Maintaining Kyiv's current leadership is unacceptable to Moscow, and a ceasefire agreement allowing Ukraine to rearm poses a threat to Russia, pro-Kremlin media writes.
NEWS: For Russia, plans for the peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine that aim to preserve the regime currently in power in the country are unacceptable. The statement was made by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during a press conference. “Settlement proposals based on the goal of preserving the Nazi regime on that part of Ukraine that will bear this name are, of course, absolutely unacceptable”, he said.
The head of Russian diplomacy noted that US President Donald Trump's original 28-point peace plan provided for addressing issues related to the status of the Russian language and the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). However, in subsequent materials presented to the Russian side, these initiatives were replaced with provisions stating that Ukraine should follow EU norms on national minorities.
Lavrov further stated that Russia cannot give Ukraine the opportunity to rearm and resume the armed conflict in the event of an armistice. In doing so, he commented on Kyiv's and European states' attempts to convince US President Donald Trump to change his approach to settling the conflict at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
NARRATIVES: 1. Russia has the right to decide what political leadership is acceptable in Kyiv. 2. Maintaining Ukraine's current power perpetuates a Nazi regime. 3. Ukraine has no right to arm itself, as that would trigger a new war.
PURPOSE: To justify Russia's intervention in Ukraine's internal affairs. To delegitimize Kyiv's political leadership. To deny Ukraine's right to self-defense. To portray Russia as an actor forced to continue the conflict for its own security.
Fact: Ukraine is a sovereign state, and the choice of its political leadership and defense policy are strictly internal matters
WHY THE NARRATIVES ARE FALSE: The narrative claiming that Russia has the right to decide what political leadership is acceptable in Kyiv to sign a peace agreement contradicts the fundamental principles of international law and the post-Cold War European security architecture. Ukraine is a sovereign state, and the legitimacy of its political power derives exclusively from internal electoral processes and the will of Ukrainian citizens. Accepting the idea that a neighboring state can validate or invalidate the elected leadership would open the door to an international order based on force rather than rules, in which any stronger state could claim a right to control another's political choices. In practical terms, this logic is not applied symmetrically. After all, Russia does not accept other states questioning its own political system.
Labeling Ukraine's leadership a “Nazi regime” is an intentional distortion of political and historical reality. Ukraine is governed by authorities elected by direct vote, monitored by international observers, and its political life is characterized by pluralism despite martial law. The term “Nazi” is not descriptive, but rather emotional: it activates deep-rooted historical traumas in Russian society and shifts the conflict from the legal to the absolute moral register, where compromise becomes impossible. By means of this strategy, the enemy is dehumanized, and the war is presented not as aggression but as a moral mission.
It should be noted that Ukraine adopted the “Law on condemning communist and Nazi totalitarian regimes and their symbolism". Far-right parties have marginal influence. In the 2019 parliamentary election, the nationalist party coalition failed to pass the 5% electoral threshold, receiving far less popular support than in many other European countries. Moreover, international institutions and human rights organizations have not identified state policies based on Nazi ideology, such as anti-Semitism or the dismantling of political pluralism.
The claim that arming Ukraine poses a danger to Russia ignores the actual sequence of events and inverts the cause-and-effect relationship. Ukraine did not initiate a conflict against Russia but was attacked and lost territories as a result of Russian military actions. At the time of the 2014 aggression, the Ukrainian army was in an advanced state of ruin. In this context, strengthening defense capabilities was a survival response. Ukraine's arming followed the aggression, not preceded it, and presenting this defensive reaction as a threat serves only to shift responsibility for the war from the aggressor to the victim.
The idea that a ceasefire agreement would be dangerous because it would allow Ukraine to rearm serves as a preemptive argument for rejecting any agreement that does not guarantee Russia's gains. In fact, ceasefire agreements are temporary mechanisms intended to reduce violence and create space for negotiations. The assumption that only Ukraine would abusively exploit an armistice is selective and ignores Russia's precedent of repeated violations of ceasefires in the Donbas conflict after 2014. This narrative shifts responsibility for prolonging the war launched in 2022 from the aggressor to the victim. In this framework, peace is redefined not as a cessation of violence but as Ukraine's acceptance of Moscow’s terms.
Overall, these narratives construct a coherent image in propaganda terms: Russia is portrayed as a defensive actor, compelled to intervene and reject “false armistices”, while Ukraine is depicted as a permanent source of threat and conflict.
BACKGROUND: Sergey Lavrov's statements fit into the Kremlin's typical discourse about the “denazification” and “demilitarization” of Ukraine, two concepts that were presented even before the full-scale invasion of 2022. These concepts do not designate limited security objectives but express Moscow's refusal to accept the existence of a sovereign Ukraine with independent political and security orientation. Invoking alleged US peace plans and emphasizing “minority rights” and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are part of a strategy to shift the discussion from military aggression to selectively presented identity and cultural issues. By means of this mechanism, Russia seeks to position itself as a defender of violated rights, avoiding responsibility for starting and continuing the conflict.
