Russian foreign policy

Moscow has dismissed the possibility of peace talks in the Vatican involving Russian and Ukrainian delegations, despite recent suggestions by Western officials that such a round of consultations could take place in the near future.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov publicly denied the credibility of reports suggesting that the Vatican might soon host discussions involving Russia, Ukraine, the United States and European states.

The speculation was fuelled by comments from Finnish President Aleksander Stubb, who stated that preparatory work was underway for what he described as a “technical round” of multilateral consultations aimed at exploring pathways to end the ongoing war in Ukraine. President Stubb noted that the Vatican had been selected due to its neutrality and its history of facilitating dialogue. Discussions, he said, could begin as early as next week.

Lavrov, however, dismissed these prospects, claiming it would be “strange” for two Orthodox nations—Russia and Ukraine—to engage in peace discussions on “a Catholic platform”. The remark appeared to be a veiled reference to Russia’s preference for Istanbul as a venue for negotiations, citing Turkey’s religious and geopolitical positioning as more appropriate.

Reports had earlier indicated that the Russian Foreign Ministry had been engaged in internal discussions over logistical arrangements for potentially sanctioned Russian officials travelling to Italy, an EU member state. These discussions were interpreted by some observers as a tacit acknowledgement of Russia’s potential participation. Lavrov’s public denial now appears to be a strategic reversal.

Analysts suggest that the Russian leadership remains committed to a strategy of prolonging the conflict while presenting a veneer of openness to dialogue. The Kremlin’s pattern has been to issue proposals that are either diplomatically untenable or legally unacceptable to Ukraine and its allies. A case in point is the reported absence of any follow-up documentation from a recent phone call between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, which was expected to produce a memorandum of understanding.

Further complicating matters are Russia’s assertions regarding the legitimacy of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy—an issue that Russian officials have increasingly brought to the fore in recent weeks. The Kremlin has indicated that any prospective peace agreement would depend on determining who in Kyiv holds the recognised authority to sign such a deal on Ukraine’s behalf.

Previously, Moscow had hinted at a compromise, indicating that the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament could potentially be an acceptable signatory, while Zelenskyy might participate in a more informal capacity. That position now appears to be shifting. Russian officials have started to suggest that new elections in Ukraine would be necessary to resolve what they frame as a legitimacy crisis.

Under Ukrainian law, however, national elections cannot be held during a state of martial law, which remains in effect due to ongoing hostilities. Martial law can only be lifted once a ceasefire is established—an outcome Moscow has shown no willingness to support. In essence, Russia’s argument creates a circular dynamic: demanding elections that cannot be held until fighting stops, while simultaneously refusing to stop the fighting.

This manoeuvre has been described by observers as a calculated effort to delay any meaningful negotiations. It allows Moscow to continue hostilities while blaming Kyiv and Western capitals for a lack of progress. According to sources close to the matter, President Trump had advised Putin to propose terms that would not be immediately rejected by Ukraine and Europe, yet there is little evidence to suggest that the Kremlin intends to heed such counsel.

Moscow’s continued insistence on conditions that are incompatible with the legal and political realities in Ukraine signals that the current Russian position is more about optics than substance. Discussions about legitimacy, elections, or the suitability of the Vatican as a venue serve primarily to obfuscate the Kremlin’s unwillingness to engage in genuine peace efforts.

The strategic objective appears to be clear: to prolong the war indefinitely, without any credible mechanism for resolution. Meanwhile, the Kremlin counts on the likelihood that President Trump will oppose new sanctions against Russia and reduce military support for Ukraine, thereby easing pressure on Russian forces.

From the Russian perspective, the goal is not necessarily to secure American endorsement but rather to keep Washington at arm’s length from the conflict. This includes feeding President Trump hopeful narratives about future economic cooperation while quietly ensuring that the war in Ukraine remains a protracted and unresolved conflict.

In sum, Lavrov’s rejection of Vatican-based talks reflects a broader strategy of calculated delay, unrealistic preconditions, and continued military pressure—all of which point to the Kremlin’s fundamental disinterest in a negotiated end to the war at this stage.