---
title: "Peskov's briefing on the NATO summit: why Moscow is no longer frightened by Trump's statements"
description: "The Kremlin has reassessed Trump's statements about long-range weapons for Ukraine: Dmitry Peskov called them \"misconceptions\" rather than direct escalation. We analyze why Moscow's rhetoric has changed and what lies behind the lack of direct contact between the leaders of Russia and the US against the backdrop of the NATO summit in Ankara. 🇷🇺🇺🇸🔍"
date: 2026-07-09T10:27:33.000Z
lang: en
url: https://xab.info/en/posts/peskov-briefing-nato-summit-why-moscow-no-longer-frightened-by-trump
tags: []
publisher: "XAB.info"
---

# Peskov's briefing on the NATO summit: why Moscow is no longer frightened by Trump's statements

![NATO Summit: Donald Trump and member state leaders against alliance logos — in context of Peskov’s briefing on Moscow’s reduced concern over Trump’s statements](https://xab.info/media/2026/07/09/peskov-brifing-nato-ankara-2026/peskov-brifing-nato-ankara-2026-1.webp)

On July 9, 2026, comments were made in Moscow that may signal a shift in the rhetoric of Russia's foreign policy discourse. Dmitry Peskov, press secretary to the President of the Russian Federation, speaking at a briefing, assessed the events unfolding on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara. The occasion for the discussion was the negotiations between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and US leader Donald Trump, as well as subsequent statements from Washington regarding the possibility of expanding the radius of use of Ukrainian weapons.

### Diplomatic vacuum and protocol courtesy

The central event of the week was the meeting of the leaders of Ukraine and the United States in the Turkish capital. Following the negotiations, the American side announced its intention to hold telephone consultations with Moscow. However, as Peskov confirmed, at the time of the briefing, direct contact between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump had not taken place.

The Kremlin explained the absence of a conversation by the high workload of the American president, but at the same time emphasized the readiness of the Russian side to maintain communication channels. Experts interpret these formulations as an attempt to lower the tension, saving face in conditions where operational interaction between the heads of state has not yet been established.

### Change of tone: from "escalation" to "misconceptions"

The main subject of discussion was the statements of the US administration, in particular Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Washington argued that the permissibility of strikes by the Armed Forces of Ukraine against targets deep inside Russian territory was necessary to intensify the negotiation process.

Moscow's reaction to this step was non-standard. Instead of the usual accusations of "direct escalation" or "direct involvement in the conflict", the Kremlin spokesman used different vocabulary. The White House's position was characterized as "misconceptions of the administration". In the opinion of Russian diplomats, the American side mistakenly believes that military-political pressure can accelerate peace negotiations.

### Double standards and transformation of the conflict

The analytical community, including Ukrainian commentators, noted the selectivity in interpretations on the part of Moscow. If similar steps by European Union countries are traditionally classified by the Russian Foreign Ministry as a direct threat to security and confrontation, the rhetoric of the USA is perceived more softly — as a methodological error in planning.

By 2026, the fifth year of full-scale hostilities, the strategic agenda has de facto changed. The initial slogans of "demilitarization" and "denazification" were replaced by a positional confrontation of a local nature on the eastern theater of military operations. In this new reality, statements about expanding the radius of strikes are perceived not as the beginning of a new war, but as an attempt to change the conditions of the current confrontation.

From a legal point of view, the change in the conditions for the use of armaments is regulated by the norms of the UN Charter and agreements on strategic stability. As experts note, this remains the prerogative of donor states and does not entail an automatic change in the status of the parties until the official declaration of war.