Istanbul Talks: How the Peace Process on Ukraine Is Unfolding

The very fact that ceasefire discussions are underway, with proposals for its terms reportedly being exchanged, can be interpreted as a significant shift. But the key question remains: will the Trump administration be able to transform the rhetoric of peace into political reality?

The resolution of the conflict in Ukraine is once again at the forefront of international issues. Capitals around the world, including Chisinau, are closely watching the process. On May 16, the first direct talks in three years between the warring countries took place in Istanbul, although the outcome made it clear that the sides remain deeply antagonistic in their views. The Russian delegation was led by Presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, while the Ukrainian side was headed by Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, an indication in itself of the differing attitudes toward this round of negotiations. Ahead of the meeting, Moscow emphasized the need to address the root causes of the conflict, whereas Kyiv insisted on an unconditional 30-day ceasefire as the foundation before addressing any other issues. The talks lasted less than two hours, and afterward, the media field was flooded with conflicting reports. Initially, outlets reported a break in negotiations, but it later became clear that no further meetings were scheduled for that day. Statements from the heads of the delegations confirmed a few key agreements – for instance, a prisoner exchange based on a 1000 for 1000 formula, which would be the largest swap since the war began. Ceasefire proposals and the potential for a meeting between the countries’ leaders were also discussed. Somewhat unexpectedly, both delegations voiced cautious optimism in their comments. However, a later leak from Western journalists revealed the real undercurrents of the talks. According to sources, Moscow demanded the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from territories it claims as its own based on its constitutional amendments, as well as the fulfillment of other conditions unacceptable to Kyiv. These reports cast doubt on the official statements and suggest that the true negotiating positions are far more rigid and uncompromising than the public rhetoric implies. The remarks made by Volodymyr Zelensky, widely circulated right after the consultations in Istanbul, continued a confrontational tone. In his view, if the Russians refuse a full and unconditional ceasefire, strong sanctions from international partners should follow. In other words, Ukraine has not changed its position or assessments and, despite participating in negotiations, continues to publicly pressure Moscow through ultimatums, something that could hinder further progress. Nevertheless, the very fact that a potential ceasefire is being discussed, along with the exchange of proposals regarding its terms, can be seen as a significant shift. Ukraine, willingly or not, had to move away from its demand for an immediate ceasefire in favor of preparing concrete proposals to end the war – exactly what Russia had been calling for. This shift is likely the result of direct pressure from the United States. Moscow, for its part, maintains a tone of restraint, speaking of readiness for dialogue and compromise. However, compromises in the Russian understanding do not mean concessions, but rather the recognition of realities on the ground. In this context, the ‘1000 for 1000’ prisoner exchange – instead of the ‘all for all’ formula insisted on by Kyiv – is a telling indicator: the Russians are not willing to soften their positions unconditionally, especially given that, according to some estimates, they hold six to seven times more Ukrainian servicemen than the other way around. Also notable is the discrepancy in wording regarding a possible meeting between Zelensky and Putin. Umerov stated that it is potentially being prepared, while Medinsky said that Moscow merely took note of Kyiv’s request. This highlights a fundamental difference in tactics: for the Ukrainian president, a face-to-face meeting with Putin holds symbolic and political significance, while for Moscow, such a meeting would only take place if it aligns with its interests. Zelensky sees it as a way to legitimize himself as a negotiating partner and to counter Russia’s narrative of a leadership change in Ukraine as part of a post-war settlement. The Kremlin, it seems, might agree to the meeting – but only after a set of conditions are met, including territorial concessions and recognition of the new status quo. The results of the Istanbul negotiations failed to impress the White House, which responded with another round of signals indicating its readiness to withdraw from the peace process if the parties show no genuine willingness to end the bloodshed. In this context, yesterday’s phone call between Putin and Trump was particularly significant, causing serious concern among European leaders and in Kyiv. Following the call, Putin was the first to speak to the press and proposed the idea of a memorandum – a roadmap toward a future peace agreement that would outline the principles of settlement and specific timelines, including a ceasefire. Trump, for his part, used vague but positive language saying the “conversation was very good,” and that “Russia’s potential is limitless,” and so on. Unlike Putin, who focused on the need for a documented foundation for a future peace, the U.S. President spoke more about prospects for trade and economic cooperation. Nevertheless, the overall tone suggests that there are no major irreconcilable differences between the positions of Moscow and Washington. European globalists have already expressed their reluctance to accept the memorandum proposed by Moscow, instead aiming to tighten sanctions pressure on Russia. For proponents of continuing the conflict in Brussels, Paris, and Berlin, a course of events shaped by Moscow’s tactical and strategic interests is completely unacceptable, as it would inevitably strengthen Russia’s position in future dialogue on much broader issues – such as the architecture of European security. For now, it can be said that Moscow is aiming to secure a comprehensive peace agreement that would cement all key conditions: the status of the new regions, Ukraine’s neutrality, and so on. Kyiv, by contrast, continues to maneuver between the demands of the West and domestic public opinion, which remains focused on victory. The main question remains unresolved: will the United States – more specifically, the Trump administration – be able to translate the peace rhetoric into political reality? Without that, a ceasefire will not come tomorrow, or the day after. For the Moldovan authorities, a victorious outcome in Romania’s presidential elections, increased support from Brussels, and the upcoming large-scale bilateral summit in July can all be seen as an ideal backdrop to once again secure a single-party parliamentary majority in the September elections. However, Ukraine’s gravitational pull on our country is so strong that a peaceful settlement in the neighboring state could at any moment become the very force majeure that completely reshapes the political landscape and the pre-election agenda.