“The Istanbul Template”: Why Kremlin’s Demands for Ukraine Should Spark Concern in Chisinau

The second round of consultations between Russia and Ukraine, held yesterday in Istanbul, was hardly a step toward peace. Behind the diplomatic facade, a harsh confrontation persists. Neither side is ready for compromise, but both are eager to cement their hardline positions and, most importantly, win the favor of the international audience – above all, the United States, China, and the Global South. In our analysis, we examine how the talks unfolded, what their real outcomes were, and what this means for military and political prospects

It was clear even before the meeting began that yesterday’s negotiations would be more of a political performance than a genuine attempt to stop the war. Both sides entered the talks publicly adopting extremely hardline positions. Kyiv, which just a month ago rejected any ceasefire proposals, was forced to agree to the format proposed by Moscow and Washington, but clearly does not believe in its effectiveness. Russia, meanwhile, is showing no flexibility whatsoever, continuing to insist on its old and well-known demands – which resemble terms of surrender more than conditions for negotiation. The very course of the meeting only underscored its largely performative nature. Its open session lasted about an hour, much of which was taken up by welcome speeches. Meanwhile, the informal discussion between the heads of the delegations lasted for 2.5 hours – and it was likely during this part that the main outcomes were ‘born’. Overall, this is perhaps the only positive takeaway, which could serve as a prologue to more serious negotiations in the future. Ukraine attempted to set a specific backdrop ahead of this meeting. Just a day before, its security services carried out a daring operation targeting Russian logistics infrastructure and strategic aviation airfields. According to open sources, up to fifteen aircraft, cruise missiles carriers which are part of Russia’s nuclear triad, were taken out of service. An attack like this, launched literally on the eve of the negotiations, undoubtedly carries a political subtext and fits perfectly into the strategy of applying pressure on Moscow to force it to soften its ultimatum demands. In this way, Kyiv is seeking to shift the diplomatic agenda by demonstrating that it can strike key components of Russian defense, refuse to accept Russia’s ceasefire terms, and has the power to impose its own terms. Moscow, for its part, is trying to maintain the appearance of control over the situation. The refusal of a ceasefire based on Ukraine’s formula, the lack of any public response to the strikes on airfields, and the presentation of uncompromising conflict resolution proposals – all of this fits into a model of projecting a tough and unwavering military-political will. However, internal contradictions in Russia are becoming increasingly apparent, especially amid reputational blows, and the question of the system’s stability may soon confront the Russian leadership in full force. Losses among the strategic air fleet are deeply painful for Moscow not only militarily but also symbolically. These aircraft, out of production since the Soviet era, represent an almost irreplaceable asset. Their loss means not just a reduction of the overall arsenal but also a blow to the image of the Russian military, raising doubts about the technological resilience of Russia’s entire nuclear shield. Moreover, such attacks reveal serious vulnerabilities in Russian military infrastructure, which, as it turns out, lacks active air defense systems and basic electronic warfare protection. Ultimately, this calls into question the legitimacy of the Kremlin’s geopolitical ambitions. Looking back at yesterday’s negotiations, it must be acknowledged that their formal outcomes were fairly modest. The parties agreed to exchange prisoners and the bodies of the deceased – 6,000 from each side – although the Russians described their transfer as ‘unilateral’. The return of severely wounded and prisoners of war under 25 years old was also discussed. However, all of this is a humanitarian backdrop that does not significantly affect the situation on the battlefield, where the number of attacks by Russian armed forces has increased considerably in recent weeks. The escalating intensity of combat indicates Moscow’s preparation for an autumn-summer campaign if diplomatic efforts fail to produce the expected results. A key moment in Istanbul was the exchange of draft memorandums. Ukraine presented its document back in May. It proposes a 30-day ceasefire under international supervision but is largely similar to the old Anglo-French proposals and lacks a mechanism for transitioning to a lasting peace. The Russian memorandum, submitted in Turkey, details previously stated demands and outlines a sequence of actions, acceptance of which would lead the Kremlin to agree to a ceasefire and, after the presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine, sign a peace agreement with the country. The fact that the texts of the memorandums leaked to the press almost immediately further indicates that, at this stage, both Russia and Ukraine are negotiating more for the sake of external observers than with any serious intention to reach an agreement. And that observer is, of course, Donald Trump, who has already expressed willingness to hold a joint meeting with Putin and Zelensky. Moreover, it is likely that, depending on the outcome of this diplomatic game, the American leader will ultimately decide on the future involvement of the United States in the conflict. In fact, one of the goals of Ukraine’s Spiderweb operation was precisely to derail the Istanbul meeting by provoking a sharp reaction from the Kremlin. The current round of negotiations is significant not only in the context of Russian-Ukrainian relations, but also because by putting its demands for Ukraine in writing, Moscow is shaping a universal framework it could later apply to other post-Soviet republics. This is particularly relevant for Moldova, where the unresolved status of the pro-Russian Transnistrian region could come to the forefront at any moment. The concessions or compromises the Kremlin manages to extract from Kyiv will largely determine the kind of diplomatic pressure Chisinau may face in the future – and what it might be forced to accept, given the precedent potentially set by Ukraine. It’s important to understand that, unlike our country, Ukraine – despite all its hardships – still has room to maneuver and resist the political demands the Kremlin is trying to impose with the silent approval of Washington. Moldova, however, lacking comparable resources and military-diplomatic support, could find itself under much stronger political pressure if the logic of the “Kremlin memorandums” gains international legitimacy – especially from the current U.S. administration. Unfortunately, yesterday did not bring us any closer to ending the war, but it did reveal something important about the state of modern international relations. Diplomacy today is conducted more for external audiences than for genuine compromise. The accompanying exchange of documents, drone attacks, and performative behavior by delegations are all elements of a ruthless geopolitical game in which each side is entrenching its position ahead of a possible escalation phase. As for a real resolution, it appears to be postponed –if not for years, then certainly for many months.