Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a stark warning to the international community, declaring that any foreign troops deployed to Ukraine before a comprehensive peace agreement is reached would be considered "legitimate targets" by Moscow’s forces. This pronouncement, delivered on September 5 and reiterated on September 8, 2025, comes amid renewed diplomatic efforts and as Western leaders debate the prospect of sending peacekeeping forces to Ukraine to guarantee its security after hostilities subside.
Putin’s comments, reported by both the Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal, follow a high-profile meeting in Paris where European and U.S. officials discussed possible security guarantees for Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron announced that 26 countries had committed to deploying troops or maintaining a presence on land, sea, or air to help safeguard Ukraine the day after any ceasefire or peace deal. However, Putin’s response was uncompromising: “We’ll proceed from the assumption that these are legitimate targets for strikes,” he stated, setting a clear Kremlin red line.
The Russian leader’s remarks have sent ripples through the corridors of power across Europe and the United States. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, for his part, has insisted that international security guarantees must "start working now, during the war, and not only after it ends." Zelenskyy’s position underscores Kyiv’s deep mistrust of Moscow’s intentions and its fear that without robust, immediate external support, Russia could simply regroup and attack again once fighting pauses.
Diplomatic efforts have been further complicated by the collapse of Istanbul-led peace talks and the failure of recent U.S.-brokered negotiations. Former U.S. President Donald Trump, who has played an active role in trying to broker a settlement, reportedly urged European nations to halt purchases of Russian oil, warning that continued energy imports only serve to finance the Kremlin’s war effort. Trump’s attempts to set deadlines for progress on a peace deal have repeatedly passed without result, and his efforts have been criticized by both Russian and Ukrainian officials as ineffectual.
Putin’s skepticism about high-level talks was evident when he cast doubt on the possibility of meaningful negotiations with Ukraine. “It will be practically impossible to reach an agreement with the Ukrainian side on key issues,” he said, citing deep divisions and legal complications. Even as Western leaders have called for a summit between Putin and Zelenskyy, the two sides remain far apart. Putin offered Moscow as the venue for any potential meeting, promising “a 100% guarantee” of security for the Ukrainian delegation. Zelenskyy, however, dismissed the idea, remarking, “If you want a meeting not to happen, then you invite me to Moscow.” Kyiv has highlighted repeated Russian attempts to assassinate Zelenskyy and accused Putin of using diplomatic overtures simply to buy time.
These diplomatic tensions are playing out against a backdrop of continued violence. Russia’s full-scale invasion, which began in February 2022, has seen repeated attacks on Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure. On June 3, 2025, Russian rocket strikes killed at least four civilians and injured 25 more in Sumy, targeting homes and a medical facility. Ukraine has also reported attacks on the Kerch Bridge—a vital logistics link for Russian forces and, as the BBC described, “a hated symbol for Ukrainians…used by Russia to supply its military in occupied parts of Ukraine.”
Putin’s recent trip to China, where he attended a military parade and met with the leaders of China and India, has further complicated the geopolitical landscape. Former President Trump commented on social media, “Looks like we’ve lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest, China. May they have a long and prosperous future together!” The summit was widely seen as a show of alignment among the West’s chief adversaries, raising concerns in Washington and European capitals about the durability of any peace arrangement that does not include buy-in from these major powers.
On the question of Ukraine’s long-term orientation, Putin has repeatedly drawn a distinction between Ukraine’s aspirations to join the European Union, which he claims Russia does not oppose, and its ambitions to join NATO, which Moscow perceives as a direct threat. “The security of one country cannot be arranged at the expense of the security of another,” Putin said, emphasizing that a Western military buildup in Ukraine is unacceptable to Russia. This position has been a sticking point in negotiations, with Kyiv arguing that without firm postwar security guarantees from the West, Russia would simply attack again at a time of its choosing.
Putin has also questioned Zelenskyy’s legitimacy, pointing to the lack of elections in Ukraine due to martial law. He has characterized Zelenskyy as a Western puppet and argued that it is “practically impossible” to reach a settlement with the current Ukrainian government. Despite these accusations, Kyiv has maintained that it has agreed to U.S. ceasefire proposals and has done everything possible to facilitate talks on peace.
Senior Zelenskyy adviser Mykhailo Podolyak was blunt in his assessment of recent diplomatic efforts, posting on X (formerly Twitter): “Putin used the Alaska negotiations solely to buy time and later humiliated President Trump. All steps by the American administration toward establishing peace were rejected.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has also played down the likelihood of a bilateral summit, suggesting that Moscow is only willing to raise the level of its diplomatic representation at talks, not engage in leader-to-leader negotiations.
For now, the future of peace in Ukraine remains deeply uncertain. The willingness of dozens of nations to consider long-term security guarantees represents a crucial step toward preventing renewed violence, but Putin’s threats and the lack of trust between the parties make the path forward perilous. International peacekeeping and security guarantees are designed to protect civilians and stabilize conflict zones, but threats of violence—especially from a nuclear-armed power—undermine their credibility and effectiveness.
As the war grinds on and diplomatic initiatives falter, the fate of Ukraine will depend on whether constructive international engagement can outweigh threats of escalation, and whether leaders are prepared to prioritize security through cooperation rather than coercion. The stakes could hardly be higher—not just for Ukraine, but for the entire architecture of European security.