Russia has set its negotiation conditions with the U.S. over Ukraine, sources say

Russia has submitted a list of conditions to the United States aimed at reaching an agreement to conclude its conflict with Ukraine and to reset diplomatic relations with Washington, as reported by two sources familiar with the situation.

The specifics of Moscow’s demands remain unclear, and it is uncertain whether Russia is prepared to engage in peace negotiations with Kyiv before these conditions are met. Over the past three weeks, Russian and American officials have discussed these terms through both in-person and virtual meetings, according to the sources.

The Kremlin’s demands are described as extensive and reminiscent of previous requests made to Ukraine, the U.S., and NATO. These earlier stipulations included prohibiting NATO membership for Ukraine, an agreement against the deployment of foreign troops in the country, and international acknowledgment of President Vladimir Putin’s assertion that Crimea and four other regions are part of Russia. Additionally, Russia has insisted that the U.S. and NATO address what it terms the “root causes” of the conflict, particularly NATO’s expansion eastward.

U.S. President Donald Trump is awaiting a response from Putin regarding a proposed 30-day ceasefire, which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy indicated he would accept as an initial step toward peace discussions. However, Putin’s willingness to commit to a ceasefire remains uncertain, with details still pending. Some U.S. officials, lawmakers, and analysts express concern that Putin, a former KGB officer, might exploit a truce to further his agenda of creating divisions among the U.S., Ukraine, and Europe, potentially undermining any negotiations. The Russian embassy in Washington and the White House have not yet responded to requests for comments.

In Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy praised the recent meeting in Saudi Arabia between U.S. and Ukrainian officials, describing it as productive. He suggested that a possible 30-day ceasefire with Russia could serve as a foundation for drafting a more comprehensive peace agreement.

Over the past two decades, Moscow has reiterated many of these demands, some of which have entered formal discussions with the U.S. and European nations. Most recently, these issues were addressed in talks with the Biden administration during late 2021 and early 2022, coinciding with the buildup of tens of thousands of Russian troops along Ukraine’s border, poised for invasion.

Among the demands were restrictions on U.S. and NATO military activities extending from Eastern Europe to Central Asia. Although the Biden administration rejected certain conditions, it attempted to avert the invasion by engaging with Russia on several points, as indicated by U.S. government documents and insights from former officials.

This diplomatic effort ultimately failed, leading to Russia’s invasion on February 24, 2022. In recent weeks, U.S. and Russian officials have indicated that a draft agreement discussed in Istanbul in 2022 among Washington, Kyiv, and Moscow could serve as a basis for renewed peace negotiations, although the agreement was never finalized.

During those discussions, Russia insisted that Ukraine abandon its NATO aspirations and accept a permanent status free of nuclear weapons. Additionally, it sought a veto over actions taken by nations wishing to support Ukraine in the event of conflict.

The Trump administration has not clarified its strategy regarding negotiations with Moscow, as the two parties are engaged in separate dialogues: one focused on resetting U.S.-Russia relations and the other on a peace agreement for Ukraine. There appears to be a lack of consensus within the administration on the best course of action.

U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who is playing a key role in the discussions with Moscow, recently characterized the Istanbul negotiations as “cogent and substantive” during an appearance on CNN, suggesting they could serve as a valuable reference for achieving a peace deal.

Retired General Keith Kellogg, who served as Trump’s chief envoy for Ukraine and Russia, addressed an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations last week, stating that he does not view the Istanbul agreement as a viable starting point. “We need to create something completely new,” he remarked.

EXISTING DEMANDS

Analysts suggest that Russia’s demands are not solely aimed at influencing a potential agreement with Ukraine but also serve as a foundation for negotiations with its Western allies. Over the past twenty years, Russia has presented similar demands to the United States, which would restrict the West’s capacity to enhance its military presence in Europe and could enable Putin to extend his influence across the continent.

Angela Stent, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former top U.S. intelligence analyst for Russia and Eurasia, noted, “There is no indication that the Russians are prepared to make any concessions. Their demands remain unchanged, and it seems they are not genuinely interested in achieving peace or a substantial ceasefire.” In an attempt to avert what U.S. intelligence officials assessed as an imminent Russian invasion, senior officials from the Biden administration engaged with their Russian counterparts regarding three of the Kremlin’s demands, as outlined in U.S. government documents reviewed by Reuters.

These included a prohibition on military exercises by U.S. and NATO forces in the territories of new alliance members and a ban on U.S. intermediate-range missile deployments in Europe or any locations within range of Russian territory, according to the documents.

The documents revealed that Russia aimed to prevent military exercises conducted by the U.S. or NATO from Eastern Europe to the Caucasus and Central Asia. Kori Schake, a former Pentagon official and current director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, commented, “These demands from Russia have been consistent since 1945. Given the recent actions of the Trump administration, Europeans are not only concerned that we might be abandoning them, but they also fear that we have aligned ourselves with the adversary.”