Lavrov Rejects Zelenskyy’s Legitimacy, Stalling Ukraine Peace Talks: What’s Next?

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, arguing that his presidential term, which was due to expire in May 2024, renders him constitutionally illegitimate due to the absence of new elections. Lavrov stated on August 24, 2025, that Russia recognizes Zelenskyy as the “de facto head of the regime” but would require “a very clear understanding by everybody that the person who is signing is legitimate” before entering any agreements. This stance aligns with the Kremlin’s broader narrative, echoed by other Russian officials, that Zelenskyy’s continued leadership under martial law—necessitated by the ongoing war—undermines his authority to negotiate binding peace deals. Lavrov’s comments suggest Russia could use this claim to reject or renege on future agreements, setting a pretext for stalling or undermining peace talks.

Details of Lavrov’s Statements

Lavrov’s remarks, made in interviews with NBC News and other outlets, emphasize that any meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Zelenskyy would require extensive preparation and resolution of Zelenskyy’s perceived illegitimacy. He argued that signing agreements with an “illegitimate” leader could jeopardize their legal standing, a position Russia has used to deflect responsibility for stalled negotiations. Lavrov also reiterated Russia’s demands, including recognition of annexed territories (Crimea and parts of Donbas), Ukraine’s non-alignment with NATO, and the elimination of security threats to Russia, which he claims stem from Ukraine and Western policies. He dismissed Ukraine’s peace proposals, such as Zelenskyy’s 10-point plan from November 2022, and insisted on revisiting terms discussed during the 2022 Istanbul talks, which Ukraine rejected due to Russia’s demand for veto power over Ukraine’s military responses.

Lavrov further accused Ukraine and its Western allies of undermining peace efforts, claiming they are not interested in a “sustainable, fair, and long-term settlement.” He specifically criticized European leaders for pushing security guarantees that isolate Russia and opposed any deployment of foreign troops in Ukraine, calling it “absolutely unacceptable.” These statements reflect Russia’s strategy to frame Ukraine as the obstacle to peace while maintaining maximalist demands, such as territorial concessions and Ukraine’s neutrality, which are non-negotiable for Kyiv.

U.S. Reaction

The U.S. response to Lavrov’s claims has been shaped by the broader context of ongoing peace efforts under President Donald Trump’s administration. On August 19, 2025, a White House spokeswoman announced that Trump had initiated steps for a bilateral meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy, though Russia did not confirm Putin’s participation. Trump has expressed frustration with the slow progress of negotiations, emphasizing a desire for a swift resolution and ruling out U.S. ground troop deployments in Ukraine. Instead, the U.S. has explored European-led peacekeeping forces with potential American air support, a proposal Russia opposes.

Trump’s approach has been controversial, with some reports suggesting he pressured Zelenskyy to accept terms favorable to Russia, such as territorial concessions, during a heated Oval Office meeting in February 2025. This meeting collapsed, with Trump accusing Zelenskyy of being “disrespectful” and unprepared for peace, citing Ukraine’s insistence on security guarantees alongside any ceasefire. The U.S. has continued to provide military aid, approving the sale of 3,350 Extended Range Attack Munitions to Ukraine, signaling ongoing support despite diplomatic tensions. However, Trump’s public statements, including calling Zelenskyy a “dictator” and expressing confidence in Putin’s good faith, indicate a complex balancing act between supporting Ukraine and pushing for a deal that could favor Russian interests to end the war quickly.

U.S. officials have not directly addressed Lavrov’s legitimacy claims but have focused on facilitating dialogue. The Biden administration’s earlier approach (pre-2025) emphasized deterrence and sanctions, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken engaging Lavrov in January 2022 to address Russia’s security concerns without conceding to demands like blocking Ukraine’s NATO aspirations. The current administration’s shift toward deal-making has drawn criticism from European allies and some U.S. figures, who argue it risks undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty by pressuring Kyiv into concessions.

Implications

Lavrov’s insistence on Zelenskyy’s illegitimacy has significant implications:

1. Stalling Negotiations: By questioning Zelenskyy’s authority, Russia can delay or derail peace talks, avoiding concessions while blaming Ukraine for intransigence. This tactic aligns with Russia’s pattern of rejecting Ukrainian proposals and demanding preconditions, such as territorial recognition, that Kyiv cannot accept.

