A peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine is possible only if the objectives of the Russian invasion are achieved, pro-Kremlin media writes, citing Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson.
NEWS: Peskov described Ukraine’s loss of territory as plan A, B and C. Russia is considering a resolution of the conflict in Ukraine within the framework of the objectives outlined at the outset of the “special military operation”, Dmitry Peskov, the spokesperson for the president of the Russian Federation, said.
Journalists asked him to comment on a statement by Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy, according to which Moscow would need a “plan B” regarding the settlement of the conflict. “It is appropriate to recall yesterday’s statement by US President Donald Trump, who, addressing his Ukrainian interlocutors, reminded them that they are losing territory. This is plan A, B and C”, the Kremlin representative said.
NARRATIVES: 1. A peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine means continuing the “military operation”. 2. Peace means Ukraine’s acceptance of territorial losses. 3. A ceasefire is useless or impossible.
PURPOSE: To redefine the notion of peace as the outcome of Russia’s military victory. To justify the continuation of the invasion. To shift responsibility for casualties and destruction onto Ukraine. To promote the idea of territorial surrender as a rational solution to war.
Fact: There can be no peaceful settlement without a ceasefire, and imposing the objectives of an invasion by force contradicts the definition of any peace process.
WHY THE NARRATIVES ARE FALSE: Dmitry Peskov’s statements are based on a fundamental contradiction, which makes them difficult to sustain both logically and legally. The Kremlin invokes a peaceful resolution of the conflict, but conditions it on achieving the objectives set at the beginning of the “special military operation”, that is, on the results of an aggressive campaign. Based on this logic, peace no longer means ending hostilities and launching negotiations, but Ukraine’s acceptance of conditions imposed by the aggressor. The commonly accepted meaning of peace is replaced with a convenient interpretation that serves Moscow’s political goals.
However, a conflict cannot be ended peacefully through military means, bombings, the killing of civilians, the destruction of infrastructure and war crimes. To claim that a peaceful settlement must be based on the principles of a military operation is, in fact, to argue that war is an instrument of peace, which is a logical inversion, typical of pro-Kremlin propaganda in recent years.
The same coercive logic underlies the formula “plan A, B and C,” which serves as a warning: Ukraine will lose territories if it does not accept Moscow’s terms. Military pressure is presented as a diplomatic argument, while armed force becomes a substitute for negotiation.
The narrative claiming that Russia “wants peace, not a ceasefire” is used to reject a halt to the hostilities without explicitly stating that Moscow prefers the continuation of the war. Peskov and other Russian officials argue that a ceasefire would give Ukraine a pause, which is why they reject it even in temporary forms. In practical terms, this position blocks the main instrument that, in most armed conflicts, allows for the reduction of civilian casualties, stabilization of the front lines and the creation of the minimal conditions for negotiations. Mediation practice shows that a ceasefire is usually one of the first stages of resolution processes, precisely because sustainable negotiations cannot exist without a reduction in armed violence.
Presenting military aggression as a “path to peace” also ignores the documented realities reported by international organizations regarding the treatment of civilians in areas occupied by Russia: arbitrary detention, torture, ill-treatment and population “filtration” practices. These facts, currently under investigation, directly contradict the idea that the “military operation” is an instrument of peace.
Upon meeting with Zelenskyy, Donald Trump said that Vladimir Putin does not want a ceasefire because he does not want to stop the fighting only to risk its resumption should negotiations fail. With this statement, Trump himself confirms that Moscow is not pursuing a peaceful settlement, but instead chooses the continuation of war as its primary option.
From the perspective of international law, Ukraine is the aggressed state and has the right to self-defense, and the external military support received by Kyiv falls within this framework, not within a logic of prolonging the war. The Kremlin seeks to reverse roles: the aggressor presents itself as a force for peace, while the victim is portrayed as an obstacle to it. In fact, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly expressed readiness for an unconditional ceasefire, including by directly inviting Putin to talks, invitations that Moscow has turned down.
At the same time, previous examples show that Russia has consistently rejected diplomatic solutions. In February 2022, Western leaders, including Emmanuel Macron and Joe Biden, attempted to persuade the Russian leadership not to choose the path of invasion. Moscow ignored these efforts and launched a full-scale war, resulting in the greatest destruction in Europe since World War II.
Under these circumstances, the claim that Russia is choosing peace is false. As long as Moscow refuses a ceasefire, demands Kyiv accept the results of aggression as a prerequisite for peace and continues military operations, war remains the Kremlin’s primary plan. The “peaceful settlement” invoked by the Kremlin is not a genuine objective, but a rhetorical tool used to justify violence.
BACKGROUND: On December 28, 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met in Florida with US President Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago residence. The talks focused on a possible peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia, based on a 20-point peace plan. Although both interlocutors spoke of significant progress, no final agreement was reached. Donald Trump said that the negotiations were “approximately 95% finalized”. The Ukrainian president said that for Kyiv, “plan A” had always been peace, while for Russia war had been the initial option. He added that Moscow should now consider a “plan B”, namely ending the conflict. Zelenskyy pointed out that Ukraine and the United States support a diplomatic resolution and that, if Russia refuses this approach, American and European support for Ukraine will continue. He also mentioned that he had proposed to Donald Trump the establishment of security guarantees for Ukraine for a period of 30–50 years.
