With just days remaining before a scheduled Russian-Ukrainian meeting in Istanbul, fundamental details remain unclear.
Neither the composition of the delegations nor the agenda of the talks has been confirmed, and it remains uncertain whether the negotiations will proceed at all. Further ambiguity surrounds the possible presence of Western mediators.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced his intention to travel to Istanbul on 15 May for direct negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, there has been no official response from Moscow. In fact, according to sources close to the Kremlin, President Putin’s schedule for that date is already confirmed and does not include travel to Turkey.
The situation is further complicated by the involvement of US President Donald Trump, who began a Middle East tour earlier this week. Trump has indicated that he may travel to Istanbul if a direct meeting between the Ukrainian and Russian leaders takes place. This possibility has created a diplomatic dilemma for Putin, who is reportedly reluctant to meet with Zelenskyy but may find it difficult to rebuff Trump.
Moscow appears concerned that any refusal to participate in the Istanbul meeting could be portrayed as a personal snub to the American president. There is also speculation that the announced talks may serve more as a political performance aimed at buying time, rather than a serious attempt at ending hostilities.
According to analysts, Putin is trying to maintain dialogue with the United States while continuing military operations in Ukraine. For the Kremlin, this dual strategy allows for tactical gains on the battlefield while sustaining a channel of communication with Washington. However, Trump’s administration is becoming increasingly wary. His representative, Keith Kellogg, has already warned that Russia could face new sanctions if the talks yield no tangible results.
Further pressure comes from Trump’s readiness to dispatch both Kellogg and his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to Istanbul. Witkoff has previously met with Putin, although without apparent progress. The implication is that the White House is actively positioning itself as a mediator, albeit with expectations of demonstrable outcomes.
European leaders have also signalled readiness to introduce a new package of sanctions against Russia should it fail to commit to a ceasefire by 12 May. Implementation of these measures has been temporarily suspended to allow the negotiations to take place. However, if Russia’s delegation refuses to make any meaningful concessions, the sanctions process could quickly resume.
The possibility of a coordinated Western response, particularly one involving both the United States and European Union, represents a significant risk for Moscow. Diplomatic observers note that if Washington supports the measures, it would become increasingly difficult for EU leaders such as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán or Slovakia’s Robert Fico to block consensus within the bloc.
One of the key sticking points is Russia’s insistence on the recognition of what it terms “new territorial realities”. Ahead of the talks, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov reiterated Russia’s demand for Ukraine and the international community to acknowledge the incorporation of occupied territories into the Russian Federation.
This position remains unacceptable not only to Kyiv but also to Washington. American officials, including Vice President JD Vance, have questioned why Ukraine should be expected to surrender territories that Russian forces have not even fully occupied. The Kremlin’s refusal to clarify whether it seeks a ceasefire along current frontlines or full withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions continues to complicate the diplomatic landscape.
Meanwhile, Trump’s patience appears to be wearing thin. He recently made a pointed remark suggesting that negotiations may not succeed simply because Putin is too preoccupied with preparations for the anniversary of Russia’s World War II victory. This has been interpreted in some quarters as a sign that the US president is becoming increasingly sceptical of the Kremlin’s intentions.
Nevertheless, for Putin, even the semblance of dialogue may serve a purpose. It enables the Kremlin to project a readiness to negotiate while avoiding meaningful concessions. However, the longer this approach persists without tangible outcomes, the greater the risk of political and diplomatic fallout. With new Western sanctions under consideration and the prospect of further isolation mounting, the Istanbul meeting—if it takes place—could prove a pivotal moment for Moscow.
