Is a Russia-Ukraine peace deal on the horizon? Analysts weigh in on current negotiations

U.S. President Donald Trump expressed hope for a quick end to the Russia-Ukraine war, suggesting that it could happen within a few weeks. He made this statement during a joint appearance with French President Emmanuel Macron before journalists at the White House. "I think we can end this within a few weeks, if we are smart," Trump said.

At the same time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, after talks in Ankara, stated that Russia would cease hostilities in Ukraine only when, from the Kremlin’s perspective, negotiations to end the war "produce a firm, sustainable result."

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also confirmed that behind-the-scenes negotiations are actively taking place under the moderation of Trump’s team. He stated that he hopes to meet with the Russian side again to begin exploring what Russia can do to stop the conflict. “So the next step is to meet with them again at some point, with the right group of people in the room, and begin to outline what would it take for Russia to stop a war,” Rubio said.

There have been many statements regarding the Russia-Ukraine war, but it is still impossible to draw a definitive conclusion—will Kyiv and Moscow be able to reach an agreement with active mediation from Washington, or does Trump’s initiative have little chance of being materialized? What role can Türkiye play in this process? With these questions in mind, a correspondent from Caliber.Az reached out to Ukrainian and Russian political analysts.

According to Ukrainian international relations expert, Doctor of Political Science, Petro Oleshchuk, negotiations between Russia and Ukraine are unlikely to take place in Istanbul.

“Perhaps some work is being done, but most likely, preference will be given to the Gulf states. In particular, earlier, a meeting of American and Russian delegations was held in Riyadh. Logistically, this could be more convenient, especially if we consider Putin’s paranoia, who may be wary of flying to certain regions. However, there is, of course, a possibility that Russia might want to return to the ‘Istanbul agreements’ format.

It’s possible that Türkiye is trying to act as a mediator. Recently, Zelenskyy was there, and Erdoğan positions himself as a neutral arbitrator. However, it’s still difficult to say how much this influences the process,” said Oleshchuk.

In his view, Russia is simply using Trump’s administration, which has little understanding of the situation and aims to reach an agreement as quickly as possible.

“For example, U.S. Special Representative Steve Witkoff has already stated that the basis could be the Istanbul agreements—a variant that is absolutely unacceptable to Ukraine, and moreover, being discussed without its participation. Most likely, Russia is preparing an ultimatum that Ukraine will never accept under any circumstances. The Kremlin understands this, but continues its military actions, claiming readiness for negotiations.

Russia is using the negotiation process to break its diplomatic isolation and attempt to turn the U.S. from an ally of Ukraine into a neutral player. The Trump administration here is more of a tool than an independent mediator,” the expert emphasized.

In his opinion, Trump’s initiative is most likely doomed to fail. His team has already effectively taken Putin’s position, suggesting a possible return to the Istanbul agreements, even though these arrangements never aligned with Ukraine’s interests.

"Among Russia's key demands are: recognition of the occupation of territories, Ukraine’s renunciation of NATO membership, strict neutrality, a ban on military-technical cooperation with the West, and restrictions on the size of the armed forces and armaments. Essentially, this amounts to forced demilitarization. However, the fact is that Ukraine will never agree to limits on its army or a ban on cooperation with Western partners. This would completely undermine the country's sovereignty.

Ukraine does not recognize the loss of territories, either from a legal or political standpoint. Any changes to borders would require constitutional amendments, which are impossible without parliamentary and referendum approval. The maximum compromise that Zelenskyy has voiced is the renunciation of returning territories by military means, but without recognizing them as Russian," emphasized Oleshchuk.

Meanwhile, according to the Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor at St. Petersburg State University Stanislav Tkachenko, negotiations on the Ukrainian crisis have been ongoing since the beginning of 2024, initially in the form of signal exchanges between Moscow and the West regarding the conditions for a possible agreement. After Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency, negotiations have proceeded in the usual format of official meetings between diplomats and military officials, both public and private.

"It’s still difficult to predict the outcome, as everything depends on the situation on the battlefield, as well as the skill of the negotiating teams involved in the process. However, some observations can be made already.

First, the main ‘negotiating axis’ runs between Moscow and Washington. This is the sensation of the last month, and its full implications are yet to be assessed. Since the 2014 coup, the U.S. has been the primary driving force behind the crisis in Ukraine. The fact that it is now the ruling Republican administration that is quickly winding down a process that had been developing for over 10 years initially caused surprise in Moscow, bordering on bewilderment. Now, the surprise has passed, and there is a fairly routine process of information exchange with American counterparts, outlining the negotiating positions of both sides, and searching for space for a possible agreement.

Secondly, Zelenskyy, who is considered illegitimate in Russia, will not, under any circumstances, be a party to the negotiations being conducted by Moscow and Washington. He may be invited to be informed of any agreements reached, but even that is likely to be done remotely—by phone or through social media. Zelenskyy's opinion, and even more so any of his demands regarding the negotiations, no longer interests the authorities in either Russia or the U.S.

Thirdly, Türkiye will not be able to play any role in these negotiations; they will not be held under its patronage.

Fourthly, my forecast for the signing of a comprehensive agreement that would end the conflict and bring peace to Ukraine is currently negative. For the guns to stop firing, the mere desire of Moscow and Washington is not enough. Peace in Ukraine would mean the failure of the foreign policy strategy of the EU and NATO’s European members, particularly the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. The ruling elites in these countries find it more advantageous to continue the conflict indefinitely rather than admit defeat. The same is true for Zelenskyy, for whom the end of the conflict would mean early elections, in which he would almost certainly lose. From a rational perspective, the shortest path to ending the war in Ukraine would be the capitulation of its armed forces. And the decision by the