Political

The meeting held on May 16, 2025, in Istanbul between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations marked the first direct dialogue between the parties in the past three years. Taking place in the historic Dolmabahçe Palace, these negotiations attracted both regional and global attention and were considered a new phase in the search for peace. But was this meeting a genuine step toward peace or merely a diplomatic performance?

Ukrainian political expert Valeriy Dymov told APA that due to coordinated pressure from Russia and Trump, Ukraine was forced to participate from a weakened position and accept the Kremlin's terms.

According to Dymov, it was practically impossible for Ukraine to skip the Istanbul talks: “This played into the hands of Russian propaganda, which portrayed the situation as if an agreement with Ukraine had been reached, only to be thwarted by external forces. They claim that the 2022 Istanbul negotiations were disrupted by foreign intervention. For Trump, the culprit is Biden; for Orban and other pro-Russian forces in Europe, it’s Brussels, NATO, and Western leaders. This issue will become a propaganda tool in internal politics. Russia’s delegation was once again led by Medinsky, which gave a boost to the narrative that Ukraine had agreed to terms, but the talks were disrupted, and now Moscow is offering even harsher conditions. Russia says: ‘You didn’t accept our earlier terms? Now they will be even stricter.’ In such a context — amid unanswered ultimatums — European leaders pressured Putin to accept the 30-day ceasefire plan adopted by the U.S. and Ukraine in Jeddah. This plan proposed an unconditional cessation of hostilities on land, sea, and air. Putin offered negotiations, and Trump endorsed the move. In this scenario, Ukraine’s refusal to participate would have been a major PR loss. Trump is clearly aligned with Putin's direction, indicating the Russian plan is in motion: terror against civilians on one side, and diplomatic pressure on the other. It is impossible to view the talks positively under such conditions. Ukraine’s choices are limited, and both Putin and Trump are openly stating: ‘You have no leverage — accept Russia’s terms.’ Trump hints: ‘If you agree, we might help.'”

Igor Korotchenko, Director General of the Caspian Institute for Strategic Studies (Russia), called the Istanbul talks a serious diplomatic success for Russia.

He told APA that this first direct Russia–Ukraine dialogue in three years was important in terms of laying out positions and agreeing on a POW exchange — and should be seen as a major diplomatic win for Russia.

“The fact that talks occurred between Russian and Ukrainian delegations is positive in itself. It was the first such format in three years. At the very least, it was necessary and useful for both sides to express their positions and potentially work toward decisions in further rounds. Overall, we see this as a major diplomatic success for Russia. Why? Because Ukraine and its EU backers had demanded a 30-day moratorium on military actions, during which the West would arm Ukraine and build its military potential. This was presented to Russia as a strict ultimatum. Western leaders such as the presidents of France, Germany, and the UK warned that if Russia didn’t agree to the moratorium, further sanctions would follow. In response, the Kremlin expressed willingness to meet unconditionally and discuss the situation. This was understood by the Trump administration in the U.S. Despite Zelensky’s unserious approach — he came to Türkiye demanding a direct meeting with Putin — no such meeting took place. Russia sent a competent, prepared team. The meeting occurred. We believe the first phase was successful. At least some practical results were achieved: a POW exchange and an agreement to continue talks. Ukraine now demands a meeting at the presidential level. Moscow hasn’t agreed to this yet. But overall, we view the talks as necessary and a diplomatic success for the Russian Federation. Russia was able to advance all its proposals. Trump’s statements from the White House also indicate he supports Russia’s stance.”

Political Will and the Desire for Real Peace?

The very fact that the meeting occurred was welcomed by the international community. Given the recent escalation at the front lines and intensified attacks from both sides, sitting at the same table is itself significant. It shows that forces desiring peace still exist, even amid despair. However, the absence of tangible results or even a joint statement suggests that the process rests on fragile foundations. Ukraine’s ceasefire proposal was brought to the table, but Russia gave no clear response — showing that diplomatic maneuvering continues.

Dymov emphasized that Russia and its Western allies have weaponized the concept of “peace” to promote surrender terms, while the U.S. is pursuing its own interests.

“The situation is very complicated. I recall former U.S. official Keith Kellogg saying: ‘Ukraine is winning, but will the U.S. allow it to win?’ At the time, Americans caved to Putin’s blackmail. First, they didn’t help us win — then they said, ‘If you’ve lost, you’ve lost your leverage.’ This builds a logic that suggests only the defeated seek peace. So the strong — Russia — must be negotiated with. Trump, Vitkov, and other pro-Russian actors think the same way. In Orwellian terms, the so-called desire for peace aligns with the interests of the ‘Russian World.’ Ukraine wants peace because it is suffering, but the U.S. and some allies prefer approaching Putin to preserve their image. Behind the scenes, pressure and surrender terms are being coordinated. Talks are about recognizing occupied territories and offering concessions. Thus, the notion of ‘peace’ has become mere propaganda — just like when Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize after the Sudeten crisis. First Sudetenland, then Czechoslovakia, then world war. Today, the same scenario repeats. Sadly, Trump doesn’t see it — but that’s a separate issue.”

