Negotiations without illusions

On June 2, 2025, the second round of direct talks between Russia and Ukraine took place at the Çırağan Palace on the Bosphorus. Despite the formal setting and hopes for progress, the meeting ended without significant results, lasting just over an hour.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan expressed hope for concrete outcomes, emphasizing the importance of U.S. involvement in the peace process. However, as noted by The Guardian, the negotiations concluded without any tangible breakthrough, and both sides remained far apart in their demands.

Ukrainian Plan: Four Steps and One Taboo

Ukraine’s stance in the Istanbul negotiations was clearly articulated: a ceasefire, prisoner exchange, return of deported children, and the launch of talks on the status of occupied territories — all laid out in a formalized “roadmap.” According to Kyiv Independent, the Ukrainian delegation presented the Russian side with a specific proposal package, including:

• A full 30-day ceasefire across all fronts;

• A complete prisoner exchange on an “all for all” basis;

• The return of all Ukrainian children taken to Russia;

• The release of all detained civilians.

The first phase, as envisioned by Kyiv, would serve as a humanitarian pause and be implemented under the supervision of international organizations — the IAEA, OSCE, and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The next step would involve establishing a permanent monitoring mission. Ukraine proposes that all violations be documented on the ground and tracked through a unified accountability mechanism. Only after sustainable de-escalation and with international security guarantees would Kyiv agree to begin discussions on the status of temporarily occupied territories.

A special point in the proposal was a personal meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin. According to Ukraine, this should not be a mere protocol gesture, but a moment for both leaders to sign binding commitments. As emphasized by The Guardian, Kyiv insists that everything be formalized publicly and with the participation of international guarantors.

Finally, there is one non-negotiable: Ukraine refuses to abandon its integration with NATO and the EU. Instead, Kyiv proposes a temporary security architecture guaranteed by France, Germany, Turkey, and the U.S., to remain in place until full accession is achieved.

Interlocutor (gazing at the map, thoughtfully):

— A roadmap? Sounds like a GPS for peace. The problem is, the other driver is using a different model — and heading straight at you.

Russian Position: Demanding Recognition of War Gains as a Starting Point

While the Ukrainian delegation came to Istanbul with a step-by-step plan for de-escalation, the Russian side arrived with a list of conditions essentially aimed at consolidating the outcomes of its military expansion. According to The Guardian, Moscow demanded that Kyiv officially recognize Russian sovereignty over four occupied Ukrainian regions — Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson.

The second major demand was Ukraine’s neutral status. Moscow insisted that Kyiv formally and legally renounce its bid to join NATO — a demand first issued in early 2022 and now presented as a supposed “basic security guarantee.”

Meanwhile, according to Reuters, Russia has rejected Ukraine’s proposed international security arrangements, dismissing them as “legally vague” and “non-binding.”

Another focal point was sanctions. As reported by Associated Press, the Russian delegation called for a phased lifting of financial and energy restrictions, allegedly “in exchange for normalization of relations.” However, Moscow offered no specific framework or timeline. In practice, sanctions are treated by the Kremlin as a standalone bargaining chip — disconnected from any discussion of security or human rights.

And finally, there was one ambiguous yet troubling requirement: demilitarization of Ukrainian border regions. Russian representatives claimed this is “necessary to prevent shelling and provocations,” but Reuters notes that it remains unclear who would control these zones, where the boundaries would be, or whether Russia would apply any reciprocal measures.

Before the Talks: War Speaks Louder Than Words

Amid diplomatic declarations, the language of war did not merely continue — it escalated. Two days before the meeting in Istanbul, the Ukrainian army launched what The Washington Post described as one of the boldest and deepest operations since the start of the war. The targets were military airfields in Russia’s Saratov and Krasnodar regions — hundreds of kilometers from the front lines. According to Kyiv, these are the bases regularly used to launch missile strikes on Ukrainian cities.

According to Western military sources, the operation — code-named Web — damaged at least 40 pieces of equipment, including Tu-95 strategic bombers. Al Jazeera described it as “the deepest strike on Russian territory to date,” noting that it took place almost in parallel with the negotiation preparations.

The Ukrainian side emphasized that this was not a provocation, but a preemptive de-escalation of threats. The logic is simple: if missiles are launched from those airfields, they become legitimate targets — even during peace talks.

Moscow responded just a few hours later. On the morning of June 2, after the Istanbul meeting had already been announced, Russian forces carried out massive strikes on the Sumy, Kharkiv, and Zaporizhzhia regions. The Guardian reported the destruction of residential buildings, energy infrastructure, and civilian injuries.

