Category World News

As Russian and Ukrainian delegations descended on Istanbul on Friday in an attempt to end the three-year war in Ukraine, the contrast between the two parties in the conflict couldn’t be starker. One seemed assured, methodical – clear about its goals. The other, scattered and uncertain.

Russia’s position on the contours of a potential settlement has long been clear – aside from its calculated ambiguity on territorial matters, which it maintains as leverage. Moscow continues to push for a return to the Istanbul agreements, derailed – as we now know – by the UK and US in the spring of 2022. At the same time, it demands to retain the territories it has occupied since then – and possibly more, though how much more remains deliberately undefined.

The position of the pro-Ukrainian coalition, by contrast, is chaotic. The United States has adopted an almost neutral stance, while Ukraine and its European allies are working to prevent Washington from pressuring Kyiv into what they view as a premature and unjust peace.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Thursday that the Trump administration is open to any mechanism that could bring an end to the conflict. Meanwhile, Ukraine and its European partners are insisting on a 30-day ceasefire as a precondition for entering peace talks.

Just before the Istanbul negotiations began, Ukraine declared that its delegation would not discuss anything with the Russians until a ceasefire was agreed upon. European countries supported that demand, with threats of severe sanctions they claimed they were prepared to impose. Whether Ukraine would ultimately drop this demand remained the key point of uncertainty as direct talks commenced in Istanbul on Friday afternoon.

When the negotiators emerged from the venue and faced the press, they left that question unanswered. The two parties agreed to continue the talks, but ceasefire remains on the table – perhaps as a face-saving measure that would keep Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy on board. The Russians are extremely unlikely to agree to any ceasefire until they see a clear path to the final deal.

But the goal of this ceasefire game was all too transparent – especially to its intended audience: Donald Trump’s administration. A ceasefire clearly works against Russia, whose main leverage in the negotiations is the slow but steady advance of its troops along the 1,000+ km front line.

The Ukrainian and European demand was designed to be rejected. Its real purpose is to derail the talks, pit Trump against Putin, and revive the longstanding strategy of trying to defeat Russia through a combination of enhanced military support for Ukraine and new economic sanctions on Moscow.

This strategy isn’t new – and it has already cost Ukraine dearly over the past three years: Vast territory and critical infrastructure have been lost, hundreds of thousands killed, and 6.9 million people, mostly women and children, have left the country – likely for good.

In response to what it sees as manipulation, Russia sent a delegation of lower-than-expected political stature, but including top-level military and diplomatic experts capable of discussing all technical aspects of a possible deal. The message: Moscow is ready for substantive negotiations – if they move beyond performative ultimatums.

Russia’s position on the contours of a settlement hasn’t shifted since the previous Istanbul talks in spring 2022, when it insisted on a neutral Ukraine with a cap on the size of its military.

The only difference now is territory. Under the 2022 Istanbul framework, Russia would have withdrawn to the lines of contact as they existed before the full-scale invasion. Now, it claims the territory seized since then – and maintains strategic ambiguity over the parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia still under Ukrainian control, using them as bargaining chips.

Since the full invasion began, Moscow has viewed territorial occupation as a form of punishment for what it sees as Ukraine’s intransigence. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova put it bluntly on Thursday: “Ukrainian territory shrinks every time Ukraine rejects negotiations.”

But territory is not the Kremlin’s main objective in Ukraine. Its central goal is to draw a hard red line against further Western military expansion near its borders – hence its demands to restore Ukraine’s neutral status and reduce the size of its armed forces to a bare minimum. Moscow, however, is open to the idea of Ukraine joining the EU – not least because that prospect remains highly unlikely, as countries like Poland and others in Eastern Europe see Ukraine’s agricultural sector as a threat to their economic stability.

