How are the Istanbul 2025 talks different from 2022?

Composition of the Russian delegation – a calculated decision

In the context of complex political-military negotiations, it is completely reasonable to choose a figure with direct experience in previous rounds of negotiations. The list of delegations was officially approved by President Vladimir Putin on the evening of May 14, immediately after the internal meeting ended. The next morning (May 15), the Russian delegation immediately left for Istanbul and received instructions from President Putin to negotiate only within the established framework.

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

Previously, there were many speculations that the Russian delegation this time would be led by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov or foreign policy adviser 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 according to the direction from the political top, instead of letting pure diplomacy dominate the process.

The delegation also demonstrated a multi-sectoral approach, with key figures from the diplomatic, defense and intelligence sectors taking part. Among them were Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin, Director of the Main Directorate of Military Intelligence Igor Kostyukov, and Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin, who play a key role in shaping Russia’s security policy.

In addition, a number of high-ranking experts and technical officials were also present in the delegation: First Deputy Director of the General Staff Information Department Alexander Zorin, Ms. Elena Podobreevskaya from the General Directorate of Humanitarian Policy, Mr. Alexey Polischuk – Head of the 2nd Department in charge of the CIS countries of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, along with Mr. Viktor Shevtsov from the General Directorate of International Military Cooperation. This diversity of expertise reflects Russia's intention to thoroughly prepare for all negotiation scenarios, from political, military to humanitarian and international cooperation.

The Russian President’s continued appointment of Vladimir Medinsky as head of the negotiating delegation is not a random choice, but a clear political message: Russia sees this round of dialogue 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 the delegation this time. This is a testament to Moscow’s steadfast approach.

The reaction from the Ukrainian side was not unexpected – they showed clear discontent with the composition of the Russian delegation. President Volodymyr Zelensky even personally traveled to Türkiye and affirmed that he would only negotiate directly with his Russian counterpart. He did not accept communication through a presidential aide, considering it incompatible with his role and position.

However, Mr. Zelensky himself is stuck in a dilemma. On the one hand, he wants to negotiate with a low-level Russian official himself. On the other hand, he cannot delegate authority to anyone else, because the Ukrainian government has previously issued a decree prohibiting negotiations with Russia. In Mr. Zelensky’s understanding, this decree by default allows only him, not any official, to contact the Russian side. But this is Kiev’s internal matter and not Russia’s responsibility.

Moreover, the legitimacy of Mr. Zelensky’s leadership must also be questioned, as his presidential term effectively ended last year without any elections being held. Meanwhile, international diplomatic principles dictate that each level of negotiation requires a correspondence in the level of representation, not necessarily a head of state talking to a head of state.

Speaking to Izvestia on May 15, international political analyst Alexey Naumov said that Russia chose the current composition to focus on specific technical agreements – a prerequisite for holding a summit. Moscow understands that serious negotiations can only be carried out without being dominated by third parties, especially European countries such as France, Germany or the UK – countries that often seek to impose their presence in negotiations, but in fact often exacerbate divisions.

Russia's focus at Istanbul 2025

Russia’s focus is not on protocol or symbolism, but on substance. Moscow has made it clear that the talks are a natural continuation of what happened in Istanbul in 2022 – not just because of the location, but because it was there that the two sides made their first real progress. A draft text of the agreement was created then, reflecting many points that were in line with Russia’s interests and positions.

Analyst Naumov recalled that in March 2022 in Istanbul, the Ukrainian delegation signed the terms related to demilitarization, neutrality and a number of other important elements. However, shortly after, President Zelensky, under pressure from British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, abandoned this document. This is considered the turning point that caused the negotiation process to collapse.

Of course, the situation is very different today than it was three years ago. “Realities on the ground,” as Russian officials call them, have changed. The Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye regions are now part of Russia—a factor that makes the current negotiating conditions much more unfavorable for Ukraine than they were in 2022.

In addition to the political factor, the military context also plays a decisive role. In 2022, according to leaked sources, 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 this time, Russia has included the head of the General Staff of Military Intelligence, Igor Kostyukov, in the negotiations, to ensure that the terms are drafted in accordance with the realities on the battlefield.

According to Russian military expert Fyodor Lukyanov in the Russian Perspective newspaper on May 16, in the past 3 years, the Russian military, not diplomats, has been the force that has truly shaped the “new reality”. Therefore, he affirmed: The core factor lies not only in territorial disputes, but also in the issue of the overall military-political balance and how the two sides understand the concept of security in a new order.

In essence, Medinsky’s main task at the new round of talks in Istanbul was nothing more than to formally present the fundamental changes in the situation on the ground that have taken place over the past three years – the “new realities” that Russia believes Ukraine must acknowledge. This was no longer an open dialogue between equals, but a message to Kiev that the old order no longer exists.

Notably, as of the morning of May 15, it was still unclear who would be the head of the Ukrainian delegation, as well as the official composition of the delegation. But for Moscow, that did not mean much. Whoever it was, the Ukrainian side – if they actually attended – would have to directly hear the clear and firm stance of the Russian side.

President of the Eurasian Analytical Club Nikita Mendkovich told the newspaper Goc Ngon on May 16: “We do not expect any breakthroughs at the current stage. Russia is skeptical about the possibility of reaching a real consensus from Kiev, especially when the balance on the battlefield has not yet tilted in a direction that would force them to change their stance.”

Russia’s current stance can be summed up in two words: firm and realistic. Russia is no longer interested in symbolic political signals or false goodwill. Now, as politicians say, the ball is in Kiev’s court. The Zelensky government will have to decide: does it really want to reach a peace agreement on new terms, or does it want to prolong the conflict in the illusion that the situation can be reversed?

If Kiev chooses the second path – “continuing to fight” instead of negotiating, then, as observers emphasize, Ukraine is simply postponing a further meeting… where the terms offered will be much harsher for the Ukrainian side.