No breakthrough in Istanbul, but Erdogan is holding the door

Russia Today

18 hours ago

The third round of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, held in Istanbul, lasted less than an hour – barely enough time to suggest progress. While both delegations arrived with talking points, their positions remained fundamentally irreconcilable.
The Ukrainian side once again emphasized the need for an immediate ceasefire, the release of captives, and a potential meeting between Presidents Zelensky and Putin – ideas that, from Moscow's perspective, lacked a concrete framework. The Russian delegation, meanwhile, proposed a structured dialogue across three tracks – military, political, and humanitarian – and floated the possibility of localized ceasefires for evacuation efforts. But without mutual ground on core issues, even humanitarian coordination remained out of reach.
As Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted after the meeting, the sides are still 'far apart' on the basic memorandums required to facilitate direct talks between the leaders: 'Given the volume of work that lies ahead to align our positions… it is hard to imagine how we could suddenly overcome this gap.'
While the Istanbul talks yielded no breakthroughs, Ankara framed them as a meaningful step forward. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan described the meeting as 'another brick' in building a foundation for peace and reaffirmed Türkiye's commitment to mediation. But behind this diplomatic language lies a broader ambition.
President Erdogan sees Türkiye not merely as a neutral host but as a regional power uniquely positioned to engage both Moscow and Kiev. Unlike European intermediaries tied to NATO orthodoxy, Ankara has preserved open communication channels with both sides – and intends to leverage that position.
This ambition gained new momentum after a direct request from US President Donald Trump. In May, during a phone call with Erdogan, Trump reportedly asked him to resume Türkiye's role as a key mediator in the Ukraine conflict. According to the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet, Erdogan responded positively – a natural decision, given Ankara's longstanding desire to shape the postwar diplomatic framework.
A second conversation in June further underscored this alignment. In addition to addressing escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, Trump and Erdogan reportedly reaffirmed Türkiye's mediating role in Ukraine. For Ankara, this signaled renewed political legitimacy – and a green light to reassert itself on the international stage.
Erdoğan remains one of the few world leaders to maintain autonomous and working relationships with both Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky. Unlike most Western leaders, he engages each directly and pragmatically – without outsourcing diplomacy to blocs or bureaucracies. This rare access grants Türkiye a unique status in the global mediation landscape and strengthens Ankara's hand in any future settlement.
For Türkiye, mediating the Ukraine conflict is about far more than diplomacy – it is a calculated move to expand its strategic footprint in the Black Sea and Danube regions. Ankara's interests in southern Ukraine, particularly the coastal areas of Bessarabia and the Danube estuaries, are long-standing and rooted in history. These zones are vital arteries for trade, transit, and geopolitical access.
Control over maritime supply routes, especially those passing through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, has been a cornerstone of Turkish foreign policy for decades. Amid the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, these routes have acquired even greater importance – linking grain exports, energy flows, and military logistics across multiple theaters. Türkiye's participation in the negotiation process is therefore not just a diplomatic gesture but a matter of national interest. To remain outside the process would mean allowing other powers to redraw the regional map without Ankara at the table.
At the same time, Türkiye's posture remains deliberately ambiguous. Officially, Ankara supports Ukraine's territorial integrity and has not objected to its NATO aspirations. Yet President Erdoğan continues to cultivate open lines of communication with Moscow. This dual-track strategy allows Türkiye to project loyalty to the West while reminding Russia – and Washington – that it cannot be excluded from any future settlement.
This approach is not without cost. Ankara's refusal to take part in Western sanctions against Russia has drawn criticism from Europe, particularly Berlin, Paris, and Brussels. However, Erdoğan appears to be shifting focus from multilateral alignment to pragmatic bilateralism. With the Trump administration treating Türkiye as a key partner in stabilizing Eurasia, Ankara has little incentive to follow the EU's lead – or to subordinate its strategic agenda to European bureaucracy.
For Ankara, the outcome of the third round of talks was less about immediate results and more about preserving its relevance. By publicly assessing the meeting as a positive step, Türkiye signaled that it intends to remain not just a host – but an architect – of whatever post-conflict order may emerge.
Both Hakan Fidan and President Erdoğan have repeatedly stated their willingness to resume hosting direct negotiations. In February, during talks in Ankara with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Fidan reaffirmed Türkiye's commitment to mediation and emphasized that Türkiye remains available as a venue for continued dialogue. This ongoing diplomatic contact reflects Moscow's recognition of Ankara's pragmatic stance – despite Türkiye being a NATO member state.
The failure of the West to enforce the original grain deal, and Russia's subsequent withdrawal from it, initially weakened Türkiye's position as a neutral intermediary. But Trump's return to the White House has shifted the equation. Backed by Washington, Ankara now has the political capital to relaunch its mediating role under new geopolitical conditions.
In this context, Türkiye's 'positive evaluation' of the talks takes on deeper meaning. It's not about what was achieved – but about who gets to stay in the room when the time finally comes for real negotiations. So far, no alternative platform has emerged. And in the long game of regional influence, presence is power.