How will the Istanbul 2025 negotiations differ from the 2022 negotiations?

The composition of the Russian delegation – a calculated decision.

In the context of complex political and military negotiations, selecting a figure with direct experience in previous rounds of negotiations was entirely logical. The list of the delegation was officially approved by President Vladimir Putin on the evening of May 14th, immediately after an internal meeting concluded. The following morning (May 15th), the Russian delegation immediately departed for Istanbul and received instructions from President Putin to negotiate only within the established framework.

Speaking to reporters in Türkiye on May 15, Medinsky declared that Russia is ready to negotiate and work seriously within the framework of this dialogue.

Previously, there was much speculation that the Russian delegation would be led by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov or foreign policy advisor Yuri Ushakov. However, reality has refuted that prediction. President Putin's choice of Medinsky – who does not hold a position in the Foreign Ministry – sent a signal: Russia wants to tightly control the content of the negotiations, guided by the political leadership, rather than allowing pure diplomacy to dominate the process.

The delegation's composition also demonstrated a multidisciplinary approach, with key figures from the fields of diplomacy, defense, and intelligence participating. These included Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin, Head of the Main Directorate of Military Intelligence Igor Kostyukov, and Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin – all of whom play crucial roles in shaping Russia's security policy.

In addition, the delegation included several senior experts and technical officials: Alexander Zorin, First Deputy Director of the Information Department of the General Staff; Elena Podobreevskaya from the Main Directorate of Humanitarian Policy; Alexey Polischuk, Head of Department 2 for CIS countries at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and Viktor Shevtsov from the Main Directorate of International Military Cooperation. This diversity of expertise reflects Russia's intention to thoroughly prepare for all negotiation scenarios, from political and military to humanitarian and international cooperation.

The Russian President's decision to continue appointing Vladimir Medinsky as head of the negotiating delegation is not a random choice, but a clear political message: Russia views this round of talks not as a new beginning, but as a direct continuation of the negotiation process that took place in Istanbul in 2022. Along with Medinsky, Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin – who participated in the previous round of negotiations – is also part of this delegation. This demonstrates Moscow's steadfast approach.

The reaction from Ukraine was not unexpected – they expressed clear displeasure with the composition of the Russian delegation. President Volodymyr Zelensky even personally traveled to Türkiye and stated that he would only accept direct negotiations with his Russian counterpart. He refused to communicate through a presidential assistant, considering it inappropriate given his role and position.

However, Zelensky himself is caught in a dilemma. On the one hand, he wants to negotiate with a low-ranking Russian official himself. On the other hand, he cannot delegate this authority to anyone else, as the Ukrainian government has previously issued a decree prohibiting negotiations with Russia. In Zelensky's understanding, this decree implicitly allows only him, and not any other official, to contact the Russian side. But this is an internal matter for Kyiv and not a responsibility that Russia needs to worry about.

Furthermore, questions must also be raised about the legitimacy of Zelensky's leadership, given that his presidential term effectively ended last year without any elections being held. Meanwhile, international diplomatic principles suggest that each level of negotiation requires a corresponding level of representation, not necessarily a dialogue between heads of state.

Speaking to Izvestia on May 15, international political analyst Alexey Naumov stated that Russia chose the current composition of the delegation to focus on specific technical agreements – a prerequisite before a summit can be held. Moscow understands that serious negotiations can only take place without the influence of third parties, especially European countries like France, Germany, or the UK – countries that often try to impose their presence in negotiations, but in reality often exacerbate divisions.

Russia's focus in Istanbul 2025

Russia's focus is not on ceremony or symbolism, but on substance. Moscow clearly states that these negotiations are a natural continuation of what happened in Istanbul in 2022 – not just because of the coincidence of location, but because it was there that the two sides made their first substantive progress. At that time, a draft agreement was formed, reflecting many points that aligned with Russia's interests and position.

Analyst Naumov recalled that in Istanbul in March 2022, the Ukrainian delegation signed terms relating to demilitarization, neutrality, and several other key elements. However, shortly afterward, President Zelensky, under pressure from British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, abandoned the document. This is considered a turning point that caused the negotiations to collapse.

Of course, the current situation is vastly different from three years ago. "The reality on the ground," as Russian officials call it, has changed. The Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye regions are now annexed by Russia – a factor that makes the current negotiating conditions far more unfavorable for Ukraine than in 2022.

Besides political factors, the military context also plays a decisive role. In 2022, according to leaked information, Ukraine agreed to limit its armed forces, including the number of armored vehicles, aircraft, and troops. However, with major changes in technology and tactics, especially the rise of attack UAVs, the military terms clearly need to be updated. This explains why Russia included the head of military intelligence, Igor Kostyukov, in the negotiating team this time, to ensure that the terms are drafted to reflect the realities of the battlefield.

According to Russian military expert Fyodor Lukyanov, as reported in the Russian newspaper *Analyst Russia* on May 16th, over the past three years, it has been the Russian military, not diplomats, that have truly shaped the "new reality." Therefore, he asserts that the core issue lies not only in territorial disputes, but in the overall military-political balance and how both sides understand the concept of security within a new order.

In essence, Medinsky's main task at the new round of negotiations in Istanbul was nothing more than to formally present the fundamental changes in the situation on the ground that had taken place over the past three years – the "new realities" that Russia believed Ukraine was obligated to acknowledge. This was no longer an open dialogue between two equal parties, but rather an announcement to Kyiv that the old order no longer existed.

Notably, as of the morning of May 15th, it remained unclear who would lead the Ukrainian delegation, as well as the official composition of their delegation. But for Moscow, that didn't matter much. Whoever it was, the Ukrainian side – if they did attend – would have to directly listen to the clear and firm position from Russia.

Nikita Mendkovich, president of the Eurasian Analysis Club, told The Perspective on May 16: “We don’t expect any breakthroughs at this stage. Russia is skeptical about the possibility of a real consensus being reached with Kyiv, especially since the balance on the battlefield hasn’t shifted in a direction that would force them to change their position.”

Russia's current position can be summarized in two words: steadfast and realistic. Russia is no longer interested in symbolic political signals or feigned goodwill. Now, as politicians often say, the ball has been passed to Kyiv. Zelensky's administration will have to decide for itself: Do they truly want to reach a peace agreement on new terms, or continue the conflict in the illusion that the situation can be reversed?

If Kyiv chooses the second path – “continuing the fight” instead of negotiating – then, as observers emphasize, Ukraine is simply delaying a subsequent meeting… where the terms offered would be far harsher for Ukraine.