Will the Meeting in Istanbul Pave the Way to Peace?

The Istanbul meeting on May 15 could mark either a turning point – or merely echo the failed attempts of the past. Too little trust, too entrenched discrepancies, and too high a price for potential compromise by either side. Nevertheless, the very fact that both parties are willing to engage in dialogue can already be seen as a step forward, especially considering that just six months ago direct contact between Moscow and Kyiv seemed almost unimaginable

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the international community — especially Europe — is holding its breath in anticipation of a possible meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations. After a long game of diplomatic ping-pong and escalating tensions on the front lines, a faint glimmer of hope has reappeared for the resumption of direct negotiations between the two warring countries. However, experts remain skeptical about the likelihood of this prospect – for all the bold statements, there is little genuine readiness to make concessions. The very chance for a restart of Russian-Ukrainian peace talks emerged as a result of a series of international developments. U.S. President Donald Trump, despite the lack of tangible results from previous mediation efforts, re-engaged and contacted Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, proposing that he act as a mediator in the Ukraine issue. This was soon followed by a short-term Russian ceasefire on May 9, a symbolic gesture in honor of Victory Day. The next day, the leaders of four major European countries visited Kyiv and delivered a stern ultimatum to Moscow: implement at least a one-month ceasefire or face new, more stringent sanctions. In response, Russia proposed holding direct talks with Ukrainian representatives on May 15 in Istanbul. After Trump, using CAPS LOCK, urged Kyiv to respond to the Kremlin’s initiative, Volodymyr Zelensky decided not only to send a delegation but also to meet with the Russian leader in person. At the same time, the U.S. President’s special envoy, Steven Witkoff, outlined the key topics of the upcoming talks: territorial disputes, the status of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, and Ukraine’s use of the Dnipro River as well as its access to the Black Sea. While Moscow was still digesting these developments, Trump voiced support for Zelensky and hinted at a possible visit to Istanbul, clearly aiming to emphasize his involvement and even willingness to adjust his schedule for the sake of the peace process. Moscow, for its part, appears to still be weighing its words and the level of participation it deems appropriate for the Istanbul consultations. For now, it remains completely silent on who exactly will head its delegation in Turkey. Despite some revitalization, there remains a lingering sense that what’s happening behind the scenes could either be a carefully orchestrated performance or a diplomatic poker game based on the “who blinks first loses” principle. The Kremlin is offering talks without preconditions, which at first glance might appear to be a goodwill gesture. However, the very choice of Istanbul as the venue is a signal: there are plans to build on the groundwork laid in the spring of 2022, though this time it must be finalized to reflect today’s realities on the ground. Kyiv, for its part, insists on the return of occupied territories and security guarantees, including NATO membership. These conditions inherently contradict Moscow’s interests and, moreover, cannot be implemented without the involvement of the United States and its allies. As a result, each side is proposing its own framework: Ukraine demands a ceasefire as a prerequisite for starting dialogue, while Russia offers to talk without an immediate halt to hostilities. This creates a paradoxical situation — both sides reject each other’s conditions. So, while it may outwardly appear to be a move toward peace, in reality it is more of an exchange of diplomatic jabs and a struggle for the dominant narrative in the information space. The recent surge in European activity is no coincidence. Visits to Kyiv have served not only as attempts to advance the peace process but also as a signal that the European Union intends to establish itself as a key player in post-war settlement efforts. Europe wants to demonstrate that it can be more than just a ‘wallet and arsenal’ for Ukraine — it seeks to play a role in shaping the country’s political future. This explains the EU’s desire to secure a seat at the future negotiating table, not only regarding the Ukrainian conflict but also in the potential new architecture of international security — or more precisely, the division of spheres of influence. There is heightened interest in a potential agreement between the West and Russia in Eastern Europe, where the geopolitical situation is highly sensitive towards changes. The growing strategic uncertainty in this context — including the possible weakening of the U.S. military presence — could lead to increased political instability in the countries of the region. However, nothing remains static, and a new reality is already taking shape in the Balkans and along the EU’s eastern flank. There is a clear consolidation of conservative forces, which pursue an alternative foreign policy strategy and seek to develop pragmatic cooperation with key international actors. One way or another, the main player on this chessboard is still Washington. And according to many analysts, this is precisely where the root of the problem lies. Donald Trump, who assumed the presidency less than four months ago, has so far avoided making principled decisions and is not ready to take responsibility either for strategic agreements with Russia or for security guarantees to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the key Russian demands — which the Kremlin refers to as the “root causes of the conflict” — are geopolitical in nature. The withdrawal of U.S. military bases from Eastern Europe, the refusal to deploy missile defense systems near Russia’s borders, strategic stability, and so on, all pertain exclusively to the United States. Therefore, without direct negotiations between Moscow and Washington, a lasting peace agreement on Ukraine is virtually impossible. As a result, any Russia-Ukraine contacts, even if they take place, risk proving fruitless. As of today, we can identify three possible scenarios for how the situation could unfold:

Optimistic scenario. The parties agree to a ceasefire, working groups are established, and dialogue begins on contentious issues. In parallel, Moscow and Western countries reassess their relations, find a balance of interests, and lay a solid foundation for peace across the post-Soviet space.
Intermediate scenario. A temporary truce is reached, opening a window for negotiations, but without guarantees of a transition to lasting peace. After intense consultations, if no compromise is found on key issues, the truce may collapse, leading to a sharp escalation.
Pessimistic scenario. Negotiations end without results, with all sides blaming each other for the failure of the peace process. The U.S. and the EU increase sanctions pressure on Russia, and the confrontation begins to take on the characteristics of a prolonged conflict.

Against this backdrop, the meeting in Istanbul on May 15 could mark either a turning point or echo the previous failed attempts. The level of mistrust is too high, the disagreements too deep, and the cost of potential concessions too great for both sides. Nevertheless, the very fact that both parties are willing to engage in dialogue can already be seen as a step forward, especially considering that just six months ago, direct contact between Moscow and Kyiv seemed almost unimaginable. Moreover, for the first time in a long while, the negotiations are being discussed not only at the level of authorized representatives but also with the potential involvement of top leadership.