Istanbul: 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 Dolmabah§e 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?
According to Azeri-Press News Agency, Ukrainian political expert Valeriy Dymov stated that Ukraine was forced to participate from a weakened position due to coordinated pressure from Russia and Trump, compelling them to accept the Kremlin's terms. Dymov highlighted the strategic use of propaganda by Russia, portraying external forces as disruptors of potential agreements. The talks in Istanbul were underscored by a 30-day ceasefire plan proposed by the U.S. and Ukraine, though Russia's response indicated stricter conditions if earlier terms were rejected.
Igor Korotchenko, Director General of the Caspian Institute for Strategic Studies, described the Istanbul talks as a diplomatic success for Russia. He emphasized the importance of this first direct dialogue in three years, which included discussions on a POW exchange. The talks were seen as necessary for expressing positions and achieving practical results, despite Ukraine's demands for a 30-day moratorium on military actions. Korotchenko noted that while Ukraine sought a meeting at the presidential level, Russia's delegation, deemed competent and prepared, considered the initial phase successful.
The international community welcomed the occurrence of the meeting, as it demonstrated that forces still desiring peace exist amidst ongoing conflicts. However, the lack of tangible results or a joint statement suggests fragile foundations for the process. The absence of a clear response to Ukraine's ceasefire proposal indicates continued diplomatic maneuvering.
Dymov expressed concerns that the concept of 'peace' has been weaponized to promote surrender terms, with the U.S. pursuing its own interests. He recalled former U.S. official Keith Kellogg's remarks on Ukraine's leverage in the conflict and highlighted the coordinated pressure and surrender terms behind the scenes. Dymov criticized the notion of 'peace' as mere propaganda, drawing historical parallels to past events.
Korotchenko countered that Ukraine is prolonging the conflict with unrealistic demands, stating that Russia desires peace based on the 2022 Istanbul talks. He emphasized Russia's non-negotiable stance on territorial integrity and Ukraine's demilitarization, while criticizing Ukraine's position as destructive. Korotchenko suggested that a Trump-Putin summit could be a realistic scenario for resolving the Ukraine crisis, aligning the interests of both powers.
Expectations for significant breakthroughs were low, with analysts predicting the talks as an opportunity to define a roadmap for future stages. A Ukrainian political expert noted the reactive nature of Ukraine's stance, shaped by multifaceted pressures. He expressed disappointment at the lack of positive outcomes, attributing the pressures to both military and diplomatic channels.
If Ukraine's ceasefire proposal is rejected, it may lead to escalation. The Ukrainian expert highlighted increased pressure on the frontlines and political pressure from Trump, while the Russian expert confirmed ongoing daily fighting and territorial advances. The Istanbul talks, though inconclusive, indicate that diplomatic channels have not fully ceased, offering a potential starting point for future peace mechanisms. Otherwise, the meeting may remain a fleeting diplomatic gesture.