On May 15, delegations from Ukraine, Russia, and the United States will meet in Istanbul for the first time since the spring of 2022. Behind the lofty expectations lies a format with an unclear agenda, no guarantees, no European participants—and, almost certainly, no presidents.
Let’s examine why an initiative that outwardly appears to be a diplomatic breakthrough risks becoming little more than a repeat of earlier deadlocks.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s stated willingness to attend the Istanbul talks on May 15—first mentioned publicly by Vladimir Putin in a late-night address on May 11—remains the only confirmed participation at the head-of-state level. Delegations from Russia and Ukraine are expected, but the meeting’s format remains open: neither Putin nor Donald Trump has confirmed their presence. Trump issued a conditional statement about possibly attending "if Putin participates," while the Kremlin has remained publicly silent. According to The Washington Post, Russia will be represented by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and presidential aide Yuri Ushakov. Despite the confirmed political and diplomatic presence, the structure of the meeting remains undefined—and its potential effectiveness uncertain.
The idea of using an international platform to broker a temporary agreement with Russia has been circulating within Trump’s circle since February. The original plan envisioned a stage in Riyadh: the White House aimed to reach a ceasefire that would cap off Trump’s first overseas trip. After unofficial contacts in Saudi Arabia stalled and Moscow refused to agree to an immediate ceasefire, the focus shifted to Turkey—a venue the Kremlin had preferred from the start. Returning to the Istanbul format was a concession to Moscow: the setting retained its visual flair, but the composition was scaled back. Meanwhile, Washington is reportedly considering a package of potential concessions—including recognizing Crimea and banning Western military presence on Ukrainian territory—as the possible 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
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
More Than 30 Dead
Russia Launches Missile Strike on Central Sumy. All Victims Are Civilians
