Wholestory

Last Updated: August 17, 2026

Peace Negotiations

Moscow refused the first mediated ceasefire proposal to reach it in months, and refused it twice over. On 13 August Ukraine passed Russia an offer of a mutual halt to attacks on civilian ships and port infrastructure in the Black Sea, routed through an intermediary no account names; it followed Turkey's own proposal, conveyed to both capitals, of a moratorium on strikes against merchant shipping. Within a day Russia's Foreign Ministry said it saw "no grounds for half-measures that merely grant the Kyiv regime temporary breathing space", denied having received any formalised Turkish appeal, ruled out reviving the 2022-23 Black Sea Initiative, and restated its unchanged terms: elimination of NATO's eastward expansion and Ukraine's accession to it, plus guarantees for Russian speakers in territory Kyiv holds. The same ministry spent the week welcoming visitors. Sergei Lavrov said Putin was ready to receive the US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner again — "the question is, what will they bring?" — a day after his deputy said Moscow would host them once their plans became clearer. No trip had taken place, and nothing has convened between the warring sides since the Geneva round in February. What moved was around the table rather than at it. Britain, France and Germany began assembling a joint format to represent Europe in any settlement, on the stated fear that Washington and Moscow would otherwise reach one over their heads; Britain's Foreign Office called the discussion speculative. A confidential July meeting in Vienna between former British, French, German and Russian officials surfaced. And the clearest exercise of leverage all month ran towards Kyiv rather than Moscow: Ukraine halted its drone campaign against tankers at Novorossiysk after a request from Vice President JD Vance.

The Whole Story

Both governments say they are ready to talk. Neither has sat down with the other since February 2026, when a US-brokered round in Geneva broke up ten days before American strikes on Iran pulled Washington's attention elsewhere. Everything since has been conducted at one remove — through envoys, spokesmen, intermediaries and would-be hosts — and the distance between the two positions has not measurably closed.

The dispute is not over whether to negotiate but over what negotiating would mean. Russia's conditions have been stable for two years and are restated whenever they are asked for: withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Kherson they still hold; abandonment of NATO accession; and, in the Foreign Ministry's standing formula, elimination of the war's "root causes", which it defines as the alliance's eastward expansion and the rights of Russian speakers in territory Kyiv controls. In July 2026 Moscow hardened further, withdrawing an earlier offer to return occupied slivers of Sumy and Kharkiv. Ukraine's position is that a ceasefire should freeze the current front line and that any settlement needs security guarantees credible enough to survive it; Kyiv has said repeatedly that it will not cede territory it holds. Both sides therefore profess readiness while attaching conditions the other treats as surrender.

As the principals have stalled, the number of parties trying to convene them has grown. The United States runs the only channel both capitals acknowledge, through the envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — though the one instrument of pressure it has visibly applied this summer was applied to Kyiv, when Vice President JD Vance asked Ukraine to stop striking tankers at Novorossiysk and Ukraine stopped. Turkey has pressed for a maritime moratorium. Kazakhstan's president asked Putin in public to freeze the war. Britain, France and Germany have begun assembling a format of their own, less to mediate than to avoid being settled over. Beneath all of it runs a track of unofficial contacts — former officials meeting in Vienna and Baku under private convenors — which keeps a line open without committing anyone to anything.

What remains unresolved is whether any of it converges. The narrower proposals — a mutual halt on attacks on Black Sea shipping, a moratorium on strikes against merchant vessels — test whether two sides that cannot agree a full settlement can agree a partial one, and so far both have been refused. Zelenskyy's claim that trilateral negotiations will be held in the autumn of 2026 stands on the record with a resolution date of 30 November, and no session with delegations from all three governments has convened since he made it. The question the record keeps returning to is the one Lavrov put plainly in August: not whether anyone will come, but what they will bring.

