Negotiations in Istanbul

Factors behind the Failure

A number of studies, including by Western sources, have already been published on the negotiations to end the war, which Moscow and Kiev began on February 28, 2022. They focus on the March 29, 2022 Istanbul Communiqué, which both sides had agreed on. It provided for Ukraine's military neutrality and possible EU membership; it also stipulated a diplomatic solution for Crimea over a period of 15 years. In addition, security guarantees were to be given to Kiev in order to reliably prevent a possible renewed Russian attack on Ukraine. Ultimately, however, it was not possible to transform the Istanbul Communiqué into a binding agreement. In a study published in December 2023, retired Bundeswehr Colonel Wolfgang Richter concluded that “the resistance of the national opposition” in Ukraine and “the massive influence of Western government representatives” were responsible for the failure.[1] Richter referred to statements made by Ukrainian negotiators and Naftali Bennett, the Israeli Prime Minister at the time, who was deeply involved in the earliest negotiations.

No Will to Support Diplomacy

A comprehensive study on the spring 2022 negotiations was also published by the US journal Foreign Affairs in April of last year. It confirmed that both sides “were very close in mid-April 2022 to finalizing the war with a peace settlement” based on the Istanbul Communiqué, as one Ukrainian negotiator later recounted. “A week after Putin started his aggression, he concluded he had made a huge mistake and tried to do everything possible to conclude an agreement with Ukraine.”[2] The authors of the Foreign Affairs analysis note that the day after the Istanbul Communiqué was completed British Prime Minister Boris Johnson expressed contempt for diplomatic initiatives. “Ultimately, the West as a whole quickly increased its military support for Ukraine and tightened sanctions on Russia instead of promoting the negotiations between Moscow and Kiev that continued in April,” according to the analysis. “The will to support the search for diplomatic solutions was lacking in the West,” even though “the willingness of both sides to end the war was surprisingly high.”

No Discussion

Today, any discussion even about the partial responsibility of Western States in the breakdown of those negotiations, is being suppressed in the leading media. For example, it is alleged – in obvious contradiction to the quoted analyses and other research – that the talks collapsed in the spring of 2022 “because Russia’s ultimate demands were tantamount to Ukraine’s capitulation.”[3] One can also read that the Istanbul Communiqué failed because Russia was demanding “Ukraine’s de facto capitulation.”[4] The “fact finder” of the public broadcaster ARD issued a categorical verdict: “a ceasefire was not close to being achieved.”[5] The ARD supplemented this categorical verdict with a moral disqualification: “It is an element of Russian propaganda” it is alleged, to “incessantly rehash” public knowledge of the negotiations in Istanbul to “reverse the roles of culprit and victim.”[6] Such allegations leave no leeway for serious factual investigation.

“Defeat not to be Expected”

Recent statements made by Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul raise new questions. Wadephul declared last week during an interview that “a total defeat in terms of a capitulation of the nuclear-armed Russia” can “not be expected” in the Ukraine war.[7] Therefore, from this perspective” “it was clear from the beginning that this war would, most likely, be terminated with a negotiated settlement.” Quite a few German politicians, including Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, had always proclaimed that Russia must “lose” this war, thereby consistently ruling out any appeals for a negotiated settlement. A negotiated settlement in the spring of 2022 would have spared countless lives and avoided massive destruction. However, already at the time, insiders were expressing doubts concerning the motives of the Western states. For example, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu reported following a meeting with his NATO counterparts that he “had the impression” there are “those within the NATO member states that want the war to continue.” They want “Russia to become weaker," said Çavuşoğlu.[8]

Open Contradictions

Foreign Minister Wadephul also argued that Russia’s war machine should not be overestimated.[9] “After all, for three years, it has been trying to reach a goal that Putin sought to achieve within just a few days,” Wadephul explained; the Russian military has suffered heavy losses, but it is still slowly advancing. Shortly prior, Finland's President Alexander Stubb had made similar comments at a conference in Tallinn. In his conversation with US President Donald Trump, he had tried to point out “that Russia was no longer a great power, certainly not economically.” In terms of its economy “It is smaller than Italy, slightly larger than Spain.”[10] Militarily, it had already attacked “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine three years ago,” but was hardly making any progress at the front. It is no longer a country “which can be seen as a big power”. This is also in contradiction to the constantly repeated claims that a Russian attack on NATO countries – for example on Baltic states – could be expected within a few years. As Bundeswehr Inspector General Carsten Breuer told the BBC last weekend, such an attack could be launched by 2029 at the latest perhaps even earlier.[11]

“Dwarf Russia“

At the conference in Tallinn, Poland's Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski offered an alternative explanation for the NATO countries' massive arms build-up. Sikorski declared, that with arms spending totaling five percent of the gross domestic product, “we will dwarf Russia.”[12] “As Europe, without the US, we are spending two and half times more than Russia on a peace footing than Russia is spending on a war footing. All it takes is to spend the money better, on the basis of learning the lessons from Ukraine” and subsequently “have the will to pour all this into the form of a fighting force.” Sikorski did not explain whether this was intended to arm Russia to death or to pursue other objectives.

[1] Wolfgang Richter: Russlands Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine. Wien, Dezember 2023. See  No ceasefire wanted.

[2] Samuel Charap, Sergey Radchenko: The Talks That Could Have Ended the War in Ukraine. foreignaffairs.com 16.04.2024.

[3] Kiew und Moskau vereinbaren großen Gefangenenaustausch. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 17.05.2025.

[4] Raphael Geiger, Florian Hassel: Weit entfernt von einem Frieden. sueddeutsche.de 16.05.2025.

[5], [6] Pascal Siggelkow: Waffenstillstand war nicht kurz vor dem Abschluss. tagesschau.de 30.04.2024.

[7] „Das war von Anfang an klar“, sagt Wadephul zur Frage, wie der Krieg enden werde. welt.de 30.05.2025.

[8] ‘Some NATO allies want longer war for weaker Russia’: FM Çavuşoğlu. dailysabah.com 21.04.2022.

[9] „Das war von Anfang an klar“, sagt Wadephul zur Frage, wie der Krieg enden werde. welt.de 30.05.2025.

[10] Patrick Wintour: Donald Trump is losing patience with Russia, says Finnish leader. theguardian.com 18.05.2025.

[11], [12] Frank Gardner, Tessa Wong: Russia may attack Nato in next four years, German defence chief warns. bbc.co.uk 01.06.2025.