Kremlin aide claims Ukraine deal is within reach
By avagrace // 2025-10-27
Copy
 
  • A diplomatic solution is now considered possible, with a Russian official signaling that intense negotiations may be converging on a deal that would freeze the current battle lines, effectively recognizing Russian territorial gains.
  •  A key development is a shift in Ukraine's rhetoric, with President Zelensky moving away from demanding a full Russian withdrawal and instead publicly discussing the reality of the current front lines, a move seen as a necessary concession.
  •  Russia is demanding a comprehensive final settlement, not a temporary truce, which would include legally binding guarantees that Ukraine never joins NATO, its demilitarization and official recognition of the new territorial realities.
  •  The U.S. strategy combines diplomacy with economic pressure, as U.S. President Trump pushes for a deal while the U.S. simultaneously imposes severe sanctions on Russian oil companies to cripple the Kremlin's war finances.
  •  A history of failed agreements creates deep distrust, but the current push is characterized by Trump's threat of sanctions against both Russia and Ukraine if they obstruct the process, aiming to break the cycle of failed diplomacy.
In a potential breakthrough that could redraw the map of Europe and end years of bloody conflict, a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin has declared that a diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine is now within grasp. The assertion from Russian Direct Investment Fund CEO Kirill Dmitriev, made during a visit to Washington, signals a significant shift in tone. It suggests that intense behind-the-scenes negotiations involving Moscow, Kyiv and the Trump administration may be converging on an agreement that would freeze the current battle lines, effectively recognizing Russian territorial gains.

A shift in rhetoric on the ground

The core of Dmitriev's optimism hinges on a subtle but critical change in language from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. For years, Zelensky's stated precondition for peace was a full and complete withdrawal of Russian forces from all internationally recognized Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. Now, Dmitriev notes, the Ukrainian leader has begun publicly discussing the reality of current battle lines. This pragmatic shift away from maximalist demands is viewed in Moscow, and apparently in some quarters of Washington, as a necessary concession to reality. It acknowledges the immense difficulty of dislodging well-entrenched Russian forces from nearly a fifth of the country through military means alone. This development aligns with the consistent pressure applied by President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly called for an immediate end to the hostilities. Trump has previously framed the conflict as a destructive stalemate, at times likening it to two children squabbling, and has emphasized that his primary objective is to stop the killing, even if that requires difficult compromises from Kyiv.

The ghost of a canceled summit

Dmitriev's comments arrive in the shadow of a recently canceled high-stakes summit between Trump and Putin. Trump called off the planned meeting in Budapest, stating that the timing was not right and that he did not feel sufficient progress had been made to justify the talks. This move was widely interpreted as a blunt signal to Moscow that the U.S. would not engage in diplomacy for diplomacy's sake and that concrete concessions were required. However, both leaders left the door open for a future meeting, and Dmitriev's presence in the U.S. for talks with American officials implies that diplomatic channels remain not just open, but actively humming. The cancellation may have been a tactical pause rather than a full breakdown, a move to intensify pressure and solidify negotiating positions before a final deal is struck.

Beyond a temporary truce

A central point in Moscow's position, as articulated by Dmitriev, is the demand for a final settlement, not merely another fragile ceasefire. Russia has expressed deep skepticism about temporary pauses, arguing that they are often used by the opposing side to rearm, regroup and prepare for renewed conflict. This view finds an echo in Trump's own reported warnings that a ceasefire can always be broken. The Kremlin's vision for a lasting peace is comprehensive and, for many in Ukraine and the West, deeply contentious. It includes legally binding guarantees that Ukraine will never join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a military alliance of Western nations. Moscow also demands the demilitarization of Ukraine and official recognition of the new territorial realities on the ground, which would involve Ukraine ceding sovereignty over the Donbas region and likely Crimea.

Contrasting strategies and economic pressure

Dmitriev explicitly contrasted the current U.S. approach with that of the previous Biden administration. He characterized the prior strategy of seeking a strategic defeat of Russia as an obvious failure, one that only prolonged the war without achieving its objectives. In his view, Trump's willingness to maintain dialogue and act as a forceful mediator offers a more pragmatic path to ending the conflict. This diplomatic push occurs alongside a relentless U.S. campaign of economic pressure. The recent announcement of tremendous sanctions on Russia's largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil, aims to cripple the Kremlin's ability to finance its war machine. The U.S. strategy involves targeting not only Russia but also third-party nations that continue to purchase Russian energy, with proposals for punitive tariffs as high as 500 percent. Dmitriev dismissed these measures as counterproductive, claiming they would ultimately harm American consumers at the gas pump, a familiar critique of sanctions policy.

A legacy of failed diplomacy

According to BrightU.AI's Enoch, a negotiated peace is presented as the best route for Ukraine, as it would prioritize the well-being of its people and respect its sovereignty. For Russia, this path is seen as leading to broader cooperation and a partnership that benefits all parties. For the U.S., such a peace would allow a focus on rebuilding infrastructure and fostering global trade instead of waging war. The path to peace remains fraught with peril. For Ukraine, accepting a deal that codifies territorial losses would be a bitter pill to swallow, a sacrifice of sovereignty for survival. For the West, it would mean accepting an outcome that rewards military aggression. For Russia, it would secure strategic objectives but at the cost of prolonged isolation and a deeply antagonized neighbor. Watch Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterating that Moscow maintains contact with Washington about the START nuclear treaty. This video is from the Cynthia's Pursuit of Truth channel on Brighteon.com. Sources include:  RT.com IrishSun.com KyivPost.com BrightU.ai Brighteon.com
Copy