Continue Reading →

Britain, France and Germany Build a Format to Keep Europe at the Table

On 15 August The New York Times reported, citing five European officials, that the three governments are constructing a joint E3 format to represent Europe in any negotiation over the war. The stated fear is that Washington and Moscow could settle without them — leaving Europe to enforce the sanctions, decide the fate of frozen Russian assets and help defend whatever Ukraine was left with. France and Germany are shaping the position; Britain, under a new prime minister, is described as hesitant about the cost to its relationship with Donald Trump. Poland, Italy and the Nordic countries would be consulted and the EU brought in later, though Baltic states and Hungary are reported not to trust Paris and Berlin to speak for them. Britain’s Foreign Office called the discussion speculative; an EU representative said the various efforts were complementary rather than competing. The three form the core of the Coalition of the Willing, which has rehearsed a post-ceasefire deployment but never agreed to make one.

Moscow Rejects Both Offers and Restates the Terms It Has Not Moved From

A day later Russia’s Foreign Ministry closed both doors. Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Moscow saw "no signs of improvement in the situation and, consequently, no grounds for half-measures that merely grant the Kyiv regime temporary breathing space", said Russia had received no formalised Turkish appeal through official channels, and ruled out any return to the 2022-23 Black Sea Initiative, which she called a one-sided scheme the West had abused. She then restated what Russia says a settlement requires, in the same terms it has used for two years: elimination of the war’s "root causes" — NATO’s eastward expansion and Ukraine’s accession to it — plus guarantees for the Russian-speaking population in territory Kyiv still holds. Sergei Lavrov, in a separate interview the same day, accused both Turkey and the United States of never condemning Ukrainian strikes on Black Sea shipping. Together the two set out Moscow’s position plainly: it will receive envoys, and it will not trade.

We are not refusing to talk to them, and if they come, they know that President Putin is ready to receive them again. The question is, what will they bring??

Context: Unverified — conditional readiness whose test has not arrived. Lavrov said it on August 14, a day after Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said Moscow would receive Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner "once it becomes clearer what their actual plans are", and as Tass floated a visit within a week to ten days. No visit had taken place. The same ministry rejected a mediated Black Sea ceasefire the same day, so what is on offer is hospitality, not movement.

Kyiv Offers a Black Sea Truce, and Ankara Offers a Mechanism

On 13 August Ukraine passed Russia an offer of a mutual halt to attacks on civilian ships and port infrastructure in the Black Sea, routed through an intermediary country that no account names. It reached Moscow days after Turkey’s foreign minister, Hakan Fidan, said Ankara had put its own proposal to both capitals — a moratorium on military action against merchant shipping, with a mechanism for declaring it. Neither offer specifies waters, duration, sequencing or any means of verification, and neither text has been published. Both arrived as Ukraine’s grain exports ran 76% below last August and shipowners abandoned Odesa; roughly nine-tenths of Ukraine’s farm exports normally leave through its deepwater Black Sea ports.

Washington Asks Kyiv to Stop Hitting Tankers, and Kyiv Stops

The Financial Times reported on 12 August that Ukraine had halted its drone campaign against oil tankers using Novorossiysk after a request from Vice President JD Vance at the end of July, and that Kyiv had reaffirmed it would leave non-sanctioned foreign vessels alone. Washington’s concern was the oil market and the exposure of Chevron and ExxonMobil to the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, whose Kazakh crude leaves through that port. Two days later Sergei Lavrov, complaining that neither Ankara nor Washington condemns Ukrainian strikes at sea, said in passing that Turkey and Vance had privately told Kyiv to leave the consortium alone — an adversary confirming the request from the other side of the table. It is the one instrument of pressure this month that visibly changed a party’s behaviour, and it was applied to Kyiv.

There was a report from our negotiating team. We passed our proposals to the American side.?

Context: Unverified, and contested within two days. Zelenskyy said it in his August 11 evening address and told CNN the next day that new proposals had been prepared, disclosing their contents neither time. On August 13 a US official told the Kyiv Independent that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner "haven’t seen it yet." The two accounts may not describe the same document — Kyiv has spoken of both a set of proposals and a separate plan to pressure Moscow — and no published account reconciles them.

