Towards a Just Peace: Ukraine’s Outstanding Diplomatic Efforts to End the War

Prepared by/ Abdulrahman Anwar

Researcher at the International Affairs Unit

Since the onset of the Russia–Ukraine war on February 24, 2022, the conflict has experienced various military and political shifts—sometimes favoring Russia, at other times Ukraine. Amid these fluctuations, a growing consensus has emerged that a military solution is unfeasible, and that the ongoing hostilities between the two nations must cease. Ukraine, in particular, has recognized this reality and has pursued active diplomacy as a necessary means to open channels for negotiations to end the war, especially following the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president. Now, in the third year and fourth month of the war, there remains no comprehensive solution ensuring a just peace—one that satisfies Ukraine’s goal of regaining territory occupied by Russia and safeguarding its sovereignty, and also its demands for security guarantees, which totally refused by Russia. On the other hand, Russia’s demands to end the war based on the current battlefield realities.

This paper reviews Ukraine’s diplomatic efforts aimed at achieving a just peace and a political resolution that ends the war while preserving Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, dignity, and future rights.

Section I: Ukrainian Diplomatic Efforts

The war has highlighted Ukraine’s deep investment in diplomacy, utilizing a full range of tools to end the conflict. This includes high-level presidential visits to influential international actors capable of mediating or encouraging negotiations toward a ceasefire and peace treaty, as well as official delegations sent abroad for peace talks. Ukraine has consistently shown a willingness to engage in both direct and indirect dialogue with Russia—even while fighting continues. The following points outline Ukraine’s key diplomatic initiatives aimed at a fair and comprehensive peace:

• Zelensky’s visit to the United States:

Since Donald Trump returned to the White House for a non-consecutive second term, Washington has played a central mediating role in the war. Trump has pushed for direct talks between Russia and Ukraine under U.S. mediation to expedite an end to the war. Ukraine has shown openness to these American diplomatic efforts and declared its readiness to negotiate with Russia. President Zelensky accepted Trump’s invitation to meet at the White House. Although the meeting was marked by some tension, Zelensky’s willingness to meet Trump was a significant diplomatic step forward.

Ukraine also signed a rare earth minerals agreement with the U.S. as a gesture of good faith, aiming to dispel Trump’s suspicion that Kyiv was intent on prolonging the war. In this context, Ukraine demonstrated far greater flexibility and openness to a political resolution than its counterpart.

• Zelensky and the High-Level Ukrainian Delegation Visit to Turkey

On May 15, President Zelensky and a high-level Ukrainian delegation traveled to Ankara as part of what became known as the “Istanbul Talks.” Zelensky expressed willingness to meet President Putin directly in Istanbul to discuss a peace agreement or initiate an unconditional 30-day ceasefire. However, these efforts were undermined by the absence of a high-level Russian delegation and Putin himself, whom Zelensky had hoped to meet—suggesting Ukrainian openness to direct talks that was not reciprocated by Russia.

Nonetheless, Ukraine proceeded with the negotiations in good faith, engaging with a mid-level Russian delegation and agreeing to a prisoner exchange deal (1,000 for 1,000). Kyiv viewed the talks as evidence of Russia’s intransigence and lack of genuine interest in a peaceful resolution, raising questions about Moscow’s reluctance to pursue serious negotiations.

Section II: Russia’s Continued Absence from the Negotiating Table

Russia has consistently failed to send senior officials to peace negotiations, hindering the political process and delaying any potential resolution. Moscow appears to be waiting for a moment it deems strategically favorable before making serious moves toward a ceasefire agreement and subsequent peace deal. Key points of contention include:

1- Russia’s Rigid Conditions:

Moscow demands Ukraine’s future neutrality and a NATO membership ban. It insists on ending the war based on the current battlefield reality—a reality Russia seeks to manipulate in its favor before entering any serious peace process. As a result, Ukraine pursues two parallel paths: continuing its military defense to recover occupied territories and weaken Russian forces, and engaging diplomatically to find a peaceful resolution.

2- Russian Accusations of Hypocrisy:

Moscow views Ukraine’s military efforts as contradictory to its declared desire for peace and believes Kyiv is determined to continue the war with European backing, and also to complete “the victory plan” (achieving peace by force and defeating the Russian side militarily) with the European side, after the automatic withdrawal of US following the electoral defeat of Kamala Harris, former US Vice President in the last electoral of USA. Russia postpones serious negotiations until it sees a genuine shift in Ukraine’s intentions—something Kyiv strongly disputes, citing its robust diplomatic engagement with states and international organizations.

3- Lack of U.S.–Russia Presidential meeting:

A summit between Putin and Trump is seen as critical for restarting the peace process, as the U.S. is perhaps the only actor with enough leverage to mediate effectively. Such a meeting could lay the groundwork for a subsequent Ukraine–Russia summit, possibly hosted by Turkey—a trusted partner of both nations. The delay in arranging a Putin–Trump summit has fueled concerns that Russia remains inflexible, possibly clinging to maximalist demands in backchannel talks with the U.S.

It is possible that the Russian side’s unwillingness to demonstrate any flexibility or make concessions in the negotiation process will significantly hinder efforts to negotiate and bring an end to the war. It is unacceptable, at the negotiating table, for Ukraine to be the only party making compromises or showing flexibility, while Russia remains steadfast in its demands. Such a scenario would effectively mean the war ends on Russia’s terms—an outright defeat for Ukraine or, at best, an implicit admission of defeat. In this context, the role of the United States becomes critical, as its ability to exert pressure on the Russian side may prove essential in achieving a convergence of views and reaching a mutual understanding that can lead to ending the war.

4- Russian Strategy to Delay and Shape the Battlefield:

Moscow’s avoidance of negotiation may stem from a desire to force new realities upon Ukraine. Its demands—including the refusal to allow peacekeeping forces near its borders and the absence of any security guarantees—signal an intention to prolong the conflict until Kyiv is coerced into accepting Russian terms. Ukraine, meanwhile, continues to strengthen its military in partnership with European allies, while remaining diplomatically engaged.

In Conclusion,

Russia appears to be deliberately cautious or even indifferent regarding diplomatic engagement, awaiting what it deems the right moment or a signal of sincere Ukrainian intent. In contrast, Ukraine has clearly taken the lead in diplomacy—through active involvement by President Zelensky, Foreign Minister, and Defense Minister, and through its global outreach.

Zelensky’s trip to Ankara, where he waited for a no-show Putin, illustrated Ukraine’s genuine openness to negotiation. Rather than relying on either side’s justifications or accusations, current indicators suggest that Ukraine is diplomatically outperforming Russia in seeking a resolution to the war. While Ukraine has made overtures to both the U.S. and Turkey, Russia continues to delay a direct meeting between Putin and Trump, relying only on indirect communications.

It remains uncertain when serious negotiations will resume. However, the most likely scenario is a high-level summit—possibly in Turkey—where Ukrainian and Russian leaders, under U.S. and Turkish mediation, will finally engage in meaningful dialogue to end the war.