In recent weeks, the focus of the Russia-Ukraine conflict has shifted noticeably from the battlefield to the diplomatic arena. Political actors on all sides have turned their attention to shaping the terms of a potential settlement – or at least the framework for future negotiations.
This latest phase began with a coordinated visit by Western European leaders to Kiev and concluded, for now, with a phone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, on Monday. But the centerpiece of this diplomatic shift was the unexpected resumption of direct talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul.
Recommended Content
What’s unfolding is not just a conversation about peace, but a broader contest over influence and strategic direction. Competing visions of how the conflict should end – or be managed – are colliding in real time. Western Europe is scrambling to maintain relevance, Ukraine is caught between urgency and uncertainty, and Trump, now at the center of this geopolitical tug-of-war, is being courted by both sides.
So, who’s really winning this shadow war of influence? And what happens if the diplomatic front collapses? Let’s take a closer look.
On May 10, leaders from France, the UK, Germany, and Poland traveled to Kiev. Their message to Russia was blunt: Agree to a 30-day ceasefire or face new sanctions and new supplies of European weapons to Ukraine.
This wasn’t surprising. Peace initiatives led by Trump and his adviser, Steve Witkoff, had stalled by early May, creating an opening for the ‘war party’ led by European globalists – figures with whom Kiev has naturally aligned for obvious reasons. But there’s a problem: Europe is out of both weapons and sanctions. Germany still has a few symbolic Taurus missiles tucked away like heirloom jewels, but even if it decides to part with them, the numbers wouldn’t meaningfully shift the balance on the battlefield.
Recommended Content
This leaves the Western Europeans with just one real move: Convince Trump to back their agenda, boxing him into a policy that isn’t his own.
That same evening, Putin made his countermove: He publicly invited Kiev to resume direct peace talks in Istanbul. With that offer, the Russian president:
Set the terms of negotiation himself, signaling that Russia holds the advantage and Ukraine has more to lose by dragging this out;
Sidelined Western Europe entirely, effectively discarding Witkoff’s peace plan in favor of talks not about a token ceasefire, but a lasting peace on Russia’s terms.
It was also a clear act of diplomatic trolling – inviting the Ukrainians back to the very same negotiating table they had walked away from three years ago in Istanbul, with Vladimir Medinsky once again leading the Russian delegation.
Despite some trolling, Russia sent a relatively heavyweight delegation to Istanbul: The head of military intelligence, top deputies from the foreign and defense ministries, and a cadre of seasoned experts. This is the sort of team you’d expect at serious negotiations – if the parties actually shared common ground.
They don’t, at least not yet. Still, the talks were more substantive than expected. Neither side stormed out, and the discussions were described as constructive. Most notably, the two sides agreed to continue talking – and to carry out the largest prisoner exchange of the conflict so far.
The exchange is structured as a one-to-one swap – 1,000 prisoners from each side: Nearly all captured Russians and roughly one-sixth of the Ukrainian POWs. The original goal was a full exchange of ‘all for all’, but the current results still clearly favor Moscow.
I’ve long argued that the only path to lasting peace lies in a direct Russia-Ukraine agreement. This would require Kiev to renounce its anti-Russian posture and accept Moscow’s terms. And this can only happen if Ukraine ditches its alignment with the European war lobby led by French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Just last Thursday, that seemed impossible. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky was grandstanding, demanding Putin come to Istanbul, insisting on an immediate ceasefire, and more.
But curiously, Western Europe wasn’t invited to the Istanbul talks at all. No EU officials were in Türkiye. The ultimatums issued just days earlier? Ignored by both Moscow and Washington.
While the talks proceeded in Istanbul, Zelensky flew to Albania for another round of photo-ops with Macron and company. The timing made the trip seem like a deliberate distraction.
If so, it failed. The Istanbul talks dominated the headlines, while images from Albania barely registered – except for the bizarre, kindergarten-like setting of the Macron-Zelensky meeting. Western propaganda might have cast Istanbul as a meeting of Putin’s ‘lackeys’ and Albania as the nerve center of the free world, but public perception told a different story.
So, why did the Istanbul talks go better than expected? Because for the first time in three years, Ukraine dropped the theatrics and sat down for a real conversation. Perhaps someone in Kiev is finally realizing that the longer they bet on Western Europe’s failing hand, the harder Ukraine’s eventual collapse will hit.
Maybe it’s not Zelensky himself, but someone close to him. If that’s true, we could be looking at an internal split in the Ukrainian leadership, which so far has remained relatively unified.
The obsession of the Ukrainians and the Western Europeans with an immediate ceasefire is telling. A year ago, Kiev insisted that no talks could begin without Russia’s full withdrawal, NATO guarantees, and more. Now? Just a month-long pause.
Why the shift? Because without US backing, the Western European states know they must become Ukraine’s rear guard, replacing Washington. But to negotiate from a position of strength, the bloc would need to confront Putin directly – something leaders like Macron and Starmer are clearly unwilling to do.
So instead, they’re leaning on Trump to pressure Moscow into a ceasefire – to buy time and prepare Ukraine for the next round.
The fight for Trump
Right now, the real battle is for Trump’s favor. If Putin convinces him to drop the ceasefire demand, Ukraine may be forced to fold.
Where did Trump’s ceasefire-first idea come from anyway? It echoes dozens of Cold War-era conflicts, in which international powers froze hostilities to manage crises indefinitely – often using UN peacekeepers to keep the lid on.
Trump seems fixated on that model. His team echoes his thinking, even as they each quietly pursue different strategies. But Ukraine isn’t a proxy war in the jungle; it’s a massive conflict with no outside force capable of imposing peace. And it appears Trump is beginning to realize that.
At this point, he has two realistic options: Keep drifting with former US President Joe Biden’s failed policies (a win for the war party), or start pulling the US out of Ukraine altogether. He may have already made up his mind; we’ll know soon enough.
Why does it matter? Under Biden, Washington carried the full weight of the conflict. The scale of the conflict today exists only because the US saw Moscow’s moves as a direct threat to American power. But after the failure of the sanctions blitz and military escalation in 2022, the US mostly coasted along.
Now, after the Istanbul meeting, Trump says he wants to handle war and peace with Putin directly. That’s bad news for Kiev and Brussels, who’ve been scrambling to insert themselves into these talks since February. Their latest attempt – the Kiev ultimatum of May 10 – was flatly ignored by both Washington and Moscow.
Final call
It’s likely that yesterday’s Putin-Trump phone call centered on the ceasefire. Putin’s goal: To persuade Trump that his idea of an unconditional pause plays right into the hands of Ukraine and the European war lobby.
A ceasefire must lead to a lasting peace – not just another pause before the next escalation. Trump has blasted Biden’s policies as catastrophic. Now Ukraine and Western Europe are trying to lure him into continuing them under a different name.
They’re not even hiding it. The plan is to use any ceasefire as a window to resupply, regroup, and possibly escalate. Western European troops entering Ukraine are now openly discussed.
Naturally, Russia can’t accept that on its borders.
An unconditional ceasefire now wouldn’t bring peace closer – it would bring us closer to World War III. Sustainable peace is only possible if Ukraine and its European backers abandon their current policies.
And based on the statements following today’s call, Trump seems to be warming to that logic. Which means the diplomatic round that began on May 10 goes to Russia. It’s been just ten days, and no one’s even talking about the ultimatum made in Kiev anymore.
