On September 8, 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky issued one of his most striking diplomatic statements in recent months: he is ready to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss ways out of the grinding war. But there is one firm condition — such a meeting cannot take place in Russia.
The announcement, made in an interview with ABC News, immediately resonated far beyond Kyiv. It underscored both Ukraine’s readiness to talk and its refusal to accept symbolic concessions that could weaken its position. “I am open to any meeting, but not in Russia,” Zelensky stressed, adding that he welcomes the idea of either bilateral talks or a broader multilateral format, potentially with U.S. participation.
For more than two years, peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia have been stuck in a deadlock, with sporadic attempts at dialogue breaking down under the weight of continued fighting and mutual distrust. Now, as battlefield tensions intensify and Russia increases pressure along several fronts, Zelensky’s statement serves as both a signal and a challenge.
By ruling out Moscow, Zelensky made clear that Ukraine will not meet the aggressor on its terms. Instead, he suggested a neutral venue or even Kyiv itself, flipping the symbolic script: if Putin wants dialogue, he should come to Ukraine. That bold invitation — “the terrorist can come to Kyiv” as some outlets quoted him — injected drama into a debate often framed by dry diplomatic language.
Another important piece of the puzzle is former U.S. President Donald Trump, who has recently been positioning himself as a mediator between Kyiv and Moscow. Zelensky openly acknowledged that Trump had sent him a signal, to which he responded with readiness to engage in talks. This creates a new dynamic: Washington, through Trump’s initiative, may now become an even more central broker in potential peace talks.
Whether this is a serious diplomatic pathway or political theater remains unclear. But Zelensky’s words show he is keen to leverage U.S. involvement to ensure Ukraine does not enter negotiations in a position of weakness. For Kyiv, American support is not just military — it is a shield against political isolation.
Reactions to Zelensky’s statement have varied depending on the outlet. Ukrainian and Russian media focused on the pragmatic angle — the possibility of a bilateral or trilateral meeting, with attention to the ceasefire condition as a prerequisite. Western outlets, by contrast, highlighted Zelensky’s sharp rhetoric: his refusal to set foot in Moscow and his challenge for Putin to come to Kyiv.
This contrast reveals two sides of Zelensky’s messaging strategy. At home, he presents himself as pragmatic but firm, ensuring Ukrainians that he will not compromise their security. Abroad, he emphasizes defiance and moral clarity, portraying Ukraine as a nation unwilling to bow to its aggressor. Both narratives serve his goal: to maintain domestic resilience while rallying international support.
Where leaders meet matters. Moscow would symbolize submission; Kyiv, defiance. A neutral venue such as Geneva or Ankara could project compromise. Zelensky’s insistence on avoiding Russian soil is not simply about geography but about narrative. In wars fought with drones, artillery, and propaganda alike, the choice of location becomes another battlefield.
His stance also reflects lessons learned from earlier rounds of talks. Previous negotiations held under Russian influence often tilted toward Moscow’s advantage. By resetting the terms, Zelensky aims to establish equality — or at least the perception of it — before any substantive discussions even begin.
It remains uncertain whether such a meeting will ever take place. Russia has shown little interest in negotiating on terms other than its own, while Ukraine insists that a ceasefire must precede any talks. Yet Zelensky’s move shifts the conversation: he has laid down conditions publicly, inviting both Putin and the international community to respond.
For the West, this moment carries weight. It demonstrates that Ukraine is not simply rejecting dialogue — it is setting the rules for a fair one. That nuance could strengthen Kyiv’s standing in Washington, Brussels, and beyond, making it harder for critics to accuse Zelensky of intransigence.
Zelensky’s latest statement is more than just diplomatic maneuvering; it is a gamble. By rejecting Moscow as a venue, he risks being accused of closing doors. Yet, by opening the possibility of talks elsewhere — with a ceasefire as the entry ticket — he reframes the debate.
In essence, he has turned diplomacy into a chessboard: Moscow may want to play on its home turf, but Kyiv is demanding neutral ground. If Putin refuses, it is he, not Zelensky, who looks unwilling. If he accepts, Ukraine can claim a symbolic victory even before negotiations begin.
The Ukrainian president has once again shown his skill in using words as weapons. Zelensky’s message is layered: openness to dialogue, rejection of humiliation, reliance on U.S. mediation, and a clear reminder that peace cannot be dictated from Moscow.
In the broader picture, this move underscores Ukraine’s determination to fight not only on the battlefield but also on the stage of global diplomacy. Whether or not talks materialize, Zelensky has made one thing clear: Ukraine will not come begging to the Kremlin. If Putin wants peace, he will have to step onto new ground — figuratively and literally.
