Putin Refuses Compromise in Moscow Talks as Ukraine War Grinds On
Five hours behind closed doors in Moscow were meant to open a path toward ending the war in Ukraine. Instead, they underlined how far apart the sides remain.
In a rare in-person meeting, a U.S. delegation presented a fresh peace plan to Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin later said some ideas were “acceptable”, but no compromise emerged. Russian forces have recently claimed new gains on the battlefield, and Putin now projects confidence that time and firepower are on his side.
While the Kremlin talks up its openness to further dialogue, Ukraine and key European governments say Moscow is using diplomacy as theatre, not as a route to a just deal. NATO, meeting in Brussels at the same time, warned that the risks to European security are growing even as peace talks stall.
This article explains what happened in the latest Moscow talks, how they fit into the wider course of the war, and why they matter for Ukraine, Russia, Europe and the global order. It also looks at what realistic scenarios still exist for ending the conflict — and why none of them will be easy.
Key Points
A U.S. delegation met Vladimir Putin in Moscow for five hours to discuss a revised peace plan for the Ukraine war, but no overall compromise was reached.
The Kremlin says Putin accepted some U.S. proposals and is ready to keep talking, yet he refuses key concessions and remains confident of military success.
Ukraine and several European leaders accuse Moscow of feigning interest in peace while continuing large-scale attacks and seeking more territorial gains.
The U.S. plan, once a 28-point document and now split into several texts, is controversial because it appears to leave major territorial questions unresolved.
NATO has pledged to “do what it takes” to protect Europe and is backing new long-term financial and military support packages for Ukraine.
Russia’s recent battlefield advances, including in eastern Ukraine and after Ukraine’s retreat from the Kursk incursion, have shifted the leverage in Moscow’s favour.
The most likely near-term outcome is a prolonged stalemate: continued fighting, limited talks and rising pressure on both sides rather than a rapid peace deal.
Background
The war in Ukraine began with Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. Early attempts at peace, including talks in Belarus and Istanbul that spring, quickly stalled as evidence of atrocities emerged and both sides hardened their positions. Ukraine demanded full withdrawal of Russian troops and security guarantees; Russia pushed for recognition of its control over Crimea and parts of the Donbas.
By 2024 and 2025, the conflict had evolved into a grinding, attritional war. Ukraine launched several bold operations, including a cross-border incursion into Russia’s Kursk region in 2024 designed to stretch Russian lines and create bargaining chips for future negotiations. Russian forces eventually pushed Ukrainian troops back, and by March 2025 Kyiv had largely withdrawn from its foothold in Kursk. Analysts noted that this removed one of Ukraine’s few clear levers for “land-for-land” trades in any cease-fire deal.
Alongside the fighting, diplomacy never stopped. A U.S.-backed cease-fire proposal for a 30-day truce in early 2025 was accepted by Ukraine but left hanging while Moscow “studied” it. Russia continued to test the waters, responding to proposals with vague statements about ongoing review rather than clear “yes” or “no” answers.
In recent weeks, leaks revealed that Washington had drawn up a detailed 28-point peace plan, later broken into four documents covering territory, security guarantees, reconstruction and sanctions relief. After criticism that the draft favoured Moscow and excluded key partners, U.S. officials quietly revised the framework and began shuttle diplomacy, including talks in Geneva, before the latest round in Moscow.
At the same time, Russia claimed advances in eastern Ukraine, including the capture of the town of Pokrovsk in the Donetsk region. Russian officials argue that these gains prove their strategy is working and that any deal should now reflect the “new realities” on the ground. Ukraine rejects that logic, insisting it will not formally cede any of its internationally recognised territory.
Analysis
Political and Geopolitical Dimensions
The Moscow talks highlight a deep rift not only between Russia and Ukraine, but also within the wider Western camp.
