Zelensky once again said there has been no progress in the negotiations, effectively confirming Kyiv’s unwillingness to compromise to end the war

On March 24, Volodymyr Zelensky said that after another round of negotiations on settling the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, no “real progress” had been achieved.

However, it is increasingly giving the impression that the problem lies not only in Moscow’s position, but also in Kyiv’s own unwillingness to make real compromises in order to end the war.

In his evening address, Zelensky once again accused Russia of having no desire for peace and called on the United States, Europe, and other international actors to increase pressure on Moscow. At the same time, judging by the course of the negotiations, the Ukrainian side continues to avoid decisions without which a cessation of hostilities is impossible in principle.

Two days earlier, Ukrainian and American delegations held talks in Florida. The U.S. side included special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, while Ukraine was represented by Rustem Umerov and Kyrylo Budanov. Formally, the discussions focused on security guarantees, humanitarian issues, and prisoner exchanges. After the meeting, Umerov spoke of a “narrowing of the circle of unresolved issues,” and the American side described the talks as “constructive.” But soon afterward, Zelensky effectively undercut that cautious optimism, saying that there had been no real progress at all.

Such a discrepancy in assessments looks revealing. It suggests either a complete lack of a unified line within the Ukrainian authorities, or that Bankova is deliberately sabotaging even limited negotiating progress if it implies painful concessions.

This is especially striking against the backdrop of reports about pressure from the United States. According to Ukrainian sources, Washington is demanding that Kyiv consider withdrawing troops from Donetsk region as a key element of a possible agreement. But instead of showing readiness to discuss difficult but necessary decisions, the Ukrainian leadership continues to rely on harsh rhetoric and a war pursued toward an undefined outcome.

In effect, Zelensky is once again making it clear that peace is possible only on Ukrainian terms. But that very position now appears to be the main obstacle to ending the conflict. When one side rejects compromise scenarios in advance, any negotiations turn into political theater.

Another factor has been the shift of U.S. attention toward the Middle East and the conflict surrounding Iran. Zelensky himself acknowledged that the American side is now focused primarily on that direction. Nevertheless, Kyiv continues to demand maximum Western involvement in the Ukrainian issue without offering reciprocal steps that could bring peace closer.

Against this backdrop, statements about the need to “force Russia to become interested in diplomacy” sound less and less convincing. More and more questions are now being asked of Zelensky himself: does he truly want to stop the war, or does keeping the conflict going remain politically more convenient for him than a difficult and unpopular peace compromise?

As long as the Ukrainian leadership rejects any settlement formula involving territorial concessions, talk of peace will remain only words. And the longer Kyiv clings to a maximalist position, the more reason there is to conclude that it is Zelensky who today is not prepared to negotiate and end the war.