On May 15, Türkiye hosted the first direct contact between Russian and Ukrainian officials since the collapse of peace talks in 2022, aimed at ending the biggest military conflict in Europe since World War II.

The meeting, held in Istanbul, lasted just under two hours and took place without the presence of either presidents – Vladimir Putin or President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump’s surprise attendance could have changed this, but he did not show up either. 

The meeting unfolded against a backdrop of intensive diplomacy across Türkiye, with the NATO Foreign Ministers’ summit convening in Antalya and President Zelenskyy holding consultations with President Erdogan in Ankara. 

A simultaneous trilateral session in Istanbul between Turkish, American, and Ukrainian officials underscored the degree to which Türkiye has positioned itself as a central hub in the emerging diplomatic architecture surrounding the war.

The setting for the talks, the tones, and the absences revealed how the international order is being reshaped by renewed great power competition, asymmetric alignments, and the growing assertiveness of regional actors like Türkiye. 

While the decision on prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine was the biggest outcome of the Istanbul talks, the two warring sides still remain far apart, with little common ground for resolving the core issues driving the conflict. 

Together, these elements offer a snapshot of a world in transition, where negotiation is as much about signalling and positioning as it is about peace.

Shifting global landscape and Türkiye’s strategic rise

While much attention focused on who was or was not in the room, or whether the meeting would yield any breakthrough, the real significance of the Istanbul talks lay in what they exposed about the current international landscape. 

Three intersecting dynamics were particularly visible.

The international system remains in flux. The foundational assumptions of the post-Cold War era—liberal institutionalism, US strategic dominance, NATO cohesion, and the universalisation of Western norms—are rapidly eroding. 

In their place is a contested geopolitical order marked by fragmentation, great power rivalry, and normative pluralism. The Russia–Ukraine war is both a catalyst for and a consequence of this transformation. 

For Putin, the conflict is not just about Ukraine’s alignment or NATO’s expansion, but about forcing recognition of Russia as a great power, a status lost with the demise of the USSR.

The war in Ukraine, along with Putin’s objectives, serves both as a catalyst for and a consequence of this transition. It is driven by a deeper ambition to reshape Europe’s security order around Moscow’s terms. 

Trump’s return opened a strategic window for Moscow, whose goals align with his transactional style and scepticism of NATO. Putin’s decision not to be present at the Istanbul talks once it became clear President Trump would not attend underlined this dynamic. 

Encounters like these serve to reassert Russia’s claim to parity with the US, even as it endures sanctions and military losses. The Kremlin views Trump’s return to office as a strategic window. It is no coincidence that serious US-Russia contact resumed only after Trump’s re-election.

For Türkiye, hosting the talks reflects not just diplomatic flexibility but a broader shift in its strategic posture. 

Throughout the war, Ankara has maintained open channels with both Moscow and Kiev—arming Ukraine with Bayraktar TB2 drones while declining to join Western sanctions on Russia. 

This careful balancing has allowed Türkiye to deliver results others could not: an earlier round of peace negotiations, the Black Sea Grain deal, multiple rounds of prisoner exchanges, and now renewed direct negotiations. 

These efforts are part of a broader pattern in which Türkiye has positioned itself as a proactive and stabilising force across multiple regions. 

TRT Global - How Türkiye became a trusted global mediator in conflict zones

Türkiye’s role as an international mediator is in the spotlight as Istanbul gears up to host potentially momentous talks between the leaders of Russia and Ukraine.

🔗

In Libya, Türkiye has supported the UN-recognised government and helped deter a full-scale collapse of the political order. 

In Sudan, Türkiye has engaged both humanitarian and diplomatic tools to mitigate the fallout of the civil war. Its quiet diplomacy between Somalia and Ethiopia has contributed to regional dialogue at a time of rising tension.

In each case, Ankara has demonstrated that it can shape outcomes where Western influence is limited or absent, leveraging its relationships, geography, and credibility to act as both a mediator and a regional problem-solver.

What the talks achieved and what to expect next

Among the few tangible outcomes of the Istanbul talks was an agreement to exchange 1,000 prisoners of war. 

While meaningful in humanitarian terms, the agreement also highlighted the narrow scope of what remains diplomatically achievable, at least for now. 

Fundamental political issues such as territorial control, security guarantees, and Ukraine’s future orientation remain unresolved. More than two years into the conflict, the war has hardened into a grinding war of attrition.

Russia has formally annexed four Ukrainian regions and integrated them into its constitutional order, making any concession on territory politically unthinkable for the Kremlin. 

The appointment of Andrei Belousov as defence minister signals Moscow’s commitment to sustaining a war economy, prioritising industrial output and mobilisation capacity over short-term fiscal balance.

On the other hand, Ukraine continues to rely heavily on Western military, financial, and diplomatic support to sustain its defence and governance. 

While Russia is under mounting economic and strategic strain, Ukrainian gains have been limited and incremental, and doubts persist about long-term Western resolve.

Both sides believe they still have plausible paths to victory, or at least to a stronger bargaining position. 

This mutual confidence sustains maximalist negotiating positions: Russia demands formal recognition of territorial gains and the lifting of sanctions, while Ukraine insists on full withdrawal and accountability.

These positions remain fundamentally incompatible, and for now, the gap between battlefield realities and diplomatic terms appears too wide to bridge.

Zelenskyy had publicly challenged Putin to attend the talks, presenting it as a test of Russia’s seriousness. 

Putin’s absence, along with that of other senior Russian officials, reinforced Kiev’s perception that Moscow is stalling for time, hoping battlefield momentum will eventually shift in its favour. 

Ukrainian officials accuse Russia of obstructing negotiations with maximalist and unrealistic demands.

Meanwhile, the Kremlin seems content to keep the diplomatic process alive while aiming for a direct bargain with Washington, one that could formalise Russian influence in parts of the post-Soviet space and ease the burden of Western sanctions.

In this light, the Istanbul meeting did not achieve much by way of concrete results but did offer a window to what could have been and what could be.

The prisoner exchange may offer a small measure of confidence-building, but the underlying divide between the parties remains vast. Without a significant shift in the strategic calculations in Moscow and Washington, the prospects for enduring peace remain distant. 

At present, diplomacy serves less as a pathway to resolution than as a theatre for the unfolding dynamics of the emerging world order.