And why every ceasefire attempt in the conflict so far has collapsed
Diplomatic tensions are rising once again. Just days ago, the focus was on Moscow’s 80th anniversary Victory Day parade. Now, all eyes are suddenly on Istanbul, where direct talks between Russia and Ukraine – the first since the spring of 2022 – could take place as early as Thursday.
The significance of these prospective talks has snowballed. What began with Russian President Vladimir Putin responding to a Western call for a 30-day ceasefire starting May 12 has now escalated into a high-stakes international spectacle. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky initially appeared ready to reject the proposal outright, but after pressure – bordering on an ultimatum – from Donald Trump, he reversed course.
Zelensky, however, introduced his own conditions. He demanded that talks be held at the highest level immediately, or not at all, and threatened new sanctions against Russia if his terms were ignored.
As a result, expectations for the Istanbul meeting have soared. But are they realistic? Are we truly on the verge of a breakthrough?
In short: no. Thursday’s meeting, if it happens at all, is almost certain to fail – for two clear reasons.
1. The conditions for real peace talks simply don’t exist.
Militarily, Ukraine’s situation remains precarious. While its forces are still holding defensive lines in the Donbass, morale and manpower are faltering. Some positions are visibly collapsing. Yet politically, Kiev continues to act as though it holds the upper hand, buoyed by support from the so-called ‘Coalition of the Willing’ – Britain, France, and Germany. These European states have consistently obstructed any serious effort by Washington to push for a quick peace.
Zelensky’s current strategy is transparent: appease Trump just enough to avoid backlash, but stop short of agreeing to anything that might commit Ukraine to a negotiated settlement. Even in a weakened state, Kiev shows no willingness to make meaningful concessions – or even to engage directly with Moscow.
On the Russian side, there is little incentive to indulge a Western-managed process designed to give President Trump a diplomatic win. Russia is holding firm on the front line and continues to expand its gains methodically. There is no reason to offer a ceasefire now, just when progress is being made.
Moscow’s current approach is clear: test Kiev’s seriousness through exploratory contacts, but avoid binding itself to any formal ceasefire until the military campaign yields stronger leverage. There’s a pragmatic desire in the Kremlin to buy time – finish the job this spring and summer, and then talk from a position of strength.
The recent flurry of ultimatums exchanged between Kiev, Moscow, and Washington wasn’t diplomacy. It was a game of political brinkmanship. Each side hoped to provoke the other into rejecting talks, thereby gaining the moral upper hand. In reality, no one was particularly eager to negotiate sincerely.
2. All previous ceasefire attempts have failed – and this one will too.
Let’s not forget the fate of earlier efforts: the naval ceasefire, the moratorium on energy strikes, and the much-hyped ‘Easter’ and ‘Victory Day’ ceasefires. Each of these collapsed under the weight of unrealistic expectations, conflicting interpretations, and total lack of enforcement mechanisms.
Since the start of the year, the US has been juggling multiple contradictory peace tracks, hoping to fashion a settlement from irreconcilable demands. But no formal agreements have been reached, no unified documents signed, and no real monitoring structures put in place. Each side has its own idea of what a ceasefire entails. The result? All rhetoric, no results.
The build-up to Istanbul bears a strong resemblance to these previous failures. No one really knows what’s on the agenda. There is no clarity on whether the two sides even share a common understanding of what they’re meeting to discuss. The level of the delegations is also in flux – even the question of who’s coming remains unanswered.
Zelensky insists he will attend in person, but only if he can meet directly with Putin. He says he wants to discuss the 30-day ceasefire – and nothing else. Putin, meanwhile, seems uninterested in performative diplomacy. He has no reason to show up merely to satisfy Western optics, and is more likely to focus on concrete treaty discussions, if and when the moment is right.
So far, the Russian side is expected to be represented by presidential aide Yuri Ushakov. Trump, currently in Saudi Arabia, has said he “might” fly to Istanbul – if he feels like it. If not, Secretary of State Marco Rubio could lead the US team, alongside advisers Keith Kellogg and Steve Witkoff.
At best, the delegations from Moscow and Kiev will arrive in Istanbul, hold separate meetings with US and Turkish intermediaries, and leave with a vague commitment to “continue discussions.” At worst, they’ll fail to meet at all – speaking only to the Americans and Turks before departing and blaming each other for sabotaging the process.
In the best-case scenario, the long-dormant corpse known as the “Ukrainian peace process” might be kept breathing a little longer. In the worst-case scenario, we can pronounce it officially dead – and any hopes for real progress will be shelved.
Whether that’s a tragedy or a relief depends on your point of view. But one thing is certain: on Thursday no peace deal is coming. The Istanbul summit will be another chapter in the long and cynical theater of diplomacy, where each player enters the stage knowing full well how the script ends.
This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team
