Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has challenged Vladimir Putin to direct negotiations aimed at ending Russia’s war against Ukraine, using an open letter to set out Kyiv’s position as the Russian president repeated Moscow’s conditions during the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.
The exchange, on 4 June, placed the competing diplomatic positions of Kyiv and Moscow in direct contrast. Zelenskyy proposed a face-to-face meeting with Putin in a neutral country and called for a full ceasefire during negotiations. Putin, speaking to international media in St Petersburg, said talks could proceed without a halt to the fighting and should be based on what he described as earlier understandings reached with US President Donald Trump in Alaska.
The latest development came on Friday, when the Kremlin said Putin had now been briefed on the letter. Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesman, confirmed that the Russian president had reviewed the appeal and said he was likely to address it publicly during his appearance at the forum. The previous Kremlin response had been more guarded, saying only that Putin would be informed and that Zelenskyy could come to Moscow if he wanted to meet.
Kyiv’s proposal is built around three elements: direct leader-level talks, a ceasefire for the period of negotiations, and a neutral venue. Zelenskyy suggested Switzerland, Turkey or an Arab state as possible locations, while also calling for an all-for-all prisoner exchange and the return of civilians and children taken by Russia. The proposal was presented as a direct answer to Moscow’s claim that Ukraine is unwilling to negotiate.
Putin’s position remains different. He said Russia was ready for a settlement, but continued to insist that any agreement must reflect what Moscow regards as battlefield realities and previous discussions with Washington. His remarks, made during a meeting with foreign editors, again indicated that Moscow sees negotiations less as a fresh process than as a means of confirming political and territorial concessions.
The territorial dispute remains central. Russia continues to demand control over the whole of Donetsk region, including areas still held by Ukrainian forces and administered by Kyiv. Ukraine rejects any withdrawal from its own territory as a precondition for negotiations, viewing such a step as an attempt to obtain through diplomacy what Russia has not achieved militarily.
Zelenskyy’s letter also sought to shift attention to conditions inside Russia. He referred to war fatigue, inflation, fuel shortages and the consequences of Ukrainian long-range strikes against Russian infrastructure. His argument was that the war is no longer confined to Ukrainian territory and that Russia’s own political and economic circles are increasingly exposed to its costs.
That point was reinforced by the timing of the exchange. The St Petersburg forum opened after Ukrainian drones struck targets near the city, including energy and military-linked facilities. The attacks affected areas close to one of Russia’s most politically symbolic cities and came as the Kremlin sought to use the forum to project economic resilience and international relevance.
St Petersburg: Ukraine Brings War to Putin’s Hometown as International Economic Forum Opens
Putin also addressed Russia’s use of the Oreshnik missile. His comments suggested that Moscow regards Ukraine as an operational space for testing and demonstrating new weapons. That point carries political weight because Russia claims occupied Ukrainian territories as part of the Russian Federation, while still treating them differently from internationally recognised Russian territory in military practice.
There was also a notable adjustment in Putin’s language on Zelenskyy’s legitimacy. Moscow has repeatedly questioned whether the Ukrainian president can sign any binding agreement because Ukraine has not held elections under martial law. In St Petersburg, however, Putin appeared to leave room for different Ukrainian representatives to sign different documents, including possibly Zelenskyy himself, depending on the nature of the agreement. This does not amount to recognition of Kyiv’s position, but it suggests Moscow is preserving procedural flexibility.
The US reaction adds another layer. Trump, who has repeatedly claimed that he wants to end the war, was reported to have welcomed the idea of a direct Putin-Zelenskyy meeting, while also saying that compromises would be necessary. That formulation is likely to be watched closely in Kyiv and European capitals, where there is concern that pressure for a rapid settlement could turn into pressure on Ukraine to accept territorial losses.
The exchange does not mark a diplomatic breakthrough. It is better understood as a public contest over the conditions under which negotiations might begin. Zelenskyy is presenting Ukraine as ready for talks, but only with a ceasefire and without surrendering sovereignty. Putin is presenting Russia as ready for peace, but only on terms shaped by Russian military demands and Moscow’s interpretation of its discussions with Washington.
For Europe, Putin’s wider comments remain relevant. He again dismissed the idea that Russia intends to attack European states. Similar assurances preceded Russia’s earlier actions against Ukraine, which means European governments are likely to judge such statements against Russian conduct rather than formal denials.
The practical issue remains resources. If Moscow believes it retains the military, industrial and financial capacity to continue the war, it has little incentive to compromise. If those resources are weakened through sanctions, military losses and strikes on infrastructure sustaining the war effort, the calculation could change.
For now, the positions remain incompatible. Ukraine is offering negotiations based on a ceasefire and sovereignty. Russia is offering negotiations based on Ukrainian concessions and continued pressure on the battlefield. The new Kremlin confirmation that Putin has reviewed Zelenskyy’s letter gives the exchange greater diplomatic visibility, but it does not yet alter the central fact: the war is unlikely to end until one side concludes that continuing it carries a higher cost than accepting a settlement.
