‘Reality, not dreams’ RT editor-in-chief proposes Ukraine ceasefire where Russia keeps occupied territories but nothing more, enraging Z-patriots
In an interview with actor Vyacheslav Manucharov released last month, Russia Today editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan suggested a resolution to the invasion of Ukraine that she deemed “realistic” and “acceptable.” Specifically, she imagined a scenario in which Russia keeps all the Ukrainian territory it can occupy until the ceasefire is signed. Simonyan’s “compromise” and other details of her proposal are predicated on negotiations between the Kremlin and the next Trump administration (excluding Ukraine and other European states). With less than a week before Trump’s second-term inauguration, clips from Simonyan’s interview have started recirculating on social media, again provoking angry criticism from Russia’s even more hawkish pundits. Meduza reviews how the Kremlin’s most outspoken propagandist finds herself accused of “admiring the West.”
“Without a doubt, this includes retaining the territories enshrined in Russia’s Constitution — our new regions,” Simonyan told Manucharov in December 2024. “We stop at the contact line. Everything on this side of the contact line is ours; everything on the other side isn’t. Some kind of buffer zone would be created, as often happens in conflict zones.”
She also said Moscow would need certain guarantees that Ukraine won’t be invited to join NATO, though she quickly added that “no one ever believes guarantees.” “At least let them be on paper,” she finished. However, Simonyan declined to say whether NATO’s non-membership pledge should be for 20 years or forever.
She also said Russia would need to ensure Ukraine’s “denazification,” which she described as “guarantees that Ukraine won’t take aggressive actions against Russia or oppress the Russian-speaking population there.”
When Manucharov expressed surprise that Simonyan didn’t lay claim to the Odesa region (which Russian troops have not occupied), the RT chief fired back: “Listen, we’re working not from dreams but from reality.” She then admitted, “I would like Odesa, Kyiv, Kharkiv, and everything else. I think what’s realistic is what Trump and we could agree to and accept.”
Simonyan’s peace plan, such as it is, has sparked criticism among some of Russia’s even more hawkish commentators.
For example, military analyst and columnist Boris Dzherelievsky wrote in a January 14 op-ed for SegodniaRU (with a qualified editorial endorsement) that Simonyan had misinterpreted “denazification” and proposed a NATO membership compromise that allegedly has the endorsement of former Azov Battalion commander Andriy Biletsky.
Dzherelievsky went so far as to accuse Simonyan of deliberately trying to undermine Russia’s hard-fought military effort:
But why is the editor-in-chief of RT saying the same thing [as Andriy Biletsky]? Why, at a time when our army is advancing and our defense industry is gaining momentum, should we effectively abandon all the stated objectives of the Special Military Operation [sic], the main one being to ensure the security of our country against threats emanating from Ukrainian territory? This would be tantamount to capitulation and an admission that all the sacrifices made were in vain. […]
In our country’s history, there have been repeated instances where wars, basically already won by our soldiers, were lost by the politicians. However, the issue is not their incompetence but whose interests they were serving. […]
Margarita Simonyan is by no means a private individual; she is the editor-in-chief of a federal state unitary enterprise. The fact that she voices such narratives demonstrates the extent to which a faction of Western admirers retains influence in Russia. And that’s deeply concerning.