Peace Talks in Istanbul? A Fragile Opportunity

According to The Gateway Pundit , Russia and Ukraine are ready to meet in Istanbul on Thursday, May 15, to start direct peace talks. The proposal came from Russian President Vladimir Putin, while Donald Trump is said to have put strong pressure on Volodymyr Zelensky to accept. However, it should be remembered that just a few days ago Zelensky had joked about the Russian proposal, openly rejecting the format of the negotiations suggested by the Kremlin.

The move is part of a series of coordinated diplomatic moves by the Trump administration, which has already helped freeze tensions between India and Pakistan and reopened a channel of dialogue with Iran. In this context, Trump has publicly urged Zelensky to accept the confrontation with Putin, calling it an opportunity to "end the bloodbath" and assess whether a diplomatic path is still viable.

The European context: peace is not convenient for everyone

However, it is not only Zelensky's rigidity that is hindering negotiations. Although ignored by the mainstream media, a front hostile to Russia has consolidated in Europe , composed of countries that call themselves a "coalition of the willing", whose goal is not peace, but the prolongation of the conflict or at least the maintenance of the current climate of rupture with Moscow, useful to their own strategic and economic agenda.

Among these , France, Germany and the United Kingdom stand out, not only for their political closure, but for the systematic rhetoric according to which Russia represents a direct threat to the entire European continent , up to hypothetical imperialist aims on other EU countries - statements devoid of logical confirmation, but repeated and amplified by Brussels and its "battery heads". Among the most aggressive, the Baltic countries also stand out, animated by a now full-blown Russophobia: just think that in Estonia and Germany, on May 9 - Victory Day - it was forbidden to publicly commemorate the defeat of Nazism , under penalty of severe sanctions. An alarming sign of ideological revisionism and historical distortion.

Deep differences on the negotiation modalities

Putin proposed talks without preconditions , aimed at solving the structural causes of the war. Zelensky, instead, relaunched by setting a 30-day ceasefire as an essential condition , declaring himself ready to personally participate in the meeting.

An unusual move, which appears more like a diplomatic push towards the Russian president than a real opening. In fact, in international practice, summits between heads of state take place only after a phase of exploratory negotiations between technical delegations, capable of verifying whether there is concrete room for an agreement.

The reality on the ground: escalation, not truce

Meanwhile, the facts speak for themselves. During the three-day ceasefire declared by Moscow (8–10 May), the Russian Ministry of Defense documented:

• 14,043 ceasefire violations by Ukraine;

• 5 attempted incursions into Russian territory (Kursk and Belgorod regions);

• 4,011 artillery, mortar and tank attacks , including 62 multiple rocket launchers;

• 9,918 launches of munitions via drones and other aerial systems.

These data confirm that the truce has been ignored , and that hostilities are not decreasing at all . On the contrary, it is plausible that Kiev is taking advantage of the diplomatic context to strengthen its lines , also in view of possible NATO support, increasingly evoked by several European capitals.

Conclusion: a handshake still a long way off

The possible meeting in Istanbul, if it happens, will be more of a theatrical gesture than a concrete turning point . The negotiating premises are fragile and there is no real willingness to compromise on the Ukrainian side. Zelensky, after Trump's temporary disengagement, could use the summit to pretend to be a cooperative party , and in case of failure, attribute all the responsibility to Putin , thus obtaining two results:

1. Reactivate US pressure against Russia , as in the Biden era;

2. Push for new sanctions and consolidate Moscow's international isolation .

In this sense, the summit could represent yet another tactical tool rather than a hope for peace . Trump's initiative may have reopened a channel, but the climate remains incandescent. As often happens in these phases, diplomacy serves more to measure distances than to bridge them .