Given the current battlefield situation, the war can only end on Russian terms – harsh and unjust as they may appear. The daily gains of Russian troops and Ukraine’s slow territorial losses underscore this point. Every delay in peace talks results in a smaller Ukraine. Putin is acting like a political racketeer – much like those who ran St Petersburg during his formative political years: The longer you resist, the more you pay.

But a deal on these terms would be extremely difficult to sell – to Ukrainians and to Europeans, who have also endured significant economic fallout from sanctions on Russia. The inevitable question arises: What, then, did Ukrainians fight and die for over the past three years? They could have secured a far better deal under the Minsk agreements in 2015 – or even the failed Istanbul deal in 2022.

What kept Ukraine in the fight was the illusion – cultivated by the military-industrial complex and psychological operations on social media – that a nuclear power like Russia could be decisively defeated.

The fear of being exposed as a major contributor to Ukraine’s suffering – alongside Russia – is what now drives European politicians to keep digging a deeper hole for Ukraine and its leadership, rather than admit (or quietly reframe) defeat in a war that, as President Trump rightly states, should never have happened in the first place.

But nearly all the cards are now on the table. Illusions are being discarded one by one. The idea, floated by France and the UK, of deploying NATO troops in Ukraine has been all but shelved – it would escalate the conflict from a proxy war to a direct NATO-Russia clash. Meanwhile, the EU is preparing to reduce duty-free trade quotas on Ukrainian imports, which had helped sustain Ukraine’s economy for the past three years. This is a telling sign that Brussels no longer sees continued war as a realistic path forward.

One of the last-ditch efforts to shift the course of events is under way in the Baltic Sea, where Nordic and Baltic states are attempting to open a second front in the Ukraine war by targeting the so-called Russian “shadow fleet”—oil tankers that help Moscow circumvent Western sanctions.

But the most recent attempt to board one such vessel ended with a Russian fighter jet violating Estonian airspace – a clear warning of what could come next.

The West is not prepared for a confrontation with Russia – let alone the nuclear conflict that would almost certainly follow. But there is no shortage of alternative, win-win strategies. Ukraine stands to gain the most from peace – once it is firmly established. The real losers would be the political class and security elites who invested so heavily in illusory outcomes.

A chemical spill in the city of Jundiaí has turned a lake bright blue, killing fish and dyeing local wildlife. Authorities are now investigating the environmental impact as the dyed water flows toward the Jundiaí River, whose water is used by nearby cities and companies.

Russian and Ukrainian officials met for less than two hours in Turkiye for their first direct talks in more than three years, aimed at ending the war.

The delegations met on Friday at Istanbul’s Dolmabahce Palace in Turkiye, where the two sides failed to agree on a ceasefire despite pressure from United States President Donald Trump to end the war.

But before they adjourned, Kyiv and Moscow agreed to exchange 1,000 prisoners of war each, according to the heads of both delegations, in what would be their biggest such swap since the war began.

Both sides also discussed a ceasefire and a meeting between their heads of state, according to chief Ukrainian delegate Rustem Umerov.

Umerov said Kyiv believed the next step should be a meeting of the nations’ two leaders.

Umerov told reporters that the first priority in the talks on Friday in Istanbul was to secure the release of prisoners of war, and the second, to secure a ceasefire, adding that the next step should be leader level talks.

Russian presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, who headed Moscow’s delegation, confirmed that both sides agreed to provide each other with detailed ceasefire proposals and a meeting between their heads of state.

A Ukrainian source told the Reuters news agency, on condition of anonymity, that Russia’s ultimatums to end the war included a demand for Kyiv to withdraw from parts of its territory to obtain a ceasefire, “and other non-starters and non-constructive conditions”.

Russia’s demands were “detached from reality and go far beyond anything that was previously discussed”, the source said.

Medinsky said Moscow was satisfied with the Istanbul talks’ results and was ready to continue talking to Kyiv.

‘Two paths’ ahead

At the palace, the two delegations sat in front of each other, the Russian officials dressed in suits and half the Ukrainians wearing camouflage military uniforms.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, who chaired the meeting, told the delegations there were “two paths” ahead of them.

