In a war that has severed most official channels between Moscow and Kyiv, the ombudspersons' offices remain one of the few places where the two states still speak to one another.
Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Saturday that Russian Human Rights Commissioner Yana Lantratova and Ukrainian Human Rights Ombudsman Dmitry Lubinets have established what he called a good and trust-based relationship, according to TASS. Speaking in an interview with the Vedomosti daily, Peskov said the two had "established a good dialogue" and were "gradually beginning to trust each other", adding that this was good for human rights work.
The remark is modest in itself, but it points to something worth noting. In a war that has severed most official channels between Moscow and Kyiv, the ombudspersons' offices remain one of the few places where the two states still speak to one another. Their work concerns prisoners of war, detained civilians, missing persons and family tracing — matters that require contact even when everything else has broken down. Peskov's comments, as reported by TASS, suggest that contact has continued and, in his account, improved.
It is important to be clear about what the report does and does not establish. The source is a single interview with a Kremlin spokesman, carried by a Russian state news agency. No details are given of when the dialogue began, what it has produced, how often the two commissioners speak, or whether any specific cases or exchanges of detainees have been agreed. Neither Lantratova nor Lubinets is quoted. The Ukrainian side has not been reported here as confirming Peskov's characterisation, and independent verification is absent. The claim of growing trust is the Kremlin's framing, and should be read as such.
That said, the existence of a working channel matters. Humanitarian contact between belligerents is often the first and last thread to survive a rupture in relations, and it can carry practical weight: the return of remains, the release of the seriously ill or wounded, access for families. It can also serve political purposes. Moscow has an interest in presenting itself as reasonable and open to dialogue, particularly to audiences in capitals that urge negotiation. Kyiv has its own interest in securing the return of its people and in being seen to protect them. Both can be true at once, and the reader should hold both in view.
The wider picture is one of a war with almost no diplomatic architecture left standing. Where foreign ministers and heads of state do not speak, ombudspersons do. Whether that narrow line produces anything measurable — a release, a handover, a confirmed mechanism — is the test. On the evidence of this report alone, the dialogue is real enough to be described by the Kremlin, but its substance, frequency and results are not yet known. Faultline will watch for confirmation from the Ukrainian side and for any concrete humanitarian outcome.
