced.
"The Kremlin’s refusal to discuss peace publicly does not mean that Russia has completely shut the door on negotiations," Peskov said, as reported by Pháp luật & Xã hội. "Rather, it shows Moscow wants to keep a tight grip on the narrative and the terms of any future talks, particularly as Western proposals become more interventionist." This approach, observers suggest, is designed to minimize diplomatic risks and maintain leverage in any potential negotiations down the line.
For the European Union and the United States, Russia’s intransigence presents a major challenge. EU leaders have emphasized the need for robust security guarantees for Ukraine—not only to deter renewed Russian aggression, but also to reassure Kyiv and its allies that the West remains committed to Ukraine’s sovereignty and security. The idea of a multinational force, while controversial, reflects a growing consensus in some Western capitals that more tangible, long-term commitments may be needed to stabilize Ukraine after the war.
Yet, the Kremlin’s response has been to double down on its warnings. Russian officials have repeatedly cautioned that any direct Western military presence in Ukraine could rapidly escalate the conflict into a wider confrontation. "Any direct military presence of the West in Ukraine risks turning the current conflict into a broader confrontation between Russia and NATO," Russian officials have warned, as summarized by Pháp luật & Xã hội. This rhetoric, while not new, has taken on added urgency as Western governments debate their next steps.
Meanwhile, the prospects for a comprehensive peace framework for Ukraine remain distant. Observers cited by Pháp luật & Xã hội note that Russia’s stance—insisting on negotiation terms that do not alter the strategic security balance to Moscow’s disadvantage—makes a near-term resolution unlikely. The ongoing diplomatic tug-of-war reflects deeper strategic and geopolitical calculations, with each side wary of making concessions that could be perceived as weakening their position in the long run.
As the war drags on, the diplomatic impasse highlights the complexity of the Ukraine conflict. The Kremlin’s insistence on controlling the terms and venue of any talks, combined with its categorical rejection of Western military involvement in Ukraine, leaves little room for compromise. At the same time, the EU and the U.S. face mounting pressure to demonstrate their commitment to Ukraine’s security, even as they try to avoid direct confrontation with Russia.
For now, the path to peace remains littered with obstacles. Russia’s latest statements serve as a reminder that, despite diplomatic overtures and security proposals from the West, the deep-seated mistrust and competing interests at play will not be easily bridged. The war in Ukraine, it seems, will remain a central flashpoint in the broader struggle between Russia and the West for some time to come.
