In a highly anticipated meeting, delegations from Russia and Ukraine gathered face-to-face in Istanbul yesterday, marking their first direct talks in over three years. However, skepticism loomed large regarding the potential for meaningful progress.
- Advertisement -
These concerns were amplified when Russia announced late Wednesday that a team of deputy ministers led by former Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky would represent them. Notably, Russian President Vladimir Putin—who initially called for these discussions to circumvent European pressure for an unconditional ceasefire—chose not to attend.
With Russia opting for a lower-level delegation, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced a swift decision on whom to send to Istanbul. The prospect of sending high-level ministers to negotiate with what he deemed the “B-team” from Russia seemed untenable. Ultimately, he chose to dispatch Defence Minister Rustem Umerov, which, as political analyst Mr. Dickinson remarked, signaled Ukraine’s serious approach to the talks.
Earlier in the week, Zelensky had openly challenged Putin to meet him in Istanbul for direct discussions. In typical Kremlin fashion, the response from Moscow was delayed, leaving both Ukraine and the international community in suspense for three days. When the reply finally arrived, it was evident that Russia was not genuinely engaging with U.S. calls for peace talks.
“Medinsky is primarily a Ukrainophobe. From his writings, he believes that Ukraine is not a nation,” noted Witold Rodkiewicz, a Polish expert on Russian foreign policy. This assessment reflects the serious challenges facing any diplomatic effort, especially with Medinsky leading the Russian side, having previously overseen talks that collapsed due to Russia’s untenable demands.
Russia’s core objectives remain largely unchanged from March 2022: Ukraine’s demilitarization, recognition of Russia’s annexation of occupied territories, and a commitment to neutrality that would hinder Ukraine’s NATO ambitions. However, recent discussions revealed that Russia had escalated its demands, asking Ukraine to cede even more territory than is currently occupied—demands reminiscent of last year’s proposals for the annexation of four eastern Ukrainian regions.
Ukraine, on the other hand, continues to push for a 30-day unconditional ceasefire—a proposal initially backed by the United States and European partners. Such a ceasefire would pave the way for meaningful negotiations on security guarantees and the role of peacekeeping forces. Yet, Russia has repeatedly dismissed this idea, demonstrating a reluctance to allow any external oversight of the conflict.
Most recently, in a meeting in Kyiv, leaders from France, Germany, Poland, and the UK issued an ultimatum to Russia: agree to a ceasefire by Monday or face increased sanctions. Yet, Putin dodged this pressure, proposing direct talks in Istanbul instead, a move that U.S. President Donald Trump has lauded and urged Zelensky to accept.
Rodkiewicz further observed that Washington’s endorsement of Moscow’s talks undermined the European stance, which appeared increasingly fragile.
Despite the barriers, there were some developments during yesterday’s 90-minute meeting. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan—serving as mediator—announced that both parties had agreed to share their terms for a ceasefire. While this statement could bolster Ukraine’s position, its efficacy hinges on whether the U.S. applies tangible economic pressure on Russia to comply.
Additionally, Russia and Ukraine agreed to conduct a prisoner exchange of 1,000 individuals in the coming days, marking the largest swap of the conflict thus far. Furthermore, Russia acknowledged Ukraine’s request for direct talks between Zelensky and Putin—though it remains uncertain whether the Kremlin will entertain this.
“On the Russian side, these talks are a sign that they do not perceive Ukraine as a subject, but as an object of negotiation—something to discuss, rather than engage with,” commented Oleksandr Kraiev from the Ukrainian Prism think tank. This longstanding perspective can be traced back to previous efforts, such as the Minsk-II talks in 2015, which ultimately failed.
As the situation stands, Russia’s reluctance to endorse a ceasefire is frustrating European leaders who recently expressed solidarity with Zelensky in Kyiv. Another round of EU and UK sanctions against Russia is anticipated; however, their effectiveness will be compromised if the U.S. continues to allow Russia to dictate the peace talks’ agenda.
Following the Istanbul meeting, Ukraine is pressing for a summit between Putin and Zelensky, aiming to put pressure on the Russian side while demonstrating its commitment to peace. Future technical discussions are likely, but Trump’s insistence on a need for a personal meeting with Putin has cast a long shadow over the process.
The Kremlin mirrored this sentiment, expressing interest in a Trump-Putin summit contingent on extensive pre-planning—indicating that any such meeting is likely far off. “Russia wants to separate the normalization discussions with the Trump administration from the resolution of the Russia-Ukraine conflict,” Rodkiewicz pointed out. “Putin’s initiative created a narrative that diverted the course of discussions intended by both European leaders and Trump.”
In conclusion, while the Istanbul talks have provided a platform for dialogue, the substantive steps toward peace remain elusive. The balance of pressure and negotiation will be critical as both sides move forward.
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International – Monitoring.