“One road will take us on a process that will lead to peace, while the other will lead to more destruction and death. The sides will decide on their own, with their own will, which path they choose,” Fidan said.

Russia has said it sees the talks as a continuation of the negotiations that took place in the early weeks of the war in 2022, which included demands on Ukraine to cut the size of its military.

Reporting from Istanbul, Al Jazeera’s Bernard Smith said the prisoner exchange, one of the largest since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, comes as both sides are “under pressure” from Trump to end the war.

“This could be a way of indicating that there is something worth talking about at these talks,” Smith said. “We know already though, both sides have very different views on how [a deal] should come about – the Ukrainians want an immediate 30-day ceasefire. The Russians want longer-term talks about Ukraine’s status as a neutral country.”

‘Full, unconditional and honest ceasefire’

As the talks were under way, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Kyiv’s top priority was “a full, unconditional and honest ceasefire… to stop the killing and create a solid basis for diplomacy”.

Zelenskyy, who was attending a European summit in Albania, said if Russia refused, new sanctions against its energy sector and banks should be imposed.

While Russia has previously said it wants to end the war diplomatically and is ready to discuss a ceasefire, the prospects for a breakthrough in Istanbul were dim after Russia said President Vladimir Putin would not attend.

There was hope that it would be Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy meeting in Turkiye this week, for the first time since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

That wasn’t to be, after Russia confirmed that Putin would not be travelling to Turkiye. But both countries still sent delegations – agreeing to a prisoner swap – and the meeting in Istanbul on Friday was the first direct talks since shortly after the war began in February 2022.

Some of those talks in 2022 were also hosted by Turkiye, highlighting the central role the country has played in the search for a resolution to one of the world’s most significant geopolitical conflicts.

Turkiye is also poised to expand its influence in Syria, where the US has lifted sanctions on the Turkish-allied government, and has a significant win on the domestic front, after the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) announced this week that it was disbanding, ending a 40-year war against the Turkish state.

A direct meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy on Turkish soil would have capped off a strong week for Turkiye, but analysts say that its central role to the process is a victory nonetheless.

“Turkiye stands to win diplomatically whichever way the talks go,” Ziya Meral of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) said, even if the analyst ultimately was sceptical of any peace framework emerging from the talks. “It fulfils Ankara’s desire to be a negotiator and key player in regional developments. The fact that Ankara is in a position to engage both with the United States and Russia, as well as Ukraine is indeed a diplomatic success.”

Over the last 15 years or so, Turkiye has established itself as a significant diplomatic player, extending its influence across Africa and playing a pivotal role in the overthrow of long-term Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, all while maintaining an intensely delicate balancing act between belligerents in the Russia-Ukraine war.

“There are many reasons why Turkiye is hosting the talks,” Omer Ozkizilcik, a non-resident fellow at The Atlantic Council, told Al Jazeera.

“Turkiye started a peace process independent of the US shortly after the invasion, leading to the Istanbul protocols of 2022. This is also a new model of negotiation, pioneered by Turkiye,” he said, referring to the draft peace agreement brokered between the two states that Russia has since accused Ukraine and the West of walking away from.

“Before, neutral states such as Switzerland with no stake in the conflict would mediate. Now, under a new model, Turkiye is successfully negotiating in conflicts where it does have diplomatic, economic and geopolitical stakes,” Ozkizilcik added, listing a number of disputes where Turkiye had played a mediating role, such as that between Ethiopia and Somalia, where Turkiye was able to negotiate in December a “historic reconciliation” in President Recep Tayyip Erodgan’s words.

Turkiye has its own interests across these countries, including its supply of drones to Ukraine and a significant military presence in Somalia. However, it is still able to present itself as a reliable arbitrator in peace talks involving these countries.

“It’s a new Turkish model that is seeing the country emerge as a regional diplomatic power,” Ozkizilcik said.

