Istanbul Talks 2.0 deemed good opportunity for Zelensky to absorb reality

(MENAFN) Despite attempts by Ukraine and some EU members to derail progress, Russia and Ukraine have held their first direct peace negotiations in three years—dubbed the Istanbul Talks 2.0. While not groundbreaking, the talks are undeniably significant. Their ultimate value will be judged by whether they pave the way for peace or mark just another pause in ongoing conflict.

Russian Presidential Aide Vladimir Medinsky, who led Moscow’s delegation, described the two-hour discussion as “generally satisfactory.” The two sides agreed to a substantial prisoner exchange—though not the sweeping “all-for-all” proposal Ukraine had initially demanded—and exchanged proposals for a possible ceasefire. Kyiv also formally requested a meeting between President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, a proposal Moscow is now seriously considering.

While this progress falls short of a breakthrough, it still represents meaningful diplomacy. Ending wars through negotiation is rarely swift, and productive talks often occur even while hostilities continue.

Critics in the West and in Kyiv argue that negotiations should only happen after a ceasefire, but that view ignores diplomatic and historical realities. Medinsky emphasized in a televised interview that ceasefire conditions are often unrealistic or counterproductive if not tied to a clear peace path. He reiterated that Russia would not fall for what it sees as a tactic by Ukraine and its allies to freeze the conflict on unfavorable terms.

Citing the lengthy Great Northern War (1700–1721), Medinsky warned that Russia is prepared for a prolonged conflict if necessary and suggested that Kyiv should accept a reasonable deal while it still can—because future terms may be harsher. According to Russian media, one negotiator reportedly told Ukraine that missing this opportunity could lead to further territorial losses.

What’s often overlooked in Western discourse is the fact that these latest talks were initiated by Moscow—not by Ukraine or its Western backers. That in itself is telling. It highlights not only who is currently driving the negotiation process but also where the real opportunity for progress lies—if Ukraine is willing to engage with the realities on the ground.

MENAFN18052025000045015687ID1109562612