Why the Russia-Ukraine peace talks are doomed before they begin
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.
What does this all mean in practical terms?
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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
US could offer Russia enormous economic deal
Diplomats in Eastern Europe have been raising concerns that US President Donald Trump could offer Moscow sweeping concessions and 'enormous economic deals' to settle the Ukraine conflict, Politico has reported. In an article published on Thursday, citing Eastern European officials, US experts, and industry insiders, the outlet suggests that a Trump-led peace initiative might involve lifting sanctions on Russian energy – a move described as a 'sledgehammer that could smash' Western efforts to isolate Moscow. 'Of course, we are concerned about the talk of a return to Russian energy, and the lack of clarity about the US' position,' an Eastern European official said. Since the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022, the West has imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia – with a heavy focus on energy – in a bid to cripple its economy and isolate it politically. The EU, once heavily reliant on Russian supplies, has sought to cut ties. However, Russia still accounts for 17.5% of its LNG imports, second only to the US, which holds a 45.3% share. In May, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed phasing out all remaining Russian gas imports by the end of 2027. The plan drew strong criticism from several member states. The EU has invested heavily in LNG infrastructure, linking terminals to Central and Eastern Europe, with countries such as Lithuania prepared to pay a premium for American gas over the cheaper Russian alternative. However, Politico noted that Brussels' latest $750 billion energy deal with Washington would require the bloc to slash purchases from other suppliers, including cheaper sources, and more than triple its US imports. Still, the economic pull of Russian gas remains strong. In Germany, some politicians have signaled an openness to resuming imports to revive the country's struggling industry. Russian energy, the sources noted, remains more affordable than US supplies, once shipping and processing costs are factored in. Russia maintains it is a reliable energy supplier and has denounced Western restrictions as illegal under international law. Moscow has redirected most exports to 'friendly' markets, mostly in Asia.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Declassified document links Russiagate hoax to Soros
A newly unclassified document suggests George Soros' Open Society Foundation was involved in the effort by the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 to falsely accuse then-candidate Donald Trump of ties to Russia. The document, a 29-page annex to John Durham's 2023 Special Counsel report, was released by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday shortly after it was declassified. It sheds more light on what Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) described as 'one of the biggest political scandals and cover-ups in American history.' 'Based on the Durham annex, the Obama FBI failed to adequately review and investigate intelligence reports showing the Clinton campaign may have been ginning up the fake Trump-Russia narrative for Clinton's political gain... These intelligence reports and related records, whether true or false, were buried for years,' Grassley said in a statement. The annex cites several emails allegedly sent by Leonard Benardo, senior vice president of Soros' Open Society Foundations, throughout July 2016, which provide details on the Clinton campaign's plans to falsely accuse Trump of Russia links and tie him to the alleged Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack. Analysis by the Durham team concluded the Benardo emails 'were likely authentic,' the annex states. 'During the first stage of the campaign, due to lack of direct evidence, it was decided to disseminate the necessary information through the FBI-affiliated 'attic-based' technical structures… in particular, the Crowdstrike and ThreatConnect companies, from where the information would then be disseminated through leading US publications,' one of the emails reads. Another email purportedly sent by Benardo states that the 'media analysis on the DNC hacking appears solid' and suggests that 'later the FBI will put more oil into fire,' apparently predicting the probe by the agency. It also cites an individual named 'Julie,' identified in the annex as Clinton's foreign policy adviser Julianne Smith, who said the future Russiagate 'will be a long term affair to demonize [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and Trump.'
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
West ‘planting time bomb' in ties with India
The West is jeopardizing its ties with India through threats and sanctions linked to its cooperation with Russia, Moscow's ambassador to India, Denis Alipov, has told RT. He argued that the measures expose the US and EU as unreliable partners and will not compel India to sever ties with Russia. Alipov's remarks on Tuesday came after the EU unveiled its 18th sanctions package targeting India's Vadinar refinery – partly owned by Russia's Rosneft – and coincided with US President Donald Trump's threats of tariffs over India's energy and defense trade with Russia. 'Through these threats and measures, the West is planting a time bomb under its own relations with India, deliberately demonstrating its unreliability,' he said. 'The threats coming from the US certainly do not inspire trust... They only further highlight the unreliability of the US as a partner.' Alipov added that Moscow has never built its ties with New Delhi at the expense of others, while Washington, in pursuit of its own economic gains, is undermining not only Russia's interests but also those of India. 'No one considers these actions legitimate, and they're being roundly condemned,' he said. He noted that while India cannot sacrifice its ties with either the US or Russia, its reliance on Moscow for oil and gas means its foreign policy decisions will ultimately hinge on energy security. India, the world's third-largest oil consumer, imports around 80% of its energy and has never taken part in the Western sanctions on its top supplier, Russia. On Wednesday, Trump announced 25% tariffs on Indian goods and additional penalties starting on Friday over its energy and defense trade with Russia. Later in the day, he said on Truth Social that Moscow and India 'can take their dead economies down together for all I care.' The move came as Washington and New Delhi sought a trade deal after Trump's earlier tariff hike on Indian goods. New Delhi responded by reaffirming its commitment to a 'fair, balanced and mutually beneficial' agreement with the US, while vowing to do whatever is necessary to protect its national interests.