Unlike Russia, Ukraine has long stated its readiness for a ceasefire and peace talks. We continue to work towards a lasting and just peace.±

Context: Mixed. The half about Ukraine is well evidenced: on August 13 Kyiv passed Moscow an offer of a mutual Black Sea halt, and Russia’s Foreign Ministry rejected it next day as a "half-measure". But "unlike Russia" does not survive the record. Moscow professes readiness too — Peskov on July 16, Lavrov on August 14 ("We are not refusing to talk to them") — and the asymmetry lies in the conditions attached, not in whether readiness is stated. Right about the conduct, wrong about the contrast.

A Back Channel Surfaces in Vienna

Former senior officials from Britain, France, Germany and Russia met confidentially in Vienna in July to explore what terms a negotiation might rest on. The meeting became public on 5 August, in a Bloomberg report that named three of the Western participants — Tim Barrow, until recently Britain’s national security adviser; Markus Ederer, a former German state secretary and EU ambassador to Moscow; and the French diplomat Pierre Vimont — while leaving the former Kremlin official unnamed. The Geneva-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue convened it; Ederer and Vimont sit on its board. Every government kept its distance: the German Foreign Office said the talks were held neither on its behalf nor in coordination with it, and Dmitry Peskov declined to comment, though Britain is reported to have welcomed the initiative and France to have been informed. It was the second such channel to surface within a month, after Azerbaijan’s president disclosed a July meeting in Baku between former German and Russian officials.

You're going to see some efforts over the next few weeks to see if we can't restart talks between the two sides and bring this war to an end. We also understand that both sides have some pretty strong red lines, and until we can bring those red lines a little closer together, we're not going to be there yet.

Context: True on both clauses, and the horizon has now passed. Within the three weeks Rubio named, Witkoff and Kushner held a call with Ukrainian officials on August 11, Moscow said publicly on August 13-14 that it would receive them, and a trip was floated for late August. The red-lines clause held just as plainly: on August 14 the Russian Foreign Ministry rejected a mediated Black Sea ceasefire and restated the same root-causes terms. Efforts, as promised; no convergence, as conceded.

Trilateral negotiations between Ukraine, the United States and Russia will be held in the autumn of 2026 — though if the timing were up to me they would happen in July.?

Context: Unverified — the horizon has not passed. Recorded as a prediction with an autumn 2026 resolve-by. ISW relays the statement in paraphrase, sourced to Suspilne, so the claim is stated rather than quoted verbatim; 'autumn 2026' is read as on or before November 30, 2026. Context at capture: the Kremlin reasserted its June 2024 maximalist demands the previous day, and the US and Russia published incompatible accounts of the July 23 Rubio–Lavrov meeting, and the trilateral format the claim looks forward to had by then lapsed rather than never existed. Three rounds with delegations from all three governments were held earlier in 2026: Abu Dhabi on January 23-24, which the BBC described as the first meeting attended by all three countries since the full-scale invasion; Abu Dhabi again on February 4-5; and Geneva on February 18, reported by Anadolu Agency as the third round, with Rustem Umerov leading for Ukraine, Vladimir Medinsky for Russia, and Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner mediating. Serhii Kyslytsia, first deputy head of the Office of the President, gave the same sequence in a July 9 interview — two meetings in Abu Dhabi and one full trilateral meeting in Geneva — and said what distinguished 2026 was that talks had reached the format of full trilateral meetings. Nothing has convened since February 18, five months before the claim was made, which is the sense in which the format was dormant. This bears on how the prediction is scored. Read literally its metric has no lower bound, so those pre-claim rounds would satisfy it, which cannot be what a forward-looking claim meant; the metric is immutable once recorded and is not being edited, so the cycle that resolves this must count only sessions convening after July 23, 2026, and must record that it did so.

