Russia says Ukraine must make "necessary decisions" to end the war

Russia is demanding unspecified “necessary decisions” from Ukraine before progress toward ending the war can move forward. The phrase comes from Russian officials and does not identify particular concessions, laws, territorial decisions, or security commitments. That lack of detail matters because it leaves the central condition open to interpretation.

Russian state media reported that Ukraine’s situation “will be worse” if its leaders do not act. Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov said proposals brought by Steve Witkoff, which he attributed to Ukraine and the European Union, contained little useful for resolving the conflict. The Kremlin also said Moscow would study the proposals, but that talks would take time.

The immediate reality is that diplomacy remains possible but unresolved. Russia says it is prepared, in principle, to resume talks in early November. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy supports direct trilateral discussions with the United States and Russia, but says Ukraine must be included and any agreement must receive parliamentary approval.

Trilateral talks are negotiations involving three parties. In this case, the proposed format would include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and U.S. President Donald Trump. The three leaders would discuss a possible negotiated end to Russia’s war against Ukraine.

The format matters because Ukraine would be directly represented rather than discussed by other governments. Zelenskyy told Fox News that a meeting between himself, Trump, and Putin was the best way to resolve the conflict. He also said Ukraine would reject an agreement created by China, Russia, and the United States without Ukrainian participation, declaring, “Don’t talk about us without us.”

The talks were not yet a completed summit. A U.S. official said Russia and Ukraine had agreed to resume trilateral discussions with the United States at the technical level. Putin’s aide said Moscow was prepared, in principle, to restart talks in early November, including discussion of a postwar security system for Russia and Ukraine.

Steve Witkoff is the U.S. special envoy handling diplomatic contacts in the article. Vladimir Putin is Russia’s president, Donald Trump is the U.S. president, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Ukraine’s president. Their roles differ: Witkoff carries ideas between governments, while the three presidents would make or approve major political decisions.

Witkoff met Putin in St. Petersburg after holding what Secretary of State Marco Rubio called positive talks with Zelenskyy in Oslo. He was expected to share ideas discussed with Zelenskyy with Russian officials. During the meeting, Putin and Witkoff also confirmed that U.S. citizen Stephen Hubbard had been released from Russian custody.

Trump’s administration is leading the American diplomatic effort, while Putin’s officials set out Russia’s conditions. Zelenskyy insists Ukraine must be part of any settlement. He also says Ukraine’s Parliament must approve a negotiated end, meaning presidential discussions alone would not complete the process.

The proposed Trump-Putin-Xi meeting would include three leaders: Donald Trump of the United States, Vladimir Putin of Russia, and Xi Jinping of China. Ukraine would be excluded, even though it is the country defending itself against Russia’s invasion and would be directly affected by any agreement.

Russian state media said officials told Witkoff that such a meeting was possible. The White House had also floated the idea. Ukrainian officials objected because the arrangement could sideline them from discussions about their own country’s future. Zelenskyy rejected any resolution crafted by China, Russia, and the United States without Ukraine.

The diplomatic alternative described in the article is a trilateral format involving Trump, Putin, and Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy called that approach the best way to resolve the conflict. The article also reports planned technical-level talks involving the United States, Russia, and Ukraine, but it does not say that a three-leader summit has been scheduled.

Negotiating without Ukraine could leave decisions about its security, territory, and political future in the hands of other governments. The article does not state exactly what territory might change hands or what political system might result. It does show why Ukraine objects: Zelenskyy says no one should discuss Ukraine without Ukraine.

The clearest example is the proposed meeting among Trump, Putin, and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Ukrainian officials said that format could sideline them. Zelenskyy said he would not accept a settlement created by China, Russia, and the United States. He also said any negotiated end to the war would need approval from Ukraine’s Parliament.

The current talks therefore face a legitimacy problem as well as a military one. Russia and the United States are exploring diplomacy, and discussions could include a future security system for Russia and Ukraine. But an arrangement lacking Ukrainian consent could be rejected by Ukraine and fail to settle the conflict.

The United States has influence beyond face-to-face negotiations. It can support or block sanctions, share intelligence about attacks, control access to military satellite services, and help arrange fuel supplies. These tools affect Russia’s economic pressure, Ukraine’s warning time, battlefield communications, and energy needs.

The article gives several examples. Trump said Putin released Stephen Hubbard after the United States prevented new sanctions against Moscow from taking effect. Washington restored intelligence sharing on Russian strikes, giving Ukraine advance warnings about ballistic missiles. Zelenskyy said access to the Starshield satellite network remained limited, while Rubio worked toward restoring full access. Trump also announced a Russian deal to release millions of tons of diesel fuel.

These measures can strengthen Ukraine or create leverage with Russia, but they do not automatically produce peace. Their effects remain contested. Russia launched new attacks after Trump announced an energy ceasefire, and neither side confirmed a truce. Diplomacy still depends on decisions by all parties.

National sovereignty is a country’s authority to govern itself and decide its political future. In this story, it means Ukraine must have a voice in decisions about ending the war, security arrangements, and any settlement affecting its territory. Sovereignty matters because outside governments could otherwise design an agreement for Ukraine without its consent.

Zelenskyy made this principle clear in two ways. He said a China-Russia-U.S. agreement would be unacceptable without Ukraine. He also said any negotiated end to the war must be approved by Ukraine’s Parliament. That requirement connects international diplomacy to Ukraine’s domestic political process rather than leaving the decision only to foreign leaders.

The article does not explain the legal procedure or voting threshold Parliament would use. It does show the practical consequence: even if Trump, Putin, and other governments reached an understanding, Ukraine’s leaders and lawmakers would still need to accept it. Without that approval, the agreement could not represent Ukraine’s agreed peace.