By Nina Bachkatov
The Russo-Ukrainian meeting in Istanbul on 16 May proved a diplomatic failure. Yet, both delegations made incremental progress on humanitarian issues, agreeing to a substantial 64th prisoner exchange involving not only military personnel but also civilians. The first exchange took place on 23 May.
Despite a momentary easing of tensions, hostilities resumed. Ukrainian drone attacks disrupted Moscow’s airports and struck vulnerable southern cities, while Russian drones and missiles targeted Kyiv, injuring several dozen people.
Nonetheless, both Kyiv and Moscow announced that they were preparing documents outlining conditions for a broader, long-term settlement. These would be exchanged once the prisoner transfers concluded. The move supports the argument by analysts that progress lies in building upon what works, rather than issuing ultimatums. The process also highlights the existence of discreet bilateral and multilateral diplomatic channels. While there is a risk that both armies may detain more prisoners to strengthen their bargaining positions, the current exchanges remain one of the few functioning points of contact.
A Peculiar War
This war is without precedent. It is a conflict few expected to last, with no clear victor to dictate peace terms and no vanquished party compelled to accept a ceasefire. The focus on an “unconditional truce” reflects a persistent confusion between the military and political dimensions of this conflict resolution.
On this uniquely Ukrainian front, any lasting truce requires not only a freeze in combat operations but also a political framework for verification and negotiation. Mediators are in short supply, deterred by both political and personal risks. The failed Istanbul talks left President Erdoğan embittered after President Zelensky publicly challenged Putin, declaring, “I am in Turkey—dare to meet me” which was the best way to keep Putin in Moscow.
The European Union, meanwhile, has disqualified itself as a neutral broker. Its unwavering alignment with Ukraine—treating President Zelensky as a de facto member, acceding to his critiques and demands—has eliminated its credibility as a mediator. The EU has severed virtually all ties with Russia, including soft-power avenues such as academic and cultural exchanges.
The proliferation of ad hoc mini-summits appears more driven by domestic agendas than any cohesive EU mandate. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has maintained a low profile, and it remains unclear whether she is driving these meetings or merely following. Her main interventions have involved promises of further aid and sanctions—some threatening secondary penalties on those purchasing sanctioned Russian goods, a move that could destabilise emerging economies and fragile governments.
Strange Allies
In the post-Cold War order, the US and Europe were presumed natural allies. Yet tensions have flared—particularly with Donald Trump. The EU has pushed back against any Trump-Putin détente, wary that it might come at Ukraine’s expense. When Trump declared that the Ukraine conflict was “a European affair,” some in Brussels welcomed it as an opportunity to advance strategic autonomy. But the EU now faces the challenge of confronting both Putin and Trump—testing its capacity and unity.
On 19 May, Trump was more forthright, stating that the conflict should be resolved directly by Russia and Ukraine as “they know best.” He also announced a 50 per cent tariff on EU imports.
His “telephone diplomacy” will face its next test on Monday. The first call between Trump and Putin, on 12 February, stunned both Kyiv and Brussels. Trump appeared receptive to Putin’s narrative. A second call on 19 May was followed by conversations with President Zelensky and EU leaders, with another round of talks scheduled for 26 May.
That left Kyiv and Brussels scrambling to influence Trump—if not by persuasion, then by sowing dissent within the White House, Congress, and American public opinion. But it became clear that the Trump-Putin dialogue focused primarily on bilateral and global security issues, not on sustaining US involvement in the Ukrainian negotiations or supporting expanded EU sanctions.
Still, neither Trump nor Putin wanted to appear as obstructing peace. Both endorsed the prisoner exchange. In a brief statement, Putin confirmed their shared support for a joint Russia-Ukraine memorandum on future peace talks. Trump, for his part, signaled impatience, reiterating his belief that Russians and Ukrainians should negotiate directly, since “they know better.”
In Search of Mediators
This was not the outcome President Zelensky had anticipated. He resumed his shuttle diplomacy, buoyed by polls showing a rise in domestic support—particularly after his last-minute decision to attend the Pope’s funeral and secure a one-on-one with Trump at the symbolic setting of the Sistine Chapel.
That meeting sparked discussion of a possible Vatican role in mediation. The idea, first floated on Trump’s social media and later picked up by US media, might reflect desperation—but not without logic. Pope Leo XIV, though new to the role, represents an institution with a long tradition of discreet and effective diplomacy. Unlike political leaders, the Pope is not concerned with re-election and has little personal stake in the outcome.
However, Leo XIV’s open support for Ukraine, combined with the Vatican’s fraught five-century history with the Orthodox Church, complicates matters. In Ukraine, such an initiative could provoke tensions between the country’s Greco-Catholic and Orthodox communities, particularly under Zelensky’s national unification policy of “one nation, one language, one religion.”
Still, at a time when direct negotiations seem out of reach, a credible intermediary—however imperfect—may be one of the few remaining options.