Hot and cold relations with Russia

The balancing act Turkiye has followed in negotiating between Russia and Ukraine hasn’t been easy – particularly when Ankara has had to take into account its opposition to Russian expansionism in the Black Sea region and Moscow’s support for parties opposed to Ankara in the Middle East and North Africa.

Turkiye labelled Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a “war” early in the conflict, allowing it to implement the 1936 Montreux Convention – effectively confining Russia’s military vessels to the Black Sea.

Ankara and Moscow have also found themselves on opposing sides in Libya and Syria. In Libya, Turkiye backs the United Nations-recognised government, in contrast to Russia’s support for armed forces in the insurgent east, while in Syria, Turkiye supported the ultimately victorious opposition forces against the Russian-backed al-Assad regime.

Syria was the source of the biggest tension between the two when, in 2015, Turkiye shot down a Russian fighter jet near the Turkiye-Syria border. The incident triggered a severe deterioration in diplomatic and economic ties, but a Turkish statement of regret led to a rapprochement the next year, and relations have remained strong.

Those strong ties have also survived Turkiye’s supply of drones and other military equipment to Ukraine throughout the course of the war.

Russia has seemingly turned a blind eye to that, and maintains “economic, diplomatic and energy relations” with Turkiye, Ozkizilcik said.

The benefits of good relations with Turkiye seem to outweigh Russia’s unhappiness with some aspects of Turkish policy, and Turkiye’s position as a member of NATO that Russia can still deal with is in itself useful.

In 2022, Turkiye was prominent in opposing Western sanctions on Russia; describing them as a “provocation“. And Turkiye has rarely been content to toe the NATO line, for a time opposing Sweden and Finland’s entry into the alliance, and also agreeing on a deal to buy Russia’s S-400 missile system in 2017.

Turkiye’s purchase of the missile system led to US sanctions, exclusion from the F-35 defence programme and accusations in some quarters that Ankara was “turning its back” on the West as part of a pivot towards Russia.

“Both sides have learned to compartmentalise differences,” Ozkizilcik said. He referred to an attack in 2020 that killed more than 33 Turkish soldiers in Syria by regime forces acting in coordination with Russia. “There were talks, both sides met and addressed the issue and they moved on. More recently, when Turkish-backed forces overthrew the Assad regime, Erdogan still called Putin on his birthday and congratulated him.”

Friendship with Ukraine

But Turkiye has been able to strengthen its relationship with the West in the years since, demonstrating its usefulness, particularly when it came to Ukraine.

Turkiye was instrumental in brokering a deal in 2022 to allow Ukraine to export its grain by sea, and has also been firm in its stance that Russian-occupied Crimea – the homeland of the Turkic Muslim Crimean Tatars – be returned to Ukraine.

Steven Horrell, a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, believes that Ukraine “appreciates Turkiye’s past support to them”, even if it has some qualms about its ties with Russia.

Zelenskyy has repeatedly thanked Erdogan for his role in facilitating talks and in supporting Ukraine. On Thursday, the Ukrainian leader highlighted Turkiye’s support for Ukraine, and even said that his country’s participation in direct talks – despite Putin’s absence – was “out of respect” for Erdogan and US President Donald Trump.

Earlier in the week, Zelenskyy had thanked Erdogan for his support “and readiness to facilitate diplomacy at the highest level”.

I spoke with the President of Türkiye @RTErdogan to discuss key details of the meeting in Türkiye, which could help bring an end to the war. I am grateful for his support and readiness to facilitate diplomacy at the highest level. We share a common view on the need for a… pic.twitter.com/BX1pw28f3x

The emphasis on mutual respect and friendship highlights that for Ukraine, Turkiye is not an ally it can afford to lose.

And that gives Turkiye some leeway in its ability to maintain close ties to Russia without any negative backlash from the West, and a chance to fulfil some of its own goals.