Articles
Pathways to ending the Russian-Ukrainian war and the implications of Putin’s absence from the Istanbul negotiations
No Comments
By: Abdulrahman Anwar
Research Assistant in the International Affairs Unit
Recent periods have witnessed intense diplomatic efforts to end the Russian-Ukrainian war, as this was one of the goals on Trump’s foreign policy agenda during the last presidential elections, as he repeatedly claimed that the war between Russia and Ukraine would never have happened if he had been the U.S. president at the time of its outbreak in 2022, and described it as one of the failures of the previous administration under President Joe Biden in managing U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, after Trump’s return to the White House, there was a clear move toward ending the war through negotiations between the two sides, mediated by Trump. As the negotiation process evolved over Trump’s first 100 days in office, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced on May 11, 2025, his intention to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Istanbul on Thursday, May 15. However, his hopes were quickly dashed when Putin decided not to attend the negotiations. This paper will shed light on the reasons for Putin’s absence and what it means for the negotiation process and the path to ending the war.
Key Stages in the Evolution of Negotiations to End the Russian-Ukrainian War:
-
Trump’s Promises to Resolve the Conflict since Winning the Presidential Election
Trump consistently promised to settle the war in Ukraine, if elected U.S. president. His victory was seen as a real opportunity, despite the challenges posed by the intense military realities on the ground. therefore, it was Trump’s responsibility to persuade the leaders of both countries to reconsider the feasibility of continuing the war. He repeatedly asserted that he could end the war within days by pressuring both sides, employing a “carrot and stick” approach. However, there was no clear strategy for how he would achieve this, as his rhetoric made it seem like an easily solvable issue. Now, 100 days into his term, the war persists.[1]
So far, it appears Trump has only pressured Zelensky. He met with him and blamed him for wanting to prolong the war, as will be referred in the following point. Meanwhile, Trump refrained from criticizing Putin, directing his accusations and criticisms solely at former U.S. President Joe Biden, Ukrainian President Zelensky, and European leaders who encouraged Ukraine to keep fighting.
-
Trump-Zelensky Meeting February 28, 2025
Trump and Zelensky held a contentious meeting in the Oval Office on February 28, 2025, to discuss ending the “Russian-Ukrainian war.” The meeting revealed deep differences in American and Ukrainian perspectives, escalating into an unprecedented verbal clash that breached diplomatic norms. Trump accused the Ukrainian president of risking a third world war. The meeting was supposed to culminate in the signing of a rare minerals deal, but things did not go as planned.[2]
This confrontation marked a turning point in Ukraine’s perception of the ongoing war. Ukraine felt abandoned by the U.S., its primary ally, and realized it might have to continue the war alone. Ukraine knows it cannot sustain the war without Washington’s support, especially as other NATO nations face internal and external turmoil and rely heavily on U.S. security assistance. This has led to discussions in Europe about creating a European army to achieve military independence from the U.S., fearing Trump might unconditionally withdraw support, unlike his predecessor Biden, a fact that indicators currently show, as the European continent is no longer in Washington’s attention under Trump’s rule, especially after the tariffs that were imposed on the European Union.
The meeting resulted in European alignment and promises of significant support for Ukraine in its war against Russia, framed as a war against all of Europe. However, the U.S. pressure on Ukraine is slowly pushing the negotiation process forward, which may accelerate, especially after the U.S. secured 50% of Ukraine’s rare minerals.
-
The US-Ukraine mineral deal
On April 30, 2025, the U.S. and Ukraine signed the rare minerals agreement, a key part of Trump’s conditions for resolving the conflict. The deal compensates for the aid and grants Ukraine received from the previous Democratic administration under Biden. It represents a gesture of trust from Ukraine toward its ally, the U.S., in ending the war logically and satisfactorily for both sides. However, it remains unclear whether Trump can pressure the Russian president to soften his demands, which include ending the war based on the current territorial reality—without Ukraine reclaiming the territories now under Russian control—and guarantees that Ukraine will not join NATO or host peacekeeping forces near Russian borders, which Moscow views as NATO or European troops. The next point will clarify the implications of Putin’s absence from the recent Istanbul negotiations.
Istanbul Negotiations 15 May 2025
Zelensky’s Invitation to Putin for Negotiations:
The idea of direct talks between the warring parties originated by Putin, who proposed negotiations in Istanbul. Zelensky welcomed the initiative and expressed readiness to meet Putin in Istanbul to discuss an agreement to end the war or an unconditional 30-day ceasefire. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had earlier stated Turkey’s willingness to host any direct talks between Moscow and Kyiv to end the war.
However, Putin was absent from the talks, sending a delegation led by his aide Vladimir Medinsky, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin, General Igor Kostyukov (Chief of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Federation Armed Forces), and Deputy Defense Minister of the Russian Federation Alexander Fomin. This delegation had participated in the last direct negotiations between the two countries in Istanbul in 2022, which collapsed, leading to continued fighting. And there were no strong indications that there is any possibility of an end to the war, until Trump returned to the White House, which adopted ending the Russian-Ukrainian war as one of the priorities of US foreign policy.