2. Undermining Agreements: Russia’s focus on legitimacy creates a legal pretext to challenge or void future agreements, increasing distrust and complicating long-term peace prospects. This could prolong the conflict, leading to higher casualties and further infrastructure damage.

3. Pressure on Ukraine: The narrative shifts pressure onto Ukraine to prove its democratic credentials under wartime conditions, where elections are legally postponed. This could weaken Zelenskyy’s domestic and international standing, especially as war fatigue grows among Ukrainians.

4. Geopolitical Tensions: Russia’s stance exacerbates tensions with the West, particularly as European leaders push for robust security guarantees for Ukraine, including potential troop deployments, which Russia vehemently opposes. This could strain U.S.-European coordination, especially if Trump prioritizes a quick deal over Ukraine’s long-term security.

Future of Negotiations

The future of Ukraine-Russia negotiations remains uncertain due to irreconcilable positions. Russia’s demands—territorial recognition, Ukraine’s neutrality, and demilitarization—are non-starters for Kyiv, which insists on full Russian withdrawal, war crime prosecutions, and security guarantees. Lavrov’s statements indicate Russia is unlikely to soften its stance, particularly as it perceives battlefield advantages in Donbas.

Zelenskyy has shown some flexibility, expressing willingness to compromise on the timing of a ceasefire if security guarantees are established, and has proposed neutral venues like Switzerland, Austria, or Turkey for talks. However, Russia’s rejection of these proposals and its insistence on Istanbul as a framework suggest little room for progress. The 2022 Istanbul talks, which included nine prisoner exchanges but no broader agreement, remain a reference point for Russia, but Ukraine views them as outdated and overly concessionary.

U.S. mediation, particularly under Trump, could push for a trilateral summit, but Russia’s reluctance to engage directly with Zelenskyy and its dismissal of European-led security proposals complicate this. European skepticism about Putin’s intentions, coupled with Trump’s apparent willingness to accommodate Russian demands (e.g., recognizing Crimea’s annexation), risks alienating Ukraine and its allies.

Analyses

Analysts, such as those from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), argue that Russia’s refusal to offer concessions, combined with its legitimacy narrative, indicates a strategy to prolong the war while pressuring Ukraine into capitulation. The ISW notes that Russia’s demands, including eradicating “threats” from NATO and Ukraine’s alleged anti-Russian policies, are tantamount to demanding full Ukrainian and Western surrender. This approach risks escalating the conflict, as Ukraine’s continued strikes on Russian infrastructure (e.g., oil refineries) and Russia’s massive attacks, like the August 21, 2025, drone and missile salvo, show no de-escalation.

Foreign Affairs scholars Samuel Charap and Sergey Radchenko, who reviewed 2022 negotiation drafts, suggest that the gap between Russia’s territorial demands and Ukraine’s insistence on sovereignty remains unbridgeable. They note that Putin’s maximalist goals, reiterated in June 2025 with claims that “all of Ukraine is ours,” undermine prospects for a near-term resolution.

European leaders, skeptical of Putin’s commitment to peace, are exploring security guarantees like an Italian proposal for rapid-response commitments or French/UK troop deployments, but Russia’s opposition to foreign troops and U.S. reluctance to commit ground forces limit these options. China’s potential role as a guarantor, suggested by Lavrov, has been dismissed by Zelenskyy, further complicating multilateral efforts.

Conclusion

Lavrov’s claim of Zelenskyy’s illegitimacy is a strategic maneuver to delay negotiations, justify Russia’s intransigence, and weaken Ukraine’s position. The U.S., under Trump, is pushing for a quick resolution, but its willingness to entertain Russian demands risks alienating Ukraine and Europe. The future of negotiations hinges on whether mediators can bridge the gap between Russia’s maximalist demands and Ukraine’s non-negotiable stance on sovereignty. Without significant concessions from Russia, which appears unlikely given its battlefield posture and Lavrov’s rhetoric, peace talks may remain stalled, prolonging the conflict and its devastating consequences.