For the first time since the spring of 2022, delegations from Ukraine and Russia are set to meet in Istanbul. Behind the high expectations lies a format with an unclear agenda, no guarantees, no European participants—and almost certainly, no presidents. Despite a confirmed political and diplomatic presence, the structure of the meeting remains undefined, and its potential effectiveness is in question.
Let’s examine why an initiative that outwardly appears to be a diplomatic breakthrough risks becoming little more than a repeat of previous deadlocks.
The idea of using an international venue to broker a temporary agreement with Russia has been under discussion within Trump’s circle since February. Initially, Riyadh was considered as the stage: the White House was aiming for a ceasefire that would serve as the centerpiece of Trump’s first overseas trip. After unofficial contacts in Saudi Arabia reached a dead end and Moscow refused to commit to an immediate ceasefire, attention shifted to Turkey—a venue the Kremlin had favored from the start. The return to the Istanbul format was a concession to Moscow: the setup retained its visual gravitas but remained limited in scope, even as Washington was reportedly weighing a package of possible concessions—including recognition of Crimea and a ban on Western military presence in Ukraine—as the potential price of a deal.
There is also a risk of returning to the same logic that prevailed in 2022. Then, as now, Moscow presented its longstanding demands as preconditions for a ceasefire; talks were held without institutional guarantees and without accounting for changes on the front line. The result was a drawn-out process, not a path to a sustainable solution. If the new meeting follows the same script, it risks cementing yet another pause—without bringing peace any closer.
From the outset, the Kremlin has shifted the sequence: instead of the standard formula—"ceasefire first, dialogue later"—it has pushed to discuss the "details" of a future agreement before halting hostilities. This tactic, used in 2022, allows the process to drag on without binding commitments.
Notably absent is the formal participation of key European powers. Despite coordinated calls from Paris, Berlin, London, and the EU for an immediate ceasefire, their involvement in the Istanbul framework is not envisioned. This sets a precedent in which the European side is excluded from negotiations that directly affect its own security.
The core challenge of such formats is that they sidestep the structural contradictions—territorial status, security guarantees, the role of third parties, and the conditions for post-conflict recovery. Without addressing these issues, any ceasefire, even at the highest level, will amount to nothing more than a temporary pause—not a step toward ending the war.
Unpeace
Instead of Peace
JPMorgan Assesses Likely Outcomes of the War in Ukraine and the New Balance of Power in Europe
Everyone Pretends to Be Seeking Peace
The Real Goal Is to Avoid Accountability for Failure
Why Trump’s Peace Plan Is Stalling
Hard Lessons From the 2022 Talks
The Crimea Deal: How the Bloodless Annexation of 2014 Paved the Way for New Concessions to Moscow
As Kyiv Holds the Front, the West Debates Whom to Blame and Where to Cut Costs