At the same time, electronic warfare intensified. In the Mykolaiv and Crimea regions, there was a significant increase in jamming activity. As noted by Reuters, Russia may be preparing for a new phase of ground operations or using this as a demonstration of capability.

Interlocutor (gazing at the map):

— What would you call this kind of symphony? “Prelude to Silence” or “Sonata for Drones and Diplomacy”?

Author (grimly):

— More like a synchronized march, where every strike is just another note in the score of premeditated mutual deafness.

International Reaction: Skepticism Without Alternatives

The international response to the Istanbul round was, at best, politely skeptical. Most Western capitals refrained from either endorsing or criticizing the talks — perhaps because no one expected much to begin with.

The Guardian cited a European Commission spokesperson saying:

“Talks are a positive step in and of themselves. But we see no real signs of the two sides getting closer.”

According to Reuters, the United States maintained its distance. The State Department stated that it would support any “genuine diplomatic process,” but stressed that concessions must not “undermine Ukraine’s territorial integrity.” President Trump made no comment on the negotiations, repeating only his earlier line:

“I won’t let the war be frozen for the sake of illusions.”

NATO remained publicly silent. However, The Washington Post reported that officials in Brussels were closely monitoring Kyiv’s proposals — especially the idea of temporary international security guarantees and the involvement of G7 countries.

Turkey, despite hosting the talks, did not take on an active mediator role. As noted by Al Jazeera, Ankara confined itself to a technical facilitator function, with the Turkish Foreign Ministry merely stating that the meeting “did not end negatively.”

Two Hours of Talks — and Another Month to Reflect

According to The Guardian, when Vladimir Medinsky spoke to the press, his words echoed a familiar formula of “modest de-escalation”:

“We proposed a specific ceasefire for two to three days in certain areas of the front line, so that commanders can collect the bodies of their soldiers.”

Ukraine rejected this format. Defense Minister and head of delegation Rustem Umerov responded:

“We are insisting on a full and unconditional end to the killing — in the air, at sea, and on land — for at least 30 days.”

Instead of agreements, there was humanitarian movement: a second prisoner exchange, this time focused on the severely wounded and young individuals. According to Umerov, Ukraine is prepared to hand over 6,000 bodies of fallen Russian soldiers and has submitted a list of children deported to Russia.

“If Moscow is genuinely serious about peace, returning even half of these children would be a meaningful sign,” he said.

Deputy Foreign Minister Serhiy Kyslytsya noted that the Russian delegation had presented its proposals only during the meeting itself:

“We couldn’t respond — we had no time. But we still managed to structure the conversation in a way that produced a tangible humanitarian outcome.”

At the end of the meeting, Ukraine proposed holding the next round of talks between June 20 and 30, and again invited President Putin to meet with President Zelenskyy personally. However, as is well known, Putin ignored the previous invitation to Istanbul in May. Once again, the Russian delegation was led by Medinsky.

Meanwhile, in Vilnius, President Zelenskyy addressed NATO allies at the Bucharest Nine (B9) summit, saying:

“Putin must not decide who can or cannot join the Alliance — otherwise, his appetite for war will only grow.”

He stressed that sanctions remain essential, especially in the oil sector, and that peace is impossible without the return of all prisoners and deported civilians.

“The key to peace is clear: the aggressor must not be rewarded for war.” As reported by BBC, Zelenskyy’s message was unambiguous.

Author’s Note: From Ritual to Roadmap?

In a previous article titled “Diplomatic Farce: The Istanbul Talks Hit a Dead End”, I pointed out the ritualistic nature of earlier meetings. The key theme was skepticism: diplomacy, as seen by both Kyiv and Moscow, often served merely as an extension of war — by other means.

Those talks in 2022–2023 never moved beyond prisoner swaps and technical consultations. None of the major political issues — territorial status, security guarantees, control of nuclear infrastructure — were meaningfully resolved. Against this backdrop, the Istanbul track, despite its theatrical setting, looked like an attempt to buy time: for regrouping, for internal legitimization, for external display of “dialogue.”

Turkey’s role as mediator also came under scrutiny. Past assessments questioned Ankara’s ability to influence the substance of the dialogue. Without international guarantees, enforcement mechanisms, or political will from the sides, the host remained little more than a provider of chairs and coffee for the cameras.

Today’s round — while set against the same backdrop and involving nearly the same figures — for the first time offered a map, not just slogans. But the path it outlines still runs through a minefield — and it’s far from clear whether both sides are even reading the same map.