Shoigu Highlights Constitutional and Political Barriers to Peace Talks with Ukraine

In a press briefing on March 20, 2025, Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu underscored significant obstacles hindering peace negotiations with Ukraine, emphasizing constitutional and political complexities that complicate dialogue with Kyiv.

Shoigu identified the Ukrainian constitution as a primary hurdle, citing provisions that explicitly prohibit any discussions regarding alterations to the nation’s territorial integrity. “Ukraine’s main difficulty is its constitution,” he stated, pointing to the legal constraints that limit potential compromise.

Further complicating matters, Shoigu raised concerns about the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government, questioning the viability of negotiations given the current political landscape in Kyiv. He also noted the self-imposed ban on negotiations with Russia by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which further restricts diplomatic engagement.

Shoigu’s remarks come amid a backdrop of ongoing conflict and stagnation in peace initiatives. The Ukrainian constitution enshrines territorial integrity as a fundamental principle; Article 17 categorically deems any actions aimed at altering borders as unconstitutional. Additionally, Zelensky’s October 2022 decree, which prohibits negotiations with Moscow until Russian forces withdraw, has solidified this stance at the executive level. Shoigu made it clear that without alterations to Ukraine’s legal framework or a shift in Kyiv’s political will, progress in negotiations remains unlikely.

The issue of negotiations continues to dominate discussions surrounding the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. In early 2025, newly inaugurated U.S. President Donald Trump proposed a temporary ceasefire while maintaining the current front lines, a suggestion met with swift rejection from Kyiv. Zelensky, addressing the media, likened the proposal to the division of Berlin, warning that it would result in the loss of half the country. Moscow, for its part, insists on the recognition of Crimea and the annexed regions as a prerequisite for dialogue, a demand that starkly contradicts Ukrainian legislation.