The Kremlin has deemed the presence of European NATO troops in Ukraine unacceptable, citing the alliance’s expansion as one of the root causes of the war, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Wednesday.
“We view this negatively,” Peskov said when asked about proposals calling for the deployment of European troops to Ukraine to bolster the country’s security. He noted that Moscow has repeatedly raised concerns about the issue at various levels.
European troop presence a provocation, says Putin
“There are no European troops per se—only troops from individual countries, and most of these countries are NATO members. From the very beginning, the expansion of NATO’s military infrastructure and its infiltration into Ukraine have been one of the primary factors triggering this conflict. That’s why we view such proposals negatively,” the Kremlin spokesman said.
He added that the issue of security guarantees is one of the most critical aspects of resolving the situation in Ukraine, stressing that public discourse on the matter could hinder progress. He mentioned that the heads of the Russian and Ukrainian negotiating teams remain in contact, though no date has been set for the next round of talks.
Russia “appreciates” Trump’s “peace efforts”
Peskov reiterated that any high-level or top-level talks need careful preparation and reaffirmed Moscow’s commitment to resolving the conflict through political and diplomatic means. He emphasised that reciprocal efforts from Kyiv are also essential. On behalf of Russia, he expressed appreciation for U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts toward achieving peace and voiced hope that these efforts would continue.
Regarding a prior statement by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko—who claimed that Vladimir Putin was advised to strike central Kyiv with Oresnyik hypersonic missiles but rejected the idea—Peskov stressed that President Putin has behaved responsibly and that Russian forces are targeting only military objectives.
Zelensky: Time to establish framework for security talks
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on X (formerly Twitter) Wednesday that Ukraine and its coalition partners are already working on providing Kyiv with security guarantees at various levels, and that it’s time to define the format for talks on the matter. He added that new measures are needed to pressure Russia into halting its attacks.
Following a phone call with Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Zelensky stated on X that European, American, and other coalition partners are working to develop strong and multifaceted security guarantees for Ukraine. Military commanders, defence ministers, and security advisors are already preparing the core elements, so “it’s time to create a framework for direct talks between leaders and to establish key priorities and timelines,” Zelensky said.
According to Zelensky, Russia is currently “sending negative signals about future meetings and developments” and continues to attack Ukrainian cities. He argued that “new steps are necessary to increase pressure on Russia” to end the aggression and ensure real security. “Russia must be the one to move toward genuine diplomacy,” Zelensky emphasised.
Read more:
- Will Putin intervene if Orbán loses in 2026? Security expert warns of troubling signs
- Germany labels Hungary a security threat: Orbán’s politics could cost billions in EU cash
Featured image: depositphotos.com
To read or share this article in Hungarian, click here: Helló Magyar
Every FREE nation in Europe wants NATO protection. Not a single one wants Russian troops in their country. Russia creates the desire for further NATO expansion through its’ own aggression which is exactly what happened now when Finland and Sweden joined. Russia is the enemy. Russia is the existential threat to everyone who is anywhere near their borders. The Russian government is the largest criminal organization on the globe that subjugates its’ people and seeks to subjugate others. It is the biggest country by land mass but it still seeks more territory. It’s a menace to all of Europe.
Objectivity is the bane of a logical mind: to see all sides without judgment, devoid of prejudice.
Would the US agree to have Russian troops and missile silos in Mexico and Canada, ostensibly to help secure North America from the constant flow of dangerous drugs? Surely not. To wit, recall the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Likewise, Putin is not keen to have Russia surrounded by NATO troops and military bases; he would prefer to have independent, thriving, and friendly nations on its borders.
NATO, especially under U.S. leadership, has an incentive to keep the alliance relevant—whether through real threats or fabricated ones—and to keep expanding it as part of a broader effort to maintain global dominance.
Take Georgia and Ukraine. Neither is facing an imminent threat from Russia, especially considering Russia’s limited ability to directly challenge NATO members. These countries push for NATO membership not because they’re under immediate attack, but for Western support and economic integration. NATO, however, exaggerates Russia’s threat to justify massive military spending and alliances with countries that don’t face any real, urgent danger.
It’s like a protection racket: “Give us 5% of your money, and we’ll keep you safe.” Sound familiar? That’s exactly how the mafia operates.
NATO has become a war machine that delivers precisely what it’s paid to deliver: war. But who really benefits from war? The elites. They profit while ordinary people are left to suffer and die. The war machine doesn’t care about you or me: it never has. So why do we continue to feed the beast?
The message is clear: “Die, and maybe take a Russian with you.” Or, as NATO pushes into areas like Japan, perhaps the goal is to provoke China into conflict as well. But stop for a moment and ask yourself: Has China invaded any country in the last 2,000 years? How many wars has Russia started in the last 50 years? And how many wars has the U.S. started while leading NATO?
And here’s a bigger question: Why is it that the countries most invested in endless conflict are the ones who stand to profit the most from it? Who gains when entire nations are turned into battlegrounds? The people? Or the corporations, military contractors, and political elites?
If NATO truly exists to protect democracy and peace, then why does its expansion often result in more tension, more arms, and more military interventions? If the goal is security, why do we see more instability and suffering instead?
Is it really about protecting us, or is it about perpetuating a system where war is the only profitable option?
Well said Péter.
Sadly this is the reality.