Korotchenko countered that Ukraine is not interested in peace and is prolonging the conflict with unrealistic demands.

“Ukraine is not seeking peace. It makes impossible demands and continues military operations knowingly. Zelensky’s visit to Türkiye was a theatrical show in the style of ‘Kvartal 95.’ Ukraine’s position is destructive. Russia wants peace — but not on any terms. It must be based on the 2022 Istanbul talks, where some agreements were reached but blocked by the Biden administration and the UK. Recognition of Russia’s territorial integrity — including Crimea and the four newly incorporated regions — is non-negotiable for Moscow. It insists on this. The second key demand is Ukraine’s demilitarization: official renunciation of NATO membership and legal assurance that this will not change. Ukraine’s armed forces must be reduced to a level that poses no threat to Russia. There are other matters, but Ukraine is not ready for genuine talks. Russia wants long-term peace, but it must come with the removal of the root causes of the conflict. The most realistic scenario for Ukraine’s future is a direct Trump–Putin summit. The EU has no interest in peace. It has declared that NATO members must prepare for large-scale war with Russia by 2030. This is the official stance of Ursula von der Leyen and EU foreign minister Kaja Kallas. Europe is preparing for war. For Trump, Ukraine is a closed issue. He wants to focus on other foreign policy matters. Hence, he is interested in ending the war quickly. Russia and the U.S. share this goal. We believe preparations for a Trump–Putin summit are underway. Such a summit will normalize political relations between Moscow and Washington and create a new format for resolving the Ukraine crisis — one that reflects both powers’ interests. Trump may pressure the EU and Ukraine to stop fighting and accept the current reality through a peace deal.”

Expectations vs. Reality

Before the talks, analysts didn’t expect major breakthroughs. It was forecasted as an opportunity to define a roadmap and outline the next stages. Expectations were low — and reality met those expectations. The main goal was to keep diplomatic channels open, which was partially achieved.

A Ukrainian political expert said he had no expectations of a positive outcome: “The talks were fully organized around Russia’s agenda. The message was clear: ‘Accept our terms, or worse will follow.’ This was a continuation of the March 2022 Istanbul talks, and even the Turkish media acknowledged the symbolic framing. Ukraine couldn’t reject participation. But sadly, our stance was reactive — shaped not by internal planning, but by multifaceted pressure — military, media, diplomatic, and political. The most disappointing part? These pressures came from the U.S., our supposed closest ally. In today’s world, agreements are increasingly worthless. I expected nothing — and that’s exactly what happened.”

Will Rejection of the Ceasefire Lead to Escalation?

If Ukraine’s ceasefire proposal is rejected, it will likely lead to a new phase of war. Recent increases in battlefield intensity and drone usage show that neither side has abandoned the military path. A more destructive phase may be on the horizon.

The Ukrainian expert said escalation is already underway: “Ukraine faces mounting pressure at the front, while politically, Trump continues the pressure. He openly supports Russia and tells Ukraine: ‘Accept the terms or face worse.’ But during Russia’s offensives, Trump wasn’t even in power — and Ukraine had battlefield victories. His rhetoric, and figures like Vitkov, amplify pressure. Trump’s message to Putin — ‘keep going, I would’ve done the same’ — is felt on the ground. Attacks in Zaporizhzhia and Sumy have intensified. The real cause of escalation is not Ukraine’s refusal — it’s the unacceptable nature of the offered terms. Ukraine now faces simultaneous military and diplomatic-information pressure.”

The Russian expert confirmed that daily fighting continues: “War is war. Russian forces are advancing, liberating more territory and settlements. It’s a slow but steady process. The more Ukraine resists peace, the more land it will lose. Once Russia secures full control of the four new regions, it will create a security buffer zone 70–120 km deep into Ukrainian territory to ensure its safety. This is especially necessary after Ukrainian actions in the Kursk region. By dragging out talks, Ukraine is losing more territory.”

While the Istanbul talks did not yield concrete results, they confirmed that diplomatic dialogue has not entirely ceased. If both sides treat this as the beginning of a new diplomatic phase, concrete peace mechanisms may follow. Otherwise, the meeting will remain just a fleeting diplomatic gesture.

• Border closures: The strategic importance of this farsighted decision for national security is now clearer -ANALYSIS
• Are Azerbaijani and Armenian societies ready for peace? – Peace perspectives from Baku and Irevan residents-ANALYSIS-VIDEO
• Historic Summit in Lachin: Azerbaijan, Türkiye and Pakistan lay foundations for new geopolitical alliance -ANALYSIS