For Moscow, the meeting allowed Putin to cast himself as a reasonable partner who is prepared to listen to U.S. ideas while refusing to “betray” Russia’s aims. Kremlin spokesmen say some American proposals are “more or less acceptable”, but they frame the process as a normal search for compromise in which Russia will not abandon its core demands. Those demands include Ukrainian withdrawal from key areas of Donetsk and recognition, in some form, of Russian control over territories it claims to have annexed.
For Ukraine and many European governments, the optics look very different. European leaders, who were not invited to Moscow, have voiced frustration at being sidelined and warn that any deal struck above their heads would be unsustainable. Several officials say Putin is simply playing for time, seeking to fracture Western unity and secure de facto recognition of his territorial gains.
NATO’s parallel meeting in Brussels underscored this concern. The alliance’s chief warned that Russia’s rhetoric and behaviour pose “real and lasting dangers” to European security. NATO states reiterated support for Ukraine’s right to self-defense and discussed new steps to deter further Russian aggression, including more military aid and a stronger posture along the alliance’s eastern flank.
Russia has responded with its own messaging. Putin has issued stark warnings that if European states “want a war”, Russia is ready. Combined with large-scale missile and drone attacks, this language is designed to signal resolve and to dissuade NATO members from deeper involvement, even as they continue to arm Ukraine.
Economic and Strategic Calculus
Behind the diplomatic statements lies a hard economic and strategic reality for all sides.
Russia is under heavy sanctions and faces structural weaknesses, but it has also adapted in important ways. Energy exports have been redirected, often at a discount, to Asian markets. The defence sector has been put on a war footing, with more of the economy oriented toward military production. In the short term, the Kremlin calculates that it can sustain a long war, especially if global energy prices stay high and Western political will wavers.
Ukraine, by contrast, depends on continuous Western military and financial support to keep fighting and to keep the state functioning. Its budget is stretched, infrastructure is damaged, and millions of citizens have been displaced. Long-term reconstruction will cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
The European Union is now debating a plan to use profits from frozen Russian state assets to fund an estimated multi-year support package for Ukraine. Supporters argue this would lock in long-term backing and show that aggression carries a financial price. Critics worry about legal risks, market reactions and potential retaliation from Moscow. Some member states, which hold a large share of the frozen assets, have raised particular concerns, forcing Brussels to consider alternative funding structures such as EU-wide borrowing.
In this environment, every move at the negotiating table has an economic shadow. A perceived softening of Western support could encourage Russia to hold out for better terms; a credible promise of long-term aid could stiffen Ukraine’s resolve and raise the cost to Moscow of continuing the war.
Military Reality and Security Implications
The Moscow talks did not take place in a vacuum. They were followed almost immediately by another wave of Russian air and drone strikes across Ukraine, including attacks that damaged housing blocks and critical infrastructure and reportedly involved more than a hundred drones in a single night. Civilians were killed and injured in regions far from the front line.
On the ground, Russian forces are pressing their advantage in parts of eastern Ukraine. The capture of towns like Pokrovsk adds to the sense in Moscow that momentum has shifted. In the longer term, the outcome of Ukraine’s failed foothold in Kursk — launched in 2024 and rolled back by early 2025 — has also shaped perceptions. Ukraine showed it could strike inside Russia, but it could not hold the territory, and by late 2025 Russian troops had retaken most of the lost ground.
For NATO, the security implications are clear. If Russia can secure major gains in Ukraine, the alliance fears it may be emboldened elsewhere, especially in neighbouring states or in the information and cyber domains. This is why NATO leaders insist that support for Kyiv is not charity but a strategic investment in European stability.
At the same time, there is an ever-present risk of escalation. Miscalculation, accidents or deliberate testing of red lines — for example, near NATO borders or in the Black Sea — could turn a regional war into a broader crisis.
Possible Paths From Here
Looking ahead, three broad paths stand out — none of them simple, and none guaranteed.
One is a prolonged stalemate. In this scenario, fighting continues at roughly current intensity. Russia keeps grinding forward in some sectors; Ukraine stabilises the front elsewhere. Diplomacy continues in the background, but without breakthrough. Both sides wait for shifts in battlefield conditions, domestic politics or Western support that might strengthen their hand.