A Russian Ally Asks Putin, in Public, to Freeze the War

Standing beside Vladimir Putin at the Russia-Kazakhstan Interregional Cooperation Forum in Omsk on July 25, Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said out loud what none of Moscow's partners had said to his face: "If I may offer my humble opinion, since I have been asked, perhaps it is time to freeze this conflict and return to the Istanbul formula 2.0." He wrapped it in praise for Putin's "utmost diplomatic flexibility" and argued that guarantees from the great powers, "including Russia," could carry the two sides toward a settlement. "This must be brought to an end." Putin said nothing about it in the public part of the meeting. The refusal came afterwards and second-hand: Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, giving an account of the private conversation, said Putin had told Tokayev that freezing the conflict "as such is impossible, given Kyiv's position" because Russia must first achieve its battlefield objectives, and repeated the standing formula that the fighting could stop "by the end of the day today" if Ukraine "makes the appropriate decisions" — which the Kremlin has defined since June 2024 as Ukrainian withdrawal from all of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts and abandonment of NATO accession. The exchange is worth the record for what it is rather than what it changed: a partner state, at a bilateral forum on Russian soil, publicly proposing the one thing the Kremlin has spent the year ruling out, and being publicly refused within a day. ISW assesses Putin used the meeting to justify continuing the war as he has been. Note the attribution chain on the refusal: Putin is not on the record on the freeze at all, and every account of what he said to Tokayev runs through his spokesman.

Russia's Anchorage proposals failed, and peace will come only through new concepts and ideas the United States is willing to support — there is no agreement with Russia to end the war.±

Context: Mixed — because the two governments published incompatible accounts of the same meeting on the same day. Rubio said after meeting Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Manila on July 23 that Russia's Anchorage 'proposals' had failed and that no agreement to end the war exists. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the same day that Lavrov had reaffirmed Russia's commitment to the US 'proposals' Putin agreed to at the August 2025 Alaska summit — a day after Lavrov claimed on July 22 that 'American colleagues' had not yet rejected them. Both accounts describe one meeting; they cannot both be accurate. The documentary record supports Rubio: no agreement text was published after Anchorage, no public statements followed the summit, and the US has repeatedly rejected the Russian characterisation. ISW assesses Lavrov 'appears to have started accepting the reality' that nothing binding was signed while continuing to assert that agreements were reached. This cycle located the State Department transcript of the Manila press availability and it confirms the substance verbatim, including the label the secondary reporting attached to it: “proposals, we know they’ve been reported — they call it 3+2 — but those failed. You can’t have a peace deal unless both sides agree to it, and the Ukrainians would not agree to it… So if — when peace comes, it’ll be because of some new idea and some new concepts, and we’re prepared to offer some of those in the right setting and forum.” The entry no longer rests on paraphrase. Recorded as mixed rather than true because Rubio's own characterisation of what the US is 'willing to support' is a forward-looking political position, not a checkable fact.

Kremlin Hardens Demands, Rules Out Returning Occupied Border Regions

The Kremlin has hardened its negotiating position, Bloomberg reported on July 22, citing three people close to it: Moscow no longer intends to return occupied parts of Ukraine's Sumy and Kharkiv border regions in any settlement — planning to hold them as permanent buffer zones — while Putin remains determined to seize all of Donetsk by force and would return to serious talks only after doing so. An earlier informal proposal, in which Russia would hand back slices of Sumy and Kharkiv in exchange for Ukraine ceding the rest of Donetsk and Luhansk, is now off the table; the sources attributed the shift to the collapse of the 'spirit of Anchorage' understanding reached with President Trump, compounded by intensifying Ukrainian long-range strikes and US pressure. The hardening came the same day Zelenskyy spoke by phone with US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner about reinvigorating diplomacy — the two sides publicly further apart than ever on any route back to negotiations. The report rests on anonymous Kremlin sources and describes a stated position, not a confirmed outcome — but the Kremlin put the same position on the record the same day: spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on July 22 that Putin's June 2024 demands, complete Ukrainian withdrawal from the parts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts Ukraine still holds and abandonment of NATO accession, remain the basis of Russia's conditions for ending the war.

