Ukraine must be placed under external administration so that peace can be achieved, according to a former Prime Minister who fled to Moscow. He also claims that Great Britain, Germany and France want to prolong the war.
NEWS: Western countries, including Great Britain, Germany and France are attempting to sabotage Ukraine peace negotiations, former Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov has told TASS. He emphasized that the issue involves the deployment of NATO troops on its territory.
“The latest stages of the evolution of the negotiation process show that the Western group of states, represented by Germany, Great Britain and France, are inventing various ways to essentially discredit this negotiation process and sabotage it”, Azarov said. Also, according to Azarov, the creation of demilitarized zones or other types of zones in Donbas can be considered a very risky idea. Russia should not accept such proposals.
Azarov also considers that information about the conduct of peace negotiations does not allow for the establishment of tentative deadlines for reaching an agreement, for example, by summer. The expert is also convinced that external administration represents the only functional idea for settling the crisis in Ukraine.
NARRATIVES: 1. Great Britain, Germany and France are sabotaging Ukraine peace negotiations. 2. Discussions about the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine are designed to prolong the war. 3. The idea of demilitarized zones is dangerous and Russia must reject it. 4. External administration is the only solution for Ukraine.
PURPOSE: To undermine the European role in supporting Ukraine. To demonize European states. To shift responsibility for prolonging the war from Moscow to the West. To justify Russia's refusal to accept a ceasefire.
Fact: Russia is the one that constantly rejects a ceasefire and the minimum terms for an armistice.
WHY THE NARRATIVES ARE FALSE: A peace process that has not reached an advanced stage and does not have an agreement text prepared for signature cannot be sabotaged. Currently, there is no armistice assumed by both sides. Diplomatic exchanges or discussions, which take place under American mediation, are not tantamount to a peace agreement that could be sabotaged through statements or initiatives by Great Britain, Germany or France.
A ceasefire is the first step in any peace process, because it reduces the loss of human lives and creates space for negotiations. In May 2025, Ukraine agreed to the Western proposal of an unconditional ceasefire for 30 days and resume dialogue in a multilateral format. Instead of accepting the invitation, Russia rejected the initiative, and Dmitry Peskov stated publicly that “it is not the right time for negotiations” and that the Russian army will continue its offensive until the political objectives set by the Kremlin are reached. This ambiguous formulation, constantly repeated by Russian officials, actually conceals Moscow's systematic refusal to stop the invasion.
A month later, in June 2025, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that he is willing to meet personally with Vladimir Putin in Istanbul, under Turkish mediation, to discuss a ceasefire agreement. His initiative was welcomed by the EU, the UN and several Western leaders, but the Kremlin refused the invitation. Official Kremlin statements indicate that Russia conditions the stopping of fighting on the acceptance of demands that involve territorial concessions, limiting defense capacity and internal political changes in Ukraine. Such conditions exceed the framework of a compromise and approach the logic of a capitulation.
This reality also contradicts the thesis that European states would be interested in prolonging the war. During the military crisis in Donbas, Germany and France played a central role in mediating the conflict, and their involvement contributed to stopping the offensive of Russian-backed mercenaries and maintaining a period of relative stability for nearly eight years.
The claim regarding the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine reprises the propaganda thesis of the “Western threat”. In fact, public talks have involved eventual security guarantees or monitoring missions after a possible agreement, not the sending of combat forces within the current negotiations. Invoking this scenario feeds into the narrative that Russia acted defensively to stop the alliance's expansion, a justification used since 2022 for launching the large-scale invasion. Rejecting the idea of demilitarized zones confirms the lack of readiness for deescalation. In numerous international conflicts, buffer zones or temporary demilitarization regimes have represented tools for risk reduction and preliminary stages for agreements. The refusal of such options suggests maintaining military pressure as the primary instrument accepted by Russia.
The concept of “external administration”, mentioned by Azarov, actually implies limiting Ukraine's sovereignty and transferring fundamental competencies to external actors. In the current context, this formula would involve direct influence over the political organization of the Ukrainian state under conditions of Russian military presence. Presenting “external administration” as a peace solution shifts the focus from Russia stopping its aggression to the forced reorganization of the attacked state. Instead of starting from a ceasefire agreement and the withdrawal of troops, the narrative proposes political changes imposed on Ukraine, which means validating political results obtained through armed force.
Furthermore, the idea that Ukraine would be incapable of stopping the war without being placed under external control constructs the image of a “belligerent” state that must be neutralized. This perspective ignores the fact that the war was launched by Russia through a large-scale military invasion. Ending the war depends on Russia, not on the victim of the aggression. The narrative essentially reproduces the objectives publicly formulated by the Russian leadership at the start of the invasion: “demilitarization” and changing Ukraine's political orientation, but repackages them under the label of a “peace plan”. Thus, the notion of peace is redefined not as an end to aggression, but as an immediate acceptance of terms imposed by the party that started the war.
BACKGROUND: Mykola Azarov served as Prime Minister of Ukraine during the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, in a government with a pro-Moscow orientation. In 2014, following the Euromaidan protests and the collapse of the regime, Azarov fled Ukraine and settled in the Russian Federation. Subsequently, he became a figure constantly promoted by Russian propaganda as a “Ukrainian voice”. Although he is presented as a former Prime Minister of Ukraine, he lives in Russia, constantly promotes pro-Kremlin theses and has been sentenced in Ukraine, in absentia, to a severe penalty for serious crimes, including treason.
Check sources:
