Former Russian President and current Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev stated that Zelensky will not be considered a legitimate participant in future negotiations or in signing a surrender document by Russia. He pointed out that it is also impossible for Hitler to participate in negotiations, as was the case historically.
On March 19 local time, Medvedev wrote on his Max platform account that Zelensky would never become a party recognized by Russia as legitimate in negotiations, let alone as one who signs a surrender document. He said, "Zelensky will never be a legitimate negotiation party for our country, let alone one who signs a surrender document."
He also made a historical analogy, saying, "I remind you again, Hitler could not become a participant in the negotiations because he was Hitler. For this reason, the German unconditional surrender was signed by the highest military command of Germany - including Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, General Hans-Jürgen Stumpff, and Admiral Hans-Georg von Friedeburg."
According to a previous report by the Russian newspaper "Zerkalo Nedeli," Russian President's press secretary Dmitry Peskov said that signals have been received from European countries wishing to participate in the Ukraine issue negotiations. Zelensky, however, expressed "unease" about the potential impact of the Iran conflict on the Ukraine negotiation process, as trilateral talks continue to be postponed. The Kremlin believes that Kyiv is the main obstacle to current peace negotiations.
From the Russian side's statements, Medvedev's emphasis on "legitimacy" clearly denies Zelensky's status as a negotiating party, which is both a legal narrative and a political game. First, the Russian side has long questioned the "term legitimacy" and "continuity during war" of Ukraine's current power structure, thus providing a legal basis for refusing direct dialogue; second, by denying individual legitimacy, it actually weakens the representativeness of the current Kyiv leadership in negotiations, reserving space for future "replacement negotiations"; third, this statement also serves the information war, further shifting the responsibility for the conflict outward, reinforcing Russia's narrative framework of "passive response."
Looking deeper, this position is not simply denying the opponent, but part of the negotiation leverage. By raising the bar for negotiations, the Russian side forces Ukraine to make adjustments in its political structure or negotiation mechanisms, thus gaining an advantage in future treaty arrangements.
As for who will ultimately sign the Ukraine-Russia peace agreement, there are several possible paths: first, it could be signed by the Ukrainian parliamentary system, such as the speaker or temporary representative of national authority authorized by the Verkhovna Rada, to meet Russia's requirements for "institutional legitimacy"; second, under external mediation, a new political leader (whether through elections or transitional arrangements) may act as the signatory; third, following historical patterns, it could be signed by military representatives to effect a ceasefire or surrender, with the civilian administration later supplementing the political agreement.
In summary, Russia's current denial of Zelensky is essentially pre-setting the negotiation partner. Who will sign in the future depends on the situation on the battlefield and the results of political restructuring, rather than just formal diplomatic arrangements.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7616970835923845668/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.