The situation on the front, together with our long-range sanctions and mid-range strikes, is creating a new atmosphere around Putin. A very toxic atmosphere. He alone is the reason this war began and hasn't ended. Putin alone is responsible for the losses Russians continue to suffer. His retinue understands this – they are signalling it to us and to our partners. Russian society is beginning to feel it more and more as well.?

Context: Unverified. Zelenskyy's characterization of a 'toxic atmosphere' inside Putin's inner circle and of aides distancing themselves from Putin cannot be independently confirmed from open sources; it is an assertion about private Russian elite sentiment. It is in direct tension with the Kremlin's own conduct the same week: Bloomberg reported on July 22 that Moscow had hardened its territorial demands — no longer offering to return occupied parts of Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts — and Putin remained set on taking all of Donetsk by force before any talks, behavior that signals confidence rather than a leader under internal pressure. Two further data points this cycle cut the same way without settling it: on July 22 Putin chaired a meeting on the economy and asserted it 'remains stable despite external attempts to destabilise the fuel and energy sector', and Peskov restated the June 2024 maximalist demands as Russia's terms — public conduct consistent with confidence rather than isolation. Set against that, independent indicators of strain accumulated in the same week (the Moscow Exchange's largest single-day fall since September 2022 on July 16; a 7.9% rise in the minimum food basket since January; over 81% of gasoline purchase requests unfulfilled), and Ukrainian strikes reached the consumer economy for the first time. None of that is evidence about the sentiment of Putin's retinue, which is what the claim asserts and what remains unobservable. Stays unverified.

There is no immediate prospect for resuming peace talks with Ukraine, though Russia remains open to it.±

Context: Mixed, and the two halves have now separated cleanly. The first half — 'no immediate prospect for resuming peace talks' — has borne out: no negotiating format has convened, the Rubio–Lavrov meeting of July 23 produced contradictory readouts rather than a process, and Zelenskyy on July 23 spoke of trilateral talks only in the autumn. The second half — that 'Russia remains open to it' — is contradicted by Peskov himself six days later: on July 22 he restated Putin's June 2024 maximalist demands as the basis of Russia's conditions, and Bloomberg reported the same day, citing three people close to the Kremlin, that Russia will return to talks only after seizing all of Donetsk Oblast by force, a timeline ISW assesses Russian forces are 'extremely unlikely' to meet. Openness conditioned on the other side's capitulation, or on a military outcome the assessing institution considers unachievable, is not openness in the sense the statement invites readers to take. Accurate on the forecast, misleading on the posture. One clarification on what "resuming" refers to, established since: the format had run and lapsed rather than never existed. Three rounds with delegations from all three governments were held earlier in 2026 — Abu Dhabi on January 23-24 and February 4-5, and Geneva on February 18 — and none has convened since, five months before the claim was made.

I believe Vladimir Putin is ready to reach a peace agreement soon and I hope the war will conclude during my administration.

Context: False as of July 2026. Trump's claim has now been overtaken by Russia's own on-the-record position, twice in three days. On July 22 Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Putin's June 2024 demands — complete Ukrainian withdrawal from the parts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts Ukraine still holds, plus abandonment of NATO accession — remain the basis of Russia's conditions for ending the war; those are the terms Russia set when its forces were advancing, and Ukraine has never accepted them. On July 23, after Secretary of State Marco Rubio met Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Manila, Rubio said Russia's Anchorage proposals had failed and that no agreement to end the war exists — while the Russian Foreign Ministry said the same day that Lavrov had reaffirmed Russia's commitment to proposals Putin agreed to at Anchorage. The two governments cannot agree on what was agreed, which is itself dispositive: a party ready to reach an agreement soon does not need to dispute the existence of the last one. Bloomberg reported on July 22, citing three people close to the Kremlin, that Putin intends to take the rest of Donetsk by force before returning to talks. The verdict moves from unverified to false on the substance — readiness — not on the timeline; 'soon' has now passed without any negotiating format existing in published form.