Peskov Says Moscow Sees No Path to Better EU Relations

Dmitry Peskov’s August 29 statement signaled a sharp deterioration in Moscow’s public view of the European Union. The Kremlin spokesman said he saw no reason to expect better relations with Europe and portrayed the bloc’s current political leadership as confrontational in both words and actions. 57

That position contrasts with a more conditional opening earlier in 2026, when the Kremlin said Vladimir Putin was ready to speak with European leaders and discuss restoring relations. The change reflects a diplomatic process that never overcame its core disagreements over the war in Ukraine, sanctions, European security and the terms of a possible settlement.

What Peskov said about the EU

Peskov said European statements suggested that Russia was being treated as an “adversary” or even an “enemy.” He also accused Europe’s current politicians of confronting Russia not only rhetorically but through their actions. 56

His most serious allegation was that European authorities were mobilising military capabilities against Russia and directly participating in hostilities. The reports did not identify the specific European statements to which Peskov was referring, so those accusations should be understood as the Kremlin’s claims rather than independently established facts in the available reporting. 5613

The conclusion Peskov drew was categorical: Moscow currently saw no visible basis for improving relations between Russia and the EU. 7

How this differed from Putin’s earlier position

The August message was notably harder than the Kremlin’s statements in May. On May 8, Peskov said Putin was ready to negotiate with “everyone,” including European countries, but would not initiate contact because Moscow believed Brussels and individual European capitals had been responsible for reducing relations to near-zero. 316

On May 17, the Kremlin said Russia was prepared to negotiate with EU member states with the aim of restoring bilateral relations. It also presented a pragmatic European approach as a possible route back to dialogue. 14

The opening remained conditional. In June, Peskov said Russia was open to dialogue with European countries but would not accept pressure or ultimatums. He argued that Europe needed to change its approach to Moscow before talks could make progress. 112

So the shift was not from unconditional cooperation to hostility. Even during the earlier opening, Moscow tied dialogue to demands about who should take the first step and how negotiations should be conducted. The August statement removed even the expectation that improved relations were immediately possible.

Why the diplomatic thaw failed to take hold

The central dispute was over the relationship between diplomacy and the war. The EU continued to describe Russia’s invasion as a war of aggression and reaffirmed support for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Its stated response included political, financial, economic, humanitarian, military and diplomatic assistance for Ukraine, as well as continued pressure and sanctions on Russia.

Moscow objected to negotiations it viewed as coercive. Russian officials also said that any peace proposal had to reflect the “realities on the ground,” a formulation that placed battlefield positions and Russia’s demands at the center of a possible settlement.

Those positions left little overlap. European governments were considering how the EU could participate in future Russia-Ukraine diplomacy, but EU officials also questioned whether Moscow showed genuine interest in peace and maintained that negotiations could not simply legitimise Russia’s territorial claims.

Peace efforts stalled as fighting continued

The diplomatic opening was also overtaken by developments on the battlefield. On July 16, the Kremlin said there was no immediate prospect of resuming peace talks with Ukraine, while still claiming to remain open to negotiations.

By late August, Ukrainian officials were discussing the possibility of renewed technical talks but did not expect a swift agreement. 1920 Separate reporting described the Russia-Ukraine negotiations as being on a “deep pause,” while Russian forces continued their military campaign.

Reuters also reported continuing Russian missile and drone attacks in Ukraine in late August. 17 That combination—limited diplomatic contact alongside continued military operations—made the mid-year dialogue look exploratory rather than a genuine restoration of pre-war relations.

What the reversal means for Russia-EU relations

Peskov’s remarks are best understood as a recognition that the tentative opening had been overtaken by incompatible positions, rather than as an isolated change in wording. Moscow continued to frame Europe as a hostile actor supporting Ukraine and applying pressure on Russia. The EU, meanwhile, treated the invasion as a fundamental breach of European security and continued backing Ukraine while maintaining sanctions.

The result was a narrow and unstable space for diplomacy. The Kremlin could say it was open to talks while rejecting ultimatums, demanding that Europe make the first move and insisting on Russian terms for a settlement. European governments could explore diplomatic channels while arguing that any durable peace had to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and comply with the UN Charter and international law. 112

Against that background, the August 29 statement did not announce the end of all possible contact. It did show, however, that Moscow no longer presented improved EU relations as a realistic near-term prospect. Until the war, sanctions, security demands and the terms of a peace agreement are addressed, the diplomatic thaw that appeared possible in mid-2026 remains stalled.