Russia says talks on US peace plan for Ukraine 'are proceeding constructively'

MOSCOW — Russia said Tuesday that discussions surrounding a U.S.-backed peace proposal for Ukraine are moving forward in what it described as a “constructive” manner, offering a cautiously optimistic assessment amid a conflict that has entered its fourth year with no comprehensive settlement in sight.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said contacts involving American representatives, Russian officials, and intermediaries are ongoing, though he stressed that the process remains complex and far from complete. His remarks reflected a measured tone, signaling openness to dialogue while avoiding any suggestion that a breakthrough is imminent.

The U.S. peace framework, details of which have not been made public in full, is understood to focus on a phased cessation of hostilities, security guarantees, and discussions over disputed territory. American officials have characterized the effort as exploratory, aimed at testing whether limited common ground exists rather than forcing an immediate comprehensive agreement.

Russian officials have emphasized that any settlement would need to address what Moscow calls the “root causes” of the conflict, including NATO expansion and Ukraine’s future security orientation. Ukraine and its Western allies have consistently rejected those arguments, maintaining that Russia’s invasion violated international law and Ukrainian sovereignty.

Still, the Kremlin’s public acknowledgment of “constructive” talks marks a notable shift in tone from earlier statements that dismissed Western peace initiatives as unrealistic or one-sided. Analysts caution, however, that such language does not necessarily signal substantive concessions. Russian officials have frequently used diplomatic phrasing to manage international pressure while maintaining firm positions behind closed doors.

U.S. officials, for their part, have avoided detailed public commentary. The White House has said it remains committed to supporting Ukraine militarily and diplomatically while remaining open to credible pathways toward peace that respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. American diplomats have stressed that any agreement must involve Kyiv directly and cannot be imposed externally.

Ukrainian officials have reacted cautiously to reports of ongoing discussions. President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly stated that Ukraine will not accept any deal that freezes the conflict along current front lines or cedes territory to Russia. Kyiv has argued that past ceasefires without firm enforcement mechanisms have only allowed Moscow to regroup militarily.

The current diplomatic effort comes at a moment of relative military stalemate. While fighting continues along several fronts, neither side has achieved decisive gains in recent months. Western military aid to Ukraine has continued, though at a slower and more contested pace, while Russia has relied on expanded domestic arms production and external partnerships to sustain its campaign.

International observers note that rising war fatigue, economic pressures, and political uncertainty — particularly in the United States and parts of Europe — have increased interest in exploring diplomatic off-ramps. At the same time, deep mistrust between the parties remains a major obstacle.

Russia has insisted that talks cannot be conducted “through megaphone diplomacy,” suggesting that public pressure or deadlines would be counterproductive. Peskov said negotiations of this nature require discretion and patience, adding that expectations should be kept realistic.

Western officials privately acknowledge the difficulty of balancing diplomacy with deterrence. Any talks that appear to legitimize territorial gains achieved through force risk undermining long-standing international norms. Yet the absence of dialogue carries its own risks, including escalation and prolonged instability.

For now, the diplomatic track appears to be running parallel to continued fighting, rather than replacing it. Whether the current discussions evolve into formal negotiations will depend not only on Washington and Moscow, but on Kyiv’s position and the cohesion of Western support.

As past efforts have shown, the language of diplomacy can signal openness without guaranteeing outcomes. Russia’s description of talks as “constructive” may indicate movement, or simply reflect a tactical choice of words. The coming weeks are likely to clarify which interpretation holds.