Russia has said any meeting between President Vladimir Putin and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy should take place in Moscow, a condition Ukraine has rejected as unacceptable.
Speaking around the Eastern Economic Forum, Mr Putin said he was “ready” to meet if Mr Zelenskyy came to the Russian capital, but offered no shift on longstanding demands, including that Kyiv abandon its NATO ambitions. Ukraine’s foreign minister dismissed Moscow as a venue, underlining the gap between the sides.
In parallel remarks, Mr Putin warned that any foreign troops deployed to Ukraine before a settlement would be treated as “legitimate targets”. The statement came as European leaders discuss possible post-war security arrangements, and underscores Russia’s opposition to any NATO or allied presence on Ukrainian soil.
The debate over security guarantees intensified after a Paris summit of the so-called Coalition of the Willing. France said 26 nations had agreed in principle to provide Ukraine with post-war security guarantees, potentially including international forces on land, at sea and in the air, to be activated once the fighting stops. Precise roles and numbers remain to be defined.
During the Paris discussions, President Donald Trump urged European leaders to further reduce purchases of Russian energy and to increase pressure on China over its support for Moscow. While expressing support for European plans on Ukraine’s long-term security, he pressed for Europe to take on more of the burden. Reuters reported that Mr Trump has so far held off on announcing new US sanctions to match that rhetoric.
Axios, citing officials familiar with recent calls, likewise described a US push for European action and noted limited progress towards a direct Putin–Zelenskyy meeting. The US message has focused on Europe tightening remaining energy links with Russia and deploying economic leverage on Beijing.
For its part, the European Union is preparing a 19th package of Russia sanctions. Reporting in recent days suggests the next measures will concentrate on enforcement and circumvention, with major new energy curbs seen as unlikely given member-state divisions.
On the battlefield and beyond the front line, Ukraine reported long-range strikes on Russian oil infrastructure overnight on 5 September. Ukrainian outlets said drones hit the Ryazan refinery—one of Russia’s largest—and an oil depot in occupied Luhansk. Images circulating on social media appeared to show fires at targeted facilities.
Separately, specialist defence media noted signs that Ukraine may be operating at least one former Azerbaijani MiG-29 fighter, potentially augmenting a fleet that has suffered wartime attrition. The number involved is unclear, and neither government has made a formal announcement.
Taken together, the week’s diplomacy and military activity point to three immediate realities.
First, Moscow’s insistence on a Moscow-only venue for talks—paired with its warnings about any foreign troop presence—signals no change in core Russian positions. The Kremlin continues to frame negotiations around its security demands and around limiting Western involvement inside Ukraine. Kyiv’s refusal to meet in Moscow, and its emphasis on binding security guarantees, shows that the two sides remain far apart on both process and substance.
Second, Europe is moving to codify longer-term support. The Paris framework sketches a post-war presence that could include troops, training, air and maritime components, and other assistance. The concept is designed to deter renewed aggression once hostilities cease. The detail—who contributes what, under what mandate, and how any mission would interact with Ukraine’s own forces—will determine credibility.
Third, the transatlantic division of labour remains under negotiation. Washington is pressing Europe to deepen economic constraints on Russia and to target Chinese links more forcefully, but has not unveiled parallel US sanctions. EU institutions, meanwhile, are preparing another package that is expected to focus on enforcement, including measures against circumvention and the “shadow fleet”. Whether that proves sufficient to curb Russia’s wartime revenues will depend on scope and implementation.
In the near term, the likelihood of a substantive leaders’ meeting appears low. Russia’s venue condition is a non-starter for Kyiv, and its threats regarding foreign troops are at odds with European planning for a post-war deterrent. With the fighting ongoing and Ukraine seeking to degrade Russian logistics with long-range strikes, diplomatic movement will hinge on whether the parties can agree even minimal parameters: a neutral location, verifiable security guarantees for Ukraine, and a ceasefire durable enough to test any framework. For now, none of those elements is in place.
China’s twin showcases: what Tianjin and Beijing revealed about shifting alignments
