President Emmanuel Macron’s assertion that the United States no longer wishes to act as a neutral mediator in the Ukraine conflict has drawn a sceptical response from Moscow, with senior Russian officials stating they have not heard any such position from Washington itself. Macron told reporters that the US had for the first time adopted a document signalling support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, military and energy assistance, and anti-Russian sanctions, which he interpreted as a departure from a mediating role. In Moscow, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the French leader could not serve as “advocate or press secretary for Washington”, and that no confirming statements had been received from the US. Alexey Chepa, first deputy chairman of the State Duma’s international affairs committee, went further, advising that Macron’s words not be taken “as fact” and suggesting that Western pressure had altered President Donald Trump’s stance since the Alaska summit.

Viewed from Moscow, the question of American neutrality is already settled in practical terms. Peskov noted that the term “absolute neutrality” is inapplicable because the United States continues to supply the bulk of weaponry and other military technology to Kyiv. Nevertheless, the Kremlin stressed that it values Washington’s readiness to help reach a peaceful settlement and remains open to its mediation services. This dual-track message — acknowledging US partiality while welcoming its diplomatic engagement — reflects a Russian calculation that Trump’s stated desire to broker an end to the fighting, and his administration’s influence over both Kyiv and European capitals, outweigh the symbolic loss of a neutral label. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, responding to Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s remark that no agreement was reached at the Alaska summit, called the characterisation “not very elegant”, insisting that US proposals were tabled and accepted by Russia, and that the facts of that meeting require clarification.

In Washington, the official line remains that the Anchorage encounter produced only an exchange of proposals, not a binding accord. Rubio confirmed that the US is prepared to play a constructive role in the peace process and that Trump intends to continue his efforts. The gap between the two sides’ interpretations of the August 2025 summit — where, according to Moscow, principles including Ukraine’s non-membership in NATO and recognition of Russian control over new territories were discussed — has widened since February 2026, when, according to Lavrov, Washington distanced itself from the “Anchorage principles”. European and Ukrainian actors, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has claimed, are actively sabotaging those understandings.

The diplomatic picture is further complicated by sequencing. Trump has signalled that US mediation on Ukraine will intensify once the Iran dossier is resolved, a point Peskov noted with approval. Meanwhile, Kyiv asserts it has seized the battlefield initiative through deep drone strikes on Russian oil refineries and industrial sites, a claim Moscow dismisses. The Russian foreign ministry has warned Washington that continued arms transfers to Ukraine carry “unpredictable consequences for regional and international security”. With no official US communication corroborating Macron’s assessment, the Kremlin is awaiting clarity on whether Washington still sees itself as a mediator, while keeping the channel open for a resumption of Trump-led diplomacy once the Iran file closes.