Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Zelensky: talks with the US continue despite the Kremlin's information attack

We explain why the hoax about an attack on Putin’s residence is not a random sensation but a pressure tactic that could complicate turning agreements into concrete steps.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

December 30, 2025 · 2 min read

Zelensky: talks with the US continue despite the Kremlin's information attack

Kiev’s position: communication daily and substantive

The Office of the President reports that despite statements by Russian officials about an alleged derailment of the talks, Ukraine and the United States continue to maintain daily communication. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in the Office of the President’s chat that work has not stopped and that the parties “are discussing our next steps.”

“First of all, I want to tell you that despite various accusations from the Russians about the derailment of our negotiations with the Americans, we are working every day”

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine

Details of the contacts

According to the president, several phone calls took place on December 30: in particular, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Rustem Umerov spoke with U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff. This points to a working-level interaction — an exchange of positions and the development of the next practical steps, not just political declarations.

Why the fake about the attack appeared

The Kremlin tied to the topic statements about an alleged attack on Putin’s residence in the Novgorod region. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reported this version on December 29; former U.S. President Donald Trump, according to reports, reacted by saying that “this is not good.” The Ukrainian Foreign Intelligence Service (FIS) and representatives of the Office of the President view these reports as part of an information operation aimed at undermining the agreements reached after recent contacts between the Ukrainian president and the U.S. leader in Florida.

“This is not good”

— Donald Trump, former U.S. president (comment on the statements about the attack)

Analysis: what this means for the negotiation process

The spread of fake reports amid intensive diplomacy is a classic pressure tactic. The Kremlin’s aim here is clear: to sow doubt, reduce trust between partners, and divert attention from concrete agreements. At the same time, the fact of regular calls and exchanges between teams indicates that the negotiations are practical in nature and not limited to statements for the press.

Conclusion

A fake is an attempt to influence the process, but not proof that it has stopped. The next test for the negotiations is whether political agreements can be turned into documented steps: contracts, supply routes, security guarantees. This is exactly what Ukrainian officials and their partners should focus on.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026