A second possibility is a limited or phased deal. This would not resolve every territorial issue but could start with a formalised cease-fire, demilitarised zones, or time-bound arrangements on certain regions. It might be linked to security guarantees for Ukraine, gradual sanctions relief for Russia, or international oversight of reconstruction funds. For now, however, both Moscow and Kyiv publicly reject concessions that would be necessary to make such a deal stick.
The third path is renewed escalation. Russia could intensify its offensive, believing that recent gains and Western fatigue create a window of opportunity. Ukraine, fearing a worse outcome later, could respond with more strikes on Russian territory or critical infrastructure. In such a climate, missteps could turn a controlled escalation into something far more dangerous.
The latest Moscow talks show that all three paths are still open — but that the easiest, politically, is to drift along the first one.
Why This Matters
The outcome of these negotiations will shape not only Ukraine’s future map but also the broader rules of the international system.
For Ukrainians, the stakes are existential. The question is whether the country emerges as a sovereign state with secure borders, or as a shattered neighbour living next door to a victorious and emboldened Russia. Every delay in reaching a settlement comes with a human cost in lives lost and homes destroyed.
For Russia, the war has become central to domestic politics and identity. The Kremlin portrays it as a historic struggle against Western encroachment. Ending the conflict without clear gains would be hard to sell at home. That helps explain why Putin walks a fine line: signalling interest in talks to ease pressure, while insisting that key objectives cannot be abandoned.
For Europe and the United States, the conflict is a test of credibility. If a major power can redraw borders by force and still secure a favourable peace, other actors may be tempted to follow. If, on the other hand, Russia is seen to pay a high price for its actions, it may deter future aggression.
The next few months will bring several important markers: further battlefield developments in eastern Ukraine; decisions on long-term funding packages in European capitals; and whether Washington continues to invest political capital in a negotiated framework if Moscow remains inflexible.
Real-World Impact
For a family living in a mid-sized Ukrainian city, the latest Moscow talks changed little in practical terms. They still fall asleep listening for the air-raid siren. When drone and missile barrages hit power stations, they lose heating and water, and children study by torchlight. Each new wave of strikes reminds them that peace remains an abstract word.
For a young Russian conscript near the front, the message from Moscow is that there is no room for compromise. He may not know the details of the peace proposals, but he knows that the leadership expects continued sacrifice. Long rotations, poor conditions and the risk of injury or death become the price of a campaign that still lacks a clear end date.
For a logistics company in central Europe, the conflict shapes business decisions every day. Insurance costs for shipments passing near the Black Sea have risen. Clients worry about supply disruptions for grain, metals and energy-intensive products. Investment plans are revised as managers weigh the risk of a wider regional crisis.
For households across the European Union, the war shows up indirectly in higher energy bills, inflation spikes and tight public budgets. When leaders debate multibillion-euro support packages for Ukraine or new defence spending targets, they are deciding how much cost taxpayers will bear now to avoid a potentially larger threat later.
Whats Next?
The five-hour Moscow meeting between U.S. envoys and Vladimir Putin was billed as a serious attempt to test whether a negotiated way out of the Ukraine war exists. The outcome suggests that, for now, there is only a narrow opening at best.
Putin appears confident that military pressure and time favour Russia. Ukraine and its European backers fear that any compromise on Russia’s terms would reward aggression and undermine the security of the continent. Between those positions lies a gap that a single meeting cannot close.
The core fork in the road remains the same: either the war drags on until one side’s will or capacity breaks, or the parties accept painful, imperfect compromises that freeze, rather than solve, many of the underlying disputes.
In the weeks ahead, key signals to watch will be whether Russia softens any territorial demands, whether Ukraine receives firm long-term aid commitments, and whether further rounds of talks move beyond broad principles into concrete, enforceable terms. Until then, the Moscow talks stand as a reminder that ending wars is often harder than starting them.
