The Ukrainian conflict remains not only at the forefront of international media coverage, but also continues to attract the close attention of civil society and concerned citizens around the world, including in the Republic of Zambia. In this article, the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to the Republic of Zambia, Mr. Azim Yarakhamedov, outlined what he described as the principal issues currently being discussed in the context of negotiations between the parties and to present the Russian Federation’s position on these matters.
Ceasefire Arrangements
During the third round of negotiations held in Istanbul on 23 July 2025, the Russian delegation proposed the establishment of a dedicated Working Group on military issues, within which the modalities of a ceasefire regime could be developed — including the establishment of mechanisms for monitoring and verification of compliance.
Furthermore, we reaffirmed our initiative to introduce localized sanitary truces — temporary cessations of hostilities for 24 to 48 hours in specific sectors of the contact line to facilitate the evacuation of the wounded and the retrieval of the remains of the deceased. It is our firm view that the implementation of such measures could contribute meaningfully to broader de-escalation efforts.
As regards the prospect of a long-term ceasefire along the entire contact line, the Russian Federation is of the view that such an arrangement must not be exploited by the Ukrainian armed forces for the purpose of rearmament, force regrouping, or preparation of new offensive operations. In such a scenario, a ceasefire would not bring peace, but rather enable a renewed escalation of violence.
The Russian Memorandum submitted to the Ukrainian delegation during the second round of negotiations on 2 June provides detailed provisions to prevent such outcomes.
Regrettably, the Ukrainian side continues to insist on an immediate and unconditional ceasefire while declining to engage in substantive discussions on the formation of the proposed three working groups, including on military issues, nor on the modalities of a ceasefire regime or the implementation of localized sanitary truces. Such a position appears to reflect a desire to obtain an operational pause for
the purpose of preparing further hostilities. This approach risks prolonging the conflict and increasing the human cost, rather than promoting a durable peace.
Prospects for a High-Level Meeting
The Ukrainian leadership has repeatedly called for a direct meeting between the Presidents of Russia and Ukraine as a means to end hostilities. The Russian Federation is not opposed to such a meeting in principle; however, like any high-level engagement, it must be carefully and thoroughly prepared. Its aim should be not to initiate a political settlement, but to formalize and conclude it — by affirming agreements already reached and thereby marking a definitive end to the conflict.
In this context, clarity must first be established regarding the legal legitimacy of the Ukrainian authorities, to ensure that any agreements concluded at the highest level are binding and will not subsequently be subject to revision or repudiation. It is important to recall that the constitutional term of office of the current Ukrainian President has expired, and no new elections have been held in accordance with the Ukrainian Constitution.
Nevertheless, the Ukrainian side continues to insist on convening a summit between President Putin and Mr. Zelensky absent any prior substantive groundwork — with the apparent intention of using such a meeting to retroactively legitimize Mr. Zelensky’s mandate. Such an approach undermines the integrity of the negotiation process and the credibility of any potential agreements reached.
Sanitary and Humanitarian Issues
The Russian Federation has consistently advocated for and facilitated the exchange of prisoners of war, the return of civilians, and the dignified repatriation of the remains of the deceased. Russia has fully honoured — and continues to honour — all arrangements agreed upon in this regard.
In contrast, the Ukrainian side has frequently manipulated prisoner exchange lists, insisted on the priority release of militants affiliated with radical nationalist formations, and continues to hold approximately 30 civilians from the Kursk region who were forcibly taken to Ukrainian territory. Moreover, Kyiv has sought to politicize humanitarian matters, including the situation involving children.
Accusations by Ukraine and certain Western countries that Russia has forcibly removed thousands of children from Ukrainian territory and is unlawfully holding them are unfounded. When requested to provide an official list of these children, the Ukrainian side submitted a list containing 330 names. Upon verification, it was revealed that many of these children had never been on Russian territory, and in a number of cases, children were promptly reunited with their parents or legal guardians.
On the Negotiation Process
All three rounds of negotiations held in Istanbul — on 16 May, 2 June, and 23 July — were initiated by the Russian side. Immediately following the commencement of the Special Military Operation in February 2022, the Russian Federation responded positively to Kyiv’s request to begin talks and participated in them in good faith.
Conversely, the Ukrainian side unilaterally withdrew from the negotiation process in April 2022 under external pressure, including from the United Kingdom. This was followed by the introduction of President Zelensky’s so-called “peace formula,” as well as the “Copenhagen” and “Bürgenstock” formats — initiatives which in effect obstructed the prospects for a genuine political and diplomatic settlement. Between 2014 and 2021, the Ukrainian authorities deliberately undermined the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, as well as the work of the Trilateral Contact Group and the Normandy Format — a fact later acknowledged by former leaders of Germany, France, and Ukraine.
In light of the foregoing, attempts by certain Western states to accuse the Russian Federation of acting in bad faith in the negotiation process are wholly unsubstantiated. On the contrary, all major instances of delay and disruption have originated from Kyiv and its external supporters.
More recently, new ultimatums have emerged from Western capitals and the United States — in the form of the 18th package of sanctions and further preconditions for ending the conflict. President Putin has reiterated on multiple occasions that Russia remains committed to resolving all outstanding issues through peaceful dialogue, provided that the root causes of the conflict are addressed. A long-term resolution must include the establishment of a new, inclusive security architecture in the Eurasian space — one that guarantees the safety of all states, not only Russia or Ukraine.
As for the four regions that have joined the Russian Federation, their accession was the result of free and open referendums, in which the local populations clearly expressed their will. These territories are now an integral part of the Russian Federation, as enshrined in its Constitution. This status is fully consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly its principle of the right of peoples to self-determination — the very same principle which enabled dozens of African nations, including Zambia, to attain their independence in the 1960s.
