One of the most striking diplomatic developments of 2025 emerged when Russian President Vladimir Putin hinted at a potential meeting with Ukrainian officials in Istanbul. In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky extended a direct invitation:
“I’m coming myself. I’ll be in Istanbul on Thursday. I’ll be waiting for you there.”
This invitation not only sparked hopes regarding the course of the war but also opened a new chapter for the future of diplomacy.
This bold move coincided with a proposal from former U.S. President Donald Trump for urgent negotiations to establish peace. Simultaneously, the Kremlin issued a signal: Putin was now open to restarting the Istanbul talks that had been cut off in 2022. However, there is still no formal ceasefire, and both sides continue to accuse each other of stalling for time to solidify positions.
So, why Istanbul?
Is Istanbul once again becoming the center of peace efforts?
And most importantly, is this meeting merely symbolic—or a genuine step toward resolution?
From Geography to the Heart of Diplomacy: Istanbul’s Role
Istanbul’s selection as the negotiation venue is far from coincidental. It reflects a multi-layered diplomatic and geopolitical strategy. Although a NATO member, Türkiye is among the few nations that have successfully maintained a balanced stance in the Russia–Ukraine War. Türkiye neither fully aligned with the Western bloc nor isolated Russia. Thanks to this “balance diplomacy,” Türkiye preserved trust-based communication with both Kremlin and Kyiv.
Istanbul had also served as the site of direct negotiations in 2022. Although most proposals from that round proved inconclusive, they were recorded in diplomatic history as a significant interlude. The prospect of reconvening the table today signals not just a possible end to war—but a clear declaration of where peace will be pursued.
The reasons behind Istanbul’s reinforced identity as a neutral ground for negotiation may include:
- Strategically located at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, Istanbul symbolically serves as a bridge between East and West. This adds an element of cultural and geopolitical neutrality to the negotiations.
- Türkiye has played an active role in numerous negotiation processes in recent years—from the Venezuela crisis to Somalia, Sudan, and Karabakh. This track record enhances global confidence in Türkiye.
- Türkiye has provided drones to Ukraine while simultaneously managing the Grain Corridor Agreement with Russia. This dual engagement has fostered both parties’ acceptance of Türkiye’s neutrality.
Therefore, Istanbul’s selection should be seen not just as a result of past diplomatic achievements, but also as a product of the current trust balance.
Yet, the location alone is not enough.
What matters is how the platform is used.
Türkiye’s Role and Mediation Mission: From Balance to Influence
Türkiye’s role in this critical meeting goes far beyond simple hosting. It is now one of the few actors capable of bringing both parties to the same table—an outcome of its growing reputation for building trust. This reflects Ankara’s “active neutrality and on-site diplomacy” strategy in recent years.
What makes Türkiye such a viable mediator?
- Strategic Neutrality
From the early days of the war, Türkiye refrained from taking sides militarily and maintained its mediator profile. This posture allowed Türkiye to remain a “speakable actor” without burning bridges with the West or closing channels with Russia.
- Success of the Grain Corridor Agreement
Türkiye’s joint effort with the UN to manage the Black Sea Grain Corridor created a major confidence boost in the international arena. This success validated Türkiye’s neutrality and enhanced its credentials in other disputes.
- Trust Between Leaders
President Erdoğan’s ability to communicate directly with both Putin and Zelensky makes the process more feasible. In diplomatic negotiations, personal diplomacy and trust between leaders often prove more decisive than official protocols.
- International Mediation Experience
Türkiye has played mediation roles in conflicts such as Somali–Somaliland, Israel–Palestine, and the Qatar crisis. This experience enables Türkiye to act not just as a venue but also as a facilitator capable of shaping methods and strategy.
What to Expect from the Zelensky–Putin Meeting?
A face-to-face meeting between the Ukrainian and Russian presidents would mark the first of its kind since the war began. As such, this meeting holds not only symbolic but also strategic and historical significance. However, expectations must remain grounded.
It is highly unlikely that a comprehensive peace agreement will emerge from this meeting. The positions of both parties remain far apart. Russia may revisit its 2022 proposal for Ukrainian “neutrality,” which was rejected by Kyiv. Meanwhile, Ukraine continues to demand full territorial integrity and robust security guarantees. Therefore, this meeting is more likely to serve as a platform to test positions and maintain communication channels.
Yet history shows that such symbolic encounters can create significant openings in the long run—especially when the conflict’s intensity starts to fade. Direct contact can help reduce misperceptions and pave the way for a more controlled period of de-escalation.
At this point, Türkiye’s role becomes pivotal:
If the process is to be considered “initiated,” the where and how of this beginning will directly affect the legitimacy and perception of the overall effort.
Hoping for the Unseen or Building the Real?
A potential meeting between Putin and Zelensky in Istanbul would represent more than just two leaders sharing a table—it would be a global test of our collective will to engage in dialogue again. If this meeting takes place, it could become a milestone not only for the people of Ukraine but for global stability at large.
However, hope should not rest merely on imagery. It must be rooted in mutual will, courage, and determination.
In this process, Türkiye can go beyond being a host—it can become a true facilitator recorded in the annals of history.
By maintaining its neutrality and capacity for dialogue, Türkiye holds the potential to make a deeper impact in conflict resolution. But we must remember: playing an effective role here means not only offering a venue—but also building trust, managing the process transparently, and sustaining diplomatic patience.
Today, the language of war may still dominate.
But peace is built with small steps and resolute stances.
If one such step is taken in Istanbul, history may well write it with hope.
Now the real question is:
Can we see being a party to peace not as a diplomatic position—but as a moral responsibility?
