On August 24, 2025, as Ukraine celebrated its Independence Day, the world’s attention was once again drawn to the intractable conflict at its borders. The day, usually marked by pride and remembrance, was instead punctuated by a high-stakes diplomatic standoff, pointed rhetoric from Moscow, and renewed uncertainty over the prospects for peace.
In a widely watched English-language interview with NBC News, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov categorically rejected U.S.-backed peace proposals for Ukraine. According to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Lavrov’s comments did not deviate from the Kremlin’s long-standing talking points. He reiterated that the so-called “root causes” of the war included NATO’s eastward expansion and what he described as Ukraine’s discrimination against Russian-speaking citizens. Lavrov insisted that Russia’s war aims involved defending ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people, as well as ensuring Ukrainian neutrality.
Lavrov’s remarks were as provocative as they were familiar. He argued that Ukraine could only continue to exist if it “lets go” of those who “decided they belong to Russian culture.” He further claimed that Russian officials had made the Kremlin’s war aims clear to Donald Trump and other American leaders in private meetings, and had been equally transparent in public. “We recognize him as the de facto head [of Ukraine],” Lavrov said of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but he cast doubt on Zelenskyy’s legitimacy to sign legal documents, adding, “we need a very clear understanding by everyone that the signatory has legitimacy.”
ISW analysts noted that these statements were not just for show; they reflected the same uncompromising stance Russia presents in closed-door discussions. Lavrov’s repeated insistence—echoed since the August 15 summit in Alaska—that any end to the war must address these “root causes” was, according to ISW, a clear sign that Moscow’s war aims remain unchanged. The think tank added that Russia’s demands go beyond Ukraine, requiring major negotiations with NATO itself.
The timing of Lavrov’s interview was not lost on observers. Airing on Ukraine’s Independence Day, his comments appeared calculated to challenge both the spirit of the day and the efforts of Western leaders to broker a peace. U.S. President Donald Trump, who had just wrapped up talks with Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, had made facilitating a face-to-face meeting between Zelensky and Putin a central goal of his peace initiative. Trump even announced that arrangements were underway for such a meeting, followed by a trilateral summit involving himself. “After that meeting takes place, we will have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself. Again, this was a very good, early step for a war that has been going on for almost four years,” Trump posted on Truth Social.
Yet, Lavrov’s statements made clear that no such summit was in the offing. “Putin is ready to meet with Zelensky when the agenda is ready for a summit, and this agenda is not ready at all,” Lavrov told NBC’s Meet the Press. He accused Zelenskyy of being the main obstacle to peace, deliberately distorting the Ukrainian leader’s openness to negotiations. ISW pointed out that Zelenskyy had actually expressed willingness to discuss territorial issues in direct talks with Putin, but Lavrov’s portrayal aimed to deflect attention from the Kremlin’s own refusal to compromise or engage with the timeline proposed by Trump.
Lavrov’s interview also saw him flatly deny that Russia had violated any international agreements, including the Budapest Memorandum—a 1994 accord in which Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. pledged to respect Ukraine’s borders in exchange for Kyiv giving up its nuclear arsenal. He dismissed the idea of Western-backed future security guarantees for Ukraine, instead pitching a new security deal that would grant Russia a role as a guarantor. According to ISW, such an arrangement would give Moscow veto power over Western support for Ukraine, undermining the country’s ability to defend itself and weakening future defense agreements.
Meanwhile, on the ground in Kyiv, President Zelenskyy delivered a rousing speech in the city’s central square. “We are building a Ukraine that will have enough strength and power to live in security and peace,” he declared, calling for a “just peace.” Zelenskyy emphasized that “what our future will be is up to us alone,” a pointed reminder that Ukraine’s fate should not be determined by foreign powers. The ceremony was attended by U.S. envoy Keith Kellogg, who was awarded the Ukrainian Order of Merit of the 1st degree, underscoring the close ties between Kyiv and Washington.
As the diplomatic wrangling played out, the war itself showed no signs of abating. In the days leading up to Independence Day, Russia launched some of its most aggressive strikes against Ukraine in weeks. Despite this, Lavrov maintained, “We want peace in Ukraine. President Trump wants peace in Ukraine.” But he accused European leaders of blocking progress, saying, “The reaction to the Anchorage meeting, the gathering in Washington of these European representatives and what they were doing after Washington, indicates that they don't want peace.”
Trump, for his part, had originally set an August 8 deadline for Putin to end the war or face heavy sanctions. But as the situation failed to resolve, he extended the deadline, telling reporters, “But I’ll know in two weeks what I’m going to do.” On August 25, Trump met with Zelensky and European leaders, promising Ukraine that he would join Europe in providing security guarantees to Kyiv. Yet, many in Ukraine and among its allies remain wary that Trump’s approach to peace is increasingly aligned with the Kremlin’s demands—a full peace deal between the two nations, rather than the ceasefire for which Ukraine has called.
International reaction was swift. German finance minister and vice chancellor Lars Klingbeil, visiting Kyiv, insisted, “Putin should have no illusions that Germany's support for Ukraine could crumble. On the contrary: We remain Ukraine's second-largest supporter worldwide and the largest in Europe. Ukraine can continue to rely on Germany.” Finland’s President Alexander Stubb echoed this sentiment, stating that relations between Russia and Europe could only be restored after a just and lasting peace is achieved in Ukraine.
The day was also marked by a prisoner exchange, as Russia and Ukraine swapped 146 prisoners of war from each side after mediation by the United Arab Emirates. The exchange, though a rare moment of progress, did little to offset the grim mood of the day.
As the conflict grinds on, Zelenskyy’s vow to “push Russia to peace” stands in stark contrast to Lavrov’s insistence that Ukraine must accede to Moscow’s sweeping demands. The world watches, as ever, wondering whether peace will be brokered on terms that respect Ukraine’s sovereignty—or if the deadlock will persist, with rhetoric and reality locked in a stalemate as bitter as the war itself.
