After nearly five hours of closed‑door discussions at the Kremlin on 2 December, Moscow said no compromise had been reached on core issues in the U.S. plan to end the war. Senior aide Yuri Ushakov called the exchange with U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner “useful” but confirmed that a compromise “has not yet been found,” while spokesman Dmitry Peskov said some American proposals were acceptable and others were not. No leader‑level summit is scheduled. These details were reported by Reuters, Euronews and the Washington Post.
Hours before the meeting, President Vladimir Putin accused European governments of sabotaging U.S.-led diplomacy and warned that Russia was “ready” if Europe “starts a war,” while insisting Moscow did not seek such a conflict. State media also amplified a slur aimed at Ukraine’s leadership, quoted as a “thieving junta.” These remarks framed the talks in confrontational terms, according to PBS/Associated Press, the Guardian and RIA Novosti.
Kremlin messaging paired the diplomatic stance with claims of battlefield momentum. On 1–2 December, the Kremlin released footage of Putin in military attire at a command centre and touted the capture of Pokrovsk, a claim Ukrainian authorities disputed the same day. Reuters noted the contested status and Ukraine’s denial.
On the substance, Ushakov said Moscow reviewed a multi‑document U.S. package-described as 27–28 points plus annexes-accepted elements of it, but left territorial questions unresolved, calling them central to any deal. He added that technical contacts would continue and that specifics were not discussed at text level. Those points were relayed by Reuters, CBS News and the Washington Post.
The Kremlin also argued that recent frontline advances have strengthened Russia’s position, a linkage Ushakov made explicit after the meeting. Reuters reported him saying battlefield gains, including the contested Pokrovsk claim, influenced the talks; Russian outlets separately highlighted U.S. assessments acknowledging a tougher Russian position at the front.
Russia’s economic footing shows mixed signals behind this posture. At the VTB “Russia Calling” forum on 2 December, Putin publicly acknowledged “imbalances” and output declines in several civilian sectors, with growth projections trimmed to 0.5–1% and inflation around 6% alongside still‑elevated interest rates. Reuters’ coverage underscores that non‑defence production has lagged and that tight monetary policy remains in force.
Energy receipts-a key fiscal anchor-have weakened into late 2025. Finance Ministry data cited by the Moscow Times show oil and gas revenues down 34% year‑on‑year in November, amid lower Urals prices and a stronger rouble. At the same time, the United States escalated sanctions in October by designating Rosneft and Lukoil, Russia’s two largest oil firms, raising compliance risk across the trade.
The federal budget remains war‑centred. For 2025, Reuters reports defence at 13.5 trillion roubles, with defence and internal security together accounting for roughly 41% of expenditure, while early‑year data showed a sharply wider deficit before partial improvement later in the year; the Finance Ministry also logged a 3.69‑trillion‑rouble shortfall in H1 driven by front‑loaded spending and softer oil receipts.
European responses to Moscow’s stance have been sceptical and increasingly enforcement‑driven. The Los Angeles Times captured allied criticism that Putin is feigning interest in talks, while Reuters detailed Romania’s move to secure control over Lukoil’s local assets under sanctions legislation-illustrating tighter European risk management around Russian energy.
Taken together, this round of diplomacy signals that Moscow is prepared to keep talking but not to shift red lines on territory or security terms. Whether mounting fiscal and sectoral pressures will alter that calculus is uncertain; for now, the Kremlin is presenting resilience at the front and a willingness to keep negotiations at expert level without concessions. Reuters’ reporting on both the talks and Putin’s economic remarks points to continuity rather than compromise.