Worlds apart New comments by Russia’s foreign minister confirm that Moscow has not made the concessions in Ukraine talks claimed by the Trump administration
On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov addressed the media at a press conference in Moscow, revealing enormous discrepancies between the Kremlin’s position on the war in Ukraine and the White House’s characterizations of U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict. The risk of miscommunication between Washington and Moscow became clear immediately after Monday’s conference. Presidential aide Yuri Ushakov said Trump and Putin had merely “discussed the idea that it would be worthwhile to explore the possibility of raising the level of representatives from the Ukrainian and Russian sides” — a stark contrast to White House claims that Russia’s president had agreed to a direct meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart. Sergey Lavrov’s August 20 comments confirm that Moscow has made no such pledge. Meduza examines the differences between Lavrov’s statements and earlier public comments by leaders in the United States and Ukraine.
A bilateral Putin–Zelensky summit
What Western officials have said
U.S. President Donald Trump, August 18
I called President Putin and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelensky. After that meeting takes place, we will have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, August 18
No. No. We don’t have any date. We just confirmed after this productive meeting... that we are ready for a trilateral meeting.
What Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on August 20:
During the [August 18] telephone conversation with President Trump, President Putin put forward the idea not merely of continuing these talks [between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul], but of considering the possibility of raising the level of the heads of delegation. This fits with our proposal that, within this process, a separate track be devoted to political aspects of a settlement — alongside the military and humanitarian issues.
It is clear that the Ukrainian reaction is not for us to decide. However, since this idea was positively received by President Trump, we expect him to explain it to the Kyiv representatives, and we will await a response. This would be a crucial step toward elevating the level of negotiations, enhancing their specificity, and moving closer to resolving the key issues that must be addressed for a stable settlement.
We are open to any format, but when it comes to meetings at the highest level, we believe they must be prepared with the utmost care at every stage. Otherwise, summits risk worsening the situation instead of truly concluding the negotiations that we remain ready to continue.
Postwar security guarantees for Ukraine
What Western officials have said
Donald Trump, August 18
Guarantees would be provided by the various European Countries, with a coordination with the United States of America. Everyone is very happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine.
— August 18
They’ll all be involved, and there will be significant support when it comes to security. It will be strong and effective. They are the first line of defense, since they are in Europe, but we will also be there to help. We will be involved.
— August 19
Some form of security, it can’t be NATO, that is not something that would ever happen. […] When it comes to security, [the Europeans] are willing to put people on the ground. We’re willing to help them with things, especially you could probably talk about by air, because nobody has the kind of stuff we have. […] We have European nations that will front-load it, and France and Germany... the U.K., they want boots on the ground. Putin is tired of it; they are all tired of it.
U.S. presidential envoy Steve Witkoff, August 17
We were able to win the following concession: that the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in NATO.
Volodymyr Zelensky, August 19
This was truly a significant step toward ending the war and ensuring the security of Ukraine and our people. We are already working on the concrete content of the security guarantees. Today, we continue coordination at the level of leaders. There will be discussions, and we are preparing the relevant formats. We will also continue working tomorrow. National security advisors are also in constant contact now. There will be security guarantees.
What Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on August 20:
Regarding reports that Britain, France, and Germany intend to develop collective security guarantees, we support the idea of such guarantees, provided they are truly reliable.
We have a good precedent, one that came directly from Ukraine. This was in Istanbul, in April 2022, when the Ukrainian negotiating team proposed the main principles for agreements to end hostilities and secure a stable settlement. Among these principles was Ukraine’s renunciation of NATO membership or any other military alliances, as well as confirmation of its neutral and non-nuclear status. In this context, the Ukrainian delegation proposed — and our side agreed — to develop security guarantees with the participation of all the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: the Russian Federation, the People’s Republic of China, the United States, France, and Britain, plus several other states (Germany and Turkey were mentioned, among others) that might wish to join this group of guarantors. […]
We cannot accept that matters of collective security are now being proposed without Russia’s participation. That will not work. We have repeatedly explained that Russia does not exaggerate its interests, but we will defend our legitimate interests firmly and uncompromisingly.
I am certain that in the West — and above all in the United States — there is a clear understanding that any serious discussion of security without Russian participation is a utopia, a road to nowhere.
Lavrov’s “good precedent” remark refers to the so-called Istanbul Communiqué, drafted after a series of meetings held in Belarus and Turkey during the early stages of the war, which outlined a preliminary framework for a peace settlement. Ukrainian and Russian negotiators even began working on the text of a treaty, but the talks broke off in May 2022. The Kremlin has long blamed then–British Prime Minister Boris Johnson for pressuring Kyiv to “fight Russia until victory is achieved and Russia suffers a strategic defeat.”
In April 2024, Meduza interviewed scholars Samuel Charap and Sergey Radchenko about their Foreign Affairs article on this subject, The Talks That Could Have Ended the War in Ukraine: A Hidden History of Diplomacy That Came Up Short — but Holds Lessons for Future Negotiations.
During those early talks, Russia’s position on security guarantees for Ukraine was that any decision by guarantor states to come to Kyiv’s aid in the event of an attack would occur only “on the basis of a decision agreed to by all guarantor states” — effectively granting Moscow, the likely aggressor, a veto, as Charap and Radchenko noted. On August 20, 2025, Lavrov confirmed that Moscow’s stance on the issue remains unchanged.