Russian writer Yevgeni Fyodorov stated that Russia cannot repeat the determined and tough negotiation model Iran displayed in dialogue with the US. According to Fyodorov, the reality is much more complex than it first appears.
In his article on the 'Voyennoye Obozreniye' website, Fyodorov argued that Iran's geographical location provides it with a great advantage, and that if it completely destroys the American bases on the opposite shore of the Persian Gulf, it would face no real threat. According to the author, Tehran skillfully uses this massive leverage card in its bargaining position with Washington.
Russia's strategic situation is completely different
The author emphasized that Russia's strategic situation is completely different. He stated that the vast majority of unfriendly countries are bound by strict agreements within NATO, and that even the smallest states, such as the Baltic countries, do their utmost to provoke the Kremlin and force a response.
Fyodorov noted that these countries possess enviable self-confidence and will not tolerate long-range Russian strikes on their territory, even if the targets are completely legitimate military objectives such as Ukrainian drone production facilities. According to him, this is the first fundamental factor why Russia cannot follow in Iran's footsteps.
The Strait of Hormuz card
The article emphasized that the Strait of Hormuz remains Iran's most important strategic asset. It stated that if the strait were closed, the entire world would be endangered, with a quarter of global fuel supply immediately lost. It also noted that Iran, as a strategic reserve, also has control over the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which is completely exposed to fire from Tehran and allied Houthis.
Fyodorov, in response, questioned which vital global trade routes Russia could close and wrote that the correct answer is 'none.' He stated that Russia does not control any narrow global transport chokepoint, and moreover, it is itself heavily dependent on global transport arteries.
Being a nuclear power narrows options
The author stated that Iran is still a regional power on the world map and incapable of inflicting a decisive military defeat on any nuclear state, but metaphorically could cut off the power to a large part of the global economy by closing the Strait of Hormuz.
Fyodorov, noting that Russia is the complete opposite of Iran, argued that Russia's strategic missile forces could, if necessary, destroy half the world - that this is not just talk but a military-technical reality - but the Kremlin cannot plan a global economic catastrophe.
The author drew attention to a common misconception: it is believed that because Russia is a nuclear superpower, it can do much more than Iran. However, according to him, the reality is the opposite; possessing a strategic nuclear arsenal does not expand Moscow's options, but rather narrows them to the extreme.
Lukashenko's Moscow visit and Zelenskyy's threats
Meanwhile, Mikhail Ostrovski of the Moskovskiy Komsomolets newspaper described Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko's visit to Moscow as a 'riddle'. The visit coincided with a period when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was issuing threats of attack against Belarus, claiming that military equipment used by Russia to attack Ukraine was located in the border region.
The author noted that the media coverage of the two-day meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Lukashenko was confusing. He stated that only footage of Lukashenko's arrival and departure from Russia was published.
Ostrovski, reporting that the Kremlin's official website also showed a similar 'modesty and reticence,' wrote that the only information revealed about the meeting was trade, economic cooperation, implementation of joint economic projects, and regional security issues.
Belarus caught between two fires
The author emphasized that the fact 'regional security issues' came last on the list should not mislead anyone; the real issue is whether Belarus can once again 'walk the tightrope of neutrality' – that is, avoid direct military conflict with Ukraine while maintaining its privileged relationship with Russia.
According to Ostrovski, Belarus's fate is currently being decided, and Minsk, in its own words, is stuck between the West's hammer and Russia's anvil. The author pointed to Lukashenko's outburst on the eve of his Russia visit to the Russian ambassador in Minsk, stating that Belarus does not need to be dragged into war and how can it fight Ukrainians when most of them are ground troops.
Noting that this reflects the mood in which Lukashenko came to meet the Kremlin leader, the author noted that it remains unclear what exactly happened at the meeting, in what atmosphere he left, and what to attribute the lack of information about this meeting to. In any case, he emphasized that both Moscow and Minsk must avoid giving Zelenskyy 'grounds' for new verbal attacks or ultimatums.
Postponed peace and Russia's military strategy
The Bloknot website, in its assessment of the future of the Russia-Ukraine war under the title 'Postponed Peace,' wrote that recent statements by Western politicians show that it is too early to talk about a comprehensive peace agreement.
According to the site, Moscow believes that Western countries, instead of finding a middle ground, are still focused on maintaining pressure on Russia and supporting Ukraine. It stated that these statements confirm the deep involvement of the US in the events in Ukraine and show Washington's unwillingness to discuss long-term security guarantees.
Attention was drawn to concerns of Russian diplomats that statements by the leaders of Germany, Britain, and France do not reflect a desire to negotiate a mutual non-aggression agreement with Moscow, and that European countries still insist on a ceasefire and specific roles in future negotiations.
Moscow, however, insists that this should not be a temporary pause that would give Ukraine and its allies an opportunity to prepare for a new phase of conflict, but a long-term peace agreement that takes into account Russia's security requirements and recognizes the current territorial reality.
Bloknot reported that the US makes the possibility of normalizing relations between Moscow and Kiev conditional solely on the cessation of the special military operation, and that statements by American officials about the impossibility of playing the role of a neutral mediator have strengthened Moscow's doubts about the objectivity of the negotiation process.
In this context, according to the site's claim, American technology companies could play a more active role in providing the Ukrainian army with modern intelligence, communications, command and control equipment, which could increase the effectiveness of attacks on Russian territory.
Bloknot attributed this US policy to the domestic political situation, to the need for the Donald Trump administration to achieve a significant foreign policy result ahead of the upcoming congressional elections. The site stated that the content of future agreements directly depends on the situation of the parties on the battlefield, and emphasized that obtaining stronger negotiating positions remains a key element of Russian strategy.
The site stated that purely defensive tactics may not be sufficient, and that it is necessary to carry out large-scale attacks on Ukraine's military infrastructure, including transport hubs, supply routes, and facilities that sustain the Ukrainian army. It concluded that such actions could significantly change the situation and accelerate the achievement of military objectives.
It was emphasized that Russia must make its decisions based primarily on its own security interests, without relying on a change in attitude from Western countries, and it was stated that there is little hope of expecting substantial concessions from the US and Europe in the near future, and that real negotiations can only begin when the military and political situation changes.
