Russia’s Diplomatic Playbook: How Moscow Uses Accusations to Manipulate Peace Negotiations

Every time negotiations between Russia, Ukraine, and the U.S. appear to gain momentum, Moscow introduces a new allegation that threatens to stall or derail the process. Ukrainian officials and Western analysts say this recurring pattern is far from coincidental.

A high-level Ukrainian official familiar with the negotiations told the Kyiv Independent that the “nonsense” Russia is spreading aims to influence the talks and divert attention from Moscow’s unwillingness to compromise. As Russian negotiators demonstrate little flexibility, the Kremlin appears to be weaponizing the diplomatic track—testing Washington’s reactions, seeking leverage, and undermining Kyiv’s credibility.

The pattern began late last year after Washington pressed Kyiv in November to accept an unfavorable draft settlement. Ukrainian officials spent more than a month renegotiating key provisions, and by late December, President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump had publicly suggested that approximately 95% of the revised peace framework was agreed upon, with only the fate of Donbas remaining unresolved.

Then came the first major disruption. Hours before a scheduled call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump on December 29, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov alleged that 91 Ukrainian drones had targeted Putin’s state residence near Valdai in Novgorod Oblast. Lavrov warned that Moscow would “review” its position in negotiations following the alleged attack.

The timing was striking—the claim emerged immediately after high-level Zelensky-Trump talks in Florida on December 28 that appeared to advance the peace process. Residents of Valdai later told independent Russian media they had neither seen drones nor received air raid alerts. Zelensky dismissed the allegation as a “lie,” suggesting Moscow sought to justify slowing or abandoning negotiations.

Trump initially appeared rattled by the incident, saying, “I don’t like it. It’s not good. You know who told me about it? President Putin told me about it… I was very angry about it.” When pressed on the source, Trump hesitated: “You’re saying maybe the attack didn’t take place? That’s possible. But President Putin told me it did.”

After U.S. intelligence briefings, Trump publicly walked back his reaction. Nevertheless, Moscow soon signaled dissatisfaction with the revised peace draft, and momentum faded.

The next major disruption came on February 6, when Russian Lieutenant General Vladimir Alekseev was shot multiple times in Moscow by an unidentified assailant. Lavrov quickly blamed Kyiv, accusing Zelensky of “provocations aimed at destabilizing the negotiation process.” Ukrainian officials denied any involvement.

The timing was again significant. Alekseev’s superior, Admiral Igor Kostyukov—head of Russia’s military intelligence (GRU)—had just participated in talks with U.S. and Ukrainian officials in Abu Dhabi. The next round, agreed upon on February 5, was set to address the most sensitive issue: territory.

Alekseev was no minor figure. He had helped lead 2022 negotiations surrounding the surrender of Ukrainian troops in Mariupol and was widely regarded as a trusted figure within the GRU, overseeing foreign operations. He was under U.S. sanctions for Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election and sanctioned by the European Union over the 2018 Novichok poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the United Kingdom.

Following this incident, Moscow reshuffled its delegation, replacing Kostyukov with Presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky as chief negotiator. Ukrainian officials had previously described Medinsky as a hard-liner who framed talks through ideological narratives rather than compromise.

Lavrov then escalated the rhetoric. From February 9 to 11, he publicly undercut optimism surrounding the next round of talks scheduled for February 17-18. He repeatedly referenced what he called the “Anchorage agreements” allegedly reached between Putin and Trump during their 2025 summit in Alaska—understandings that, in Moscow’s telling, envisioned Ukraine surrendering territory without further fighting.

Lavrov also dismissed a revised 20-point U.S.-Ukraine peace framework developed in December, after which allegations of drones over Putin’s residence surfaced. “All subsequent (peace plan) versions are the result of an attempt by Zelensky and (Europe) to override the American initiative,” he said, contradicting reports from Bloomberg that the 20-point plan was delivered to Putin in early January.

Just before another planned round of talks, Moscow escalated further. Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service claimed on February 24 that France and the United Kingdom were working to provide Ukraine with nuclear weapons to secure more favorable negotiating terms—despite Ukraine having relinquished its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

Senior Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov said the alleged plans would influence Moscow’s position in negotiations. Two senior U.K. officials told the Kyiv Independent the claim was false, while Zelensky dismissed it as “political pressure,” noting, “Usually, when Russia fails to win on the battlefield, it starts looking for nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory.”

That same day, Putin claimed intelligence about possible sabotage of the TurkStream and Blue Stream gas pipelines, warning such actions could derail peace efforts. He accused Ukraine of “individual and mass terror” despite Russia’s own sustained strikes on Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure.

Analysts see a clear strategy behind these actions. Daniel Fried, former U.S. ambassador to Poland, said the moves appear designed to create Western divisions and justification for further Russian escalation, while noting that the weakness of the claims may signal “Kremlin haste and even nervousness” about stronger security coordination between Ukraine, the UK, and France.

Iuliia Osmolovska, head of the Slovak think-tank GLOBSEC’s Kyiv office, explained that Moscow seeks to manipulate the negotiation narrative and shift American perceptions. “Russia needs to create something that would turn Americans leaning more to the Russian position in negotiations, and to cause disappointment in Ukraine,” she said.

The broader objective, analysts suggest, is not to abandon negotiations outright but to control their tempo, reshape their framing, and ensure that any breakdown can be blamed on someone else. Each allegation serves multiple purposes: testing Trump’s reactions, undermining Kyiv’s credibility, creating justification for Russian intransigence, and maintaining the narrative that Moscow is the reasonable party seeking peace.

The pattern is clear—and according to observers tracking the negotiations, it’s working.