Zelensky traveled directly to Ankara to meet Erdoğan before engaging with the Russian delegation, which he described as lacking high-level officials. He accused Putin of being “afraid of a direct meeting” and doubted the Russian delegation’s ability to make decisions, noting that decisions in Russia are made unilaterally by Putin.
The Russian and Ukrainian delegations landed in different Turkish cities—Ankara for Ukraine and Istanbul for Russia—delaying the talks to Friday, May 16. Zelensky criticized the Kremlin for sending a mid-level delegation, and uncertainty loomed over whether the Ukrainian delegation would attend.
Implications of Putin’s Absence:-
1- Lack of Fundamental Understanding Between Moscow and Kyiv:
Putin’s absence suggests Russia believes no meaningful understanding has been reached with Ukraine to end the war. The conditions set by both sides are too contradictory to reconcile: Ukraine refuses to end the war without security guarantees and peacekeeping forces on its borders, while Russia insists on retaining control of 20% of Ukrainian territory and blocking NATO membership. Kyiv sees these conditions as unfair to it, and therefore these conditions were not discussed in the Istanbul negotiations, due to the lack of any flexibility between the negotiating parties in the terms of ending the war.
2- Distrust Toward Ukraine:
While Russia trusts Turkey as a mediator, it views Ukraine as a puppet used by European nations to attack Moscow. Putin’s disregard for Zelensky sends a political message that the Ukrainian president is a pawn of Europe, unwilling to negotiate peace and determined to continue fighting for victory, as the ambassador of special missions at the Russian Foreign Ministry, Rodion Miroshnik, pointed out, “Taking responsibility for an unpredictable and highly volatile adversary is not a feasible task. Because today we have done everything we had to do at this point. We have taken the initiative, prepared the negotiating platform, presented a group of competent and authorized negotiators, and we have our proposals described accordingly in the form of documents,” while Ukrainian Defense Minister Rostam Umarov indicated that they are able to continue fighting but they want peace.
3- Donald Trump’s absence from the negotiations:
Trump, during a visit to the Gulf, remarked that nothing will happen until Putin and him meets, implying that Russia recognizes the U.S.’s ability to persuade Ukraine to end the war on proposed terms, as seen with the rare minerals deal, Putin will be nowhere unless Trump is at the negotiating table, and this indicates the Russian side’s awareness of the ability of the United States to pressure Ukraine in such a process.
Hence, it can be said that the final path to ending the war may be as follows:
-
First, A direct meeting between Putin and Trump to align perspectives and agree on a framework for ending the war, possibly hosted by Turkey due to both leaders’ strong ties with Erdoğan. A phone call between Trump and Putin on May 19, 2025, hinted at this possibility.[3] And this meeting may be the beginning of the return of diplomatic relations between Russia and the United States. This is the second phone call between Trump and Putin, the first one was on February 12, 2025.
-
Second, a meeting at the level of foreign ministers of Russia and Ukraine mediated by the foreign ministers of Turkey and the United States to discuss the final formula on which a direct meeting at the presidents’ level will be formed.
-
Finally, a presidential-level meeting taking place in Turkey between Putin and Zelensky, mediated by Erdogan and Trump, to agree to end the war permanently and set the necessary conditions to prevent any future breach of the agreement. European involvement in such a meeting may be excluded due to Russia’s distrust.
Key Results of the Negotiations:
-
First, The Russian side rejected Ukraine’s proposal to stop the war for 30 days without conditions. The Russian reasons came from the words of Miroshnik, who said on Friday, May 16, 2025, that “a 30-day ceasefire will allow Kyiv to rearm and reach a new level of escalation, and this is not a step towards peace.” 30 days, 30-day truce, the so-called ceasefire, we clearly understand that the Ukrainian side needs it only to further strengthen its positions, build fortifications, supply weapons, regroup forces and resources, etc. That is, in order to reach a new level of escalation within a month. Naturally, this step is not in the direction of compromise, but in the opposite direction.”[4]
-
Second, A prisoner exchange deal was agreed upon (1,000 for 1,000), and to present the vision of the two sides for a ceasefire in details and then completing the negotiations, as a response to a Turkish proposal after the negotiations between the two parties reached an impasse. This meeting represented a disappointment for the Ukrainian president, who was seeking to meet his Russian counterpart and discuss ways to stop the war, but this seemed to be not as easy as Zelensky expected and that the current situation does not qualify for a meeting at presidents’ level at all.[5]
-
Finally, although these negotiations have no impact on achieving any desired goals for the parties, they are still a positive step towards future progress towards more effective and highly representative direct meetings so that negotiations are more serious towards ending the war.