DONATE

Current News

Archives

Focus Areas

< Back

May 15, 2025

Intitute for the Study of War; Putin rejects Zelenskyy invitation to negotiate

Institute for the Study of War

Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s invitation to engage in bilateral negotiations in Istanbul and continues refusing to offer concessions to end the war in Ukraine. Putin spoke to media organizations on the night of May 10 to 11, following the May 10 joint US-Ukrainian-European proposal for a general ceasefire for at least 30 days beginning on May 12.[1] Putin did not agree to the joint US-Ukrainian-European proposal and instead proposed that Russia and Ukraine “resume” on May 15 the direct negotiations that he claimed Ukraine “interrupted” in 2022 in Istanbul. Zelensky and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accepted Putin’s proposal to hold bilateral negotiations in Turkey on May 15.[2] Zelensky stated that he would personally wait for Putin in Turkey and arrived in Turkey on May 15.[3] Putin assigned several Russian officials, who are notably not in Putin’s innermost circle, to attend the talks in Istanbul, and Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov confirmed on May 15 that Putin will not travel to Istanbul.[4] Putin’s rejection of Zelensky’s invitation demonstrates Putin’s continued resistance to making any concessions and engaging in legitimate, good-faith negotiations at the highest level.

The Russian delegation in Istanbul does not include officials in Putin’s innermost circle and is largely the same delegation that Russia sent to the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations in 2022 in Istanbul. Putin announced on the night of May 14 that Presidential Aide Vladimir Medinsky is leading the Russian delegation in Istanbul.[5] The delegation also includes Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin, Chief of the Russian General Staff’s Main Directorate (GRU) Igor Kostykov, and Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin. Medinsky similarly headed the delegation in 2022, and Fomin and Galuzin’s predecessor participated in the 2022 talks.[6] Kostyukov is the only 2025 participant who did not attend the 2022 talks.

The 2025 Russian delegation also includes four experts from the Presidential Administration, GRU, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), and Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) that correspond with the four leading delegation members: Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration for State Policy in the Humanitarian Sphere Elena Podobreevskaya, Director of the Second Department of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Alexei Polishchuk, First Deputy Chief of Information of the GRU Alexander Zorin, and the Deputy Head of the Main Directorate of International Military Cooperation in the Russian MoD Viktor Shevtsov.[7]

Medinsky explicitly described the May 2025 Russian-Ukrainian negotiations in Istanbul as a continuation of the early 2022 Istanbul negotiations during which Russia issued demands that were tantamount to Ukraine’s complete capitulation. Medinsky told journalists on May 15 in Istanbul that Russia considers the May 2025 negotiations a “continuation” of previous negotiations in Istanbul in April 2022, which he claimed Ukraine interrupted.[8] Medinsky is reiterating Putin’s May 11 framing that the new bilateral negotiations in Istanbul would be based on the April 2022 Istanbul protocols draft agreement, which included terms that would have amounted to Ukraine’s surrender and left Ukraine helpless to defend against potential future Russian aggression.[9] The Wall Street Journal(WSJ) and the New York Times (NYT) reported in March and June 2024 that they both obtained several versions of the Istanbul protocols draft agreement.[10] The draft protocols demanded that Ukraine forego its NATO membership aspirations and amend its constitution to add a neutrality provision that would ban Ukraine from joining any military alliances. The draft protocols also would have banned Ukraine from hosting foreign military personnel, trainers, or weapon systems in Ukraine. Russia demanded that it, the United States, the United Kingdom (UK), the People’s Republic of China (PRC), France, and Belarus serve as security guarantors of the agreement. Russia demanded that the guarantor states “terminate international treaties and agreements incompatible with the permanent neutrality [of Ukraine],” including military aid agreements. Russia demanded that Ukraine limit its military to 85,000 soldiers, 342 tanks, and 519 artillery systems as part of the Istanbul protocols. Russia additionally demanded that Ukrainian missiles be limited to a range of 40 kilometers (25 miles), a range that would allow Russian forces to deploy critical systems and materiel close to Ukraine without fear of strikes.

Medinsky also reiterated Putin’s longstanding demands that any resolution to the war must result in regime change in Ukraine and restrictions on NATO. Medinsky claimed that Russia’s goal for the May 2025 Istanbul negotiations is to “establish long-term peace by eliminating the root causes” of the war.[11] Russian officials routinely demand that any peace agreement address the war’s “root causes,” which Russian officials define as NATO’s alleged violation of commitments not to expand into eastern Europe and along Russia’s borders in the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s, and the Ukrainian government’s alleged discrimination against Russians and Russian language, media, and culture in Ukraine.[12] Russian officials have leveraged claims that Ukraine has mistreated Russian speakers in Ukraine to justify the Kremlin’s demands for regime change in Ukraine, the establishment of a pro-Russian proxy government in Kyiv, and Russia’s occupation and illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory. Medinsky’s attempt to frame May 2025 Istanbul negotiations as peace talks contradicts stated Ukrainian, US, and European efforts to first establish a longer-term ceasefire in Ukraine that would precede peace negotiations.[13] Medinsky’s framing echoes consistent Russian rejections of this sequence of events, which Ukraine and the United States have consistently supported.[14]

Key Takeaways:

  • Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s invitation to engage in bilateral negotiations in Istanbul and continues refusing to offer concessions to end the war in Ukraine.
  • The Russian delegation in Istanbul does not include officials in Putin’s innermost circle and is largely the same delegation that Russia sent to the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations in 2022 in Istanbul.
  • Medinsky explicitly described the May 2025 Russian-Ukrainian negotiations in Istanbul as a continuation of the early 2022 Istanbul negotiations during which Russia issued demands that were tantamount to Ukraine’s complete capitulation.
  • Medinsky also reiterated Putin’s longstanding demands that any resolution to the war must result in regime change in Ukraine and restrictions on NATO.
  • Reported Kremlin instructions to Russian media explaining how to cover the Istanbul negotiations indicate that the Kremlin is preparing the Russian population for a longer war in Ukraine and is not interested in engaging in good-faith negotiations that require compromises from both sides.
  • Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Toretsk, and Russian forces recently advanced near Lyman, Novopavlivka, and Velyka Novosilka.
Share the Post:
Close

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.