On May 18th, 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that the main objectives of the “special military operation” in Ukraine are not only focused on military gains, but also on establishing a long-term and sustainable peace order.[i] These statements may reflect a shift to a new phase in Moscow’s strategic approach to the current crisis. Putin emphasized the “elimination of the main causes of the crisis” and the “protection of the rights of the Russian-speaking population, along with the establishment of lasting peace”. Following these statements, how the latest round of negotiations in Istanbul will proceed has become a matter of particular interest.
Putin’s statements indicate a shift from the rhetorical discourse presented at the beginning of the war, such as the “denazification of Ukraine”, towards an approach that focuses more on structural, demographic, and regional interests. This development implies that, especially considering the economic and political burdens caused by the prolongation of the war, Russia is now more inclined to manage the conflict through diplomatic means. Although the discourse of a “special military operation” is still being maintained, the objective of the operation is now being redefined not as territorial gain, but as the pursuit of lasting solutions to Russia’s security concerns through diplomatic means. It can be anticipated that this rhetorical shift is aimed at conveying the impression that Moscow is open to negotiations, not only to the domestic audience but also to the West.
The Russia-Ukraine talks held in Istanbul on May 16, along with the agreement to exchange 1,000 prisoners of war, can be interpreted as the first concrete step of this diplomatic overture.[ii] Such prisoner exchanges have historically served as precursors to temporary ceasefires. The willingness of both parties to engage in the Türkiye-led ceasefire and peace process reflects the emergence of war fatigue on both fronts, and suggests a shared interest in maintaining the current balance on the battlefield through diplomatic means. In light of these developments, it is likely that Türkiye will assume an increasingly central mediating role, given its unique position as one of the few countries that has kept communication channels open with Russia despite being a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its close geographical proximity to the conflict.
Putin also emphasizes the rights of the Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine. This emphasis reveals that the ‘Russian World’ (Russkiy Mir) ideology, which has long featured in the Kremlin’s foreign policy discourse, is seeking legitimacy at the diplomatic level. In this context, it is anticipated that Russia may, in the future, pursue international recognition under the pretext of protecting the rights of local populations in regions such as Donetsk and Luhansk. The possibility that the legal ambiguity following the annexation of Crimea might also apply to these territories can be seen as a long-term threat to Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Another significant development on the diplomatic front was the phone call held on March 17 between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The fact that the meeting took place at the request of the American side indicates that Washington may be repositioning itself in an effort to help bring the conflict to an end.[iii] Following this conversation, it is possible that the United States could become a more constructive source of pressure on Kyiv and encourage Ukraine to adopt a more flexible stance at the negotiating table.
When examining the reflections of these developments on the European Union (EU) front, it can be anticipated that Germany and France will gradually shift their support for Ukraine towards economic aid and defense industry-based initiatives. Growing war fatigue and mounting financial pressures within European public opinion may prompt EU member states to lean not toward the prolongation of the conflict, but rather toward a frozen solution model. In this context, ‘grey area solutions’—such as granting the Donbas region and its surroundings a de facto autonomous status without official recognition—may come to the forefront.
On the other hand, these developments are expected to produce multifaceted consequences for the European Union (EU) as well. The reshaping of the security architecture in the Black Sea region brings to the forefront the need for the EU to establish a more permanent security framework along its eastern borders. It is observed that member states with a direct sense of threat—such as Poland, the Baltic countries, and Romania—are striving to pursue a more proactive and solidaristic approach regarding Ukraine’s future. Brussels is likely to move toward greater foreign policy and defense integration to overcome its currently limited military competencies.
While Europe continues its financial assistance to Ukraine, developing new instruments to accelerate the diplomatic process may be part of the EU’s desire to enhance its foreign policy effectiveness. In this context, the EU is expected to provide both technical support to the peace process and legal and political advisory roles regarding potential transitional models. If the EU can conduct coordinated and effective diplomacy during this process, it will mark a significant milestone not only within the framework of the Ukraine Crisis but also in terms of Europe’s broader vision for strategic autonomy.
In conclusion, Putin’s statements and the prisoner exchange negotiations held in Istanbul once again demonstrate that the Ukraine Crisis is not only a frontline conflict but also a diplomatic balancing act. It may be entering a period where Russia seeks to achieve its objectives not through military means but through diplomatic arrangements. In this context, the progress made at negotiation tables in the coming months will be more decisive for the future of the war than developments on the ground. Although lasting peace still seems a distant prospect, flexible ceasefires, limited agreements, and regional autonomy models can be considered temporary solutions acceptable to the parties involved.
[i] “Putin: Goals of the special military operation in Ukraine include protection of Russian speakers, elimination of root causes of crisis”, TASS, https://tass.com/politics/1959677, (Date Accessed: 20.05.2025).
[ii] “Russia says it is satisfied with Ukraine talks in Istanbul, ready to keep talking”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-it-is-satisfied-with-ukraine-talks-istanbul-ready-keep-talking-2025-05-16/, (Date Accessed: 20.05.2025).
[iii] “Lavrov discusses Ukraine with US Secretary of State Rubio by phone”, TASS, https://tass.com/politics/1959577, (Date Accessed: 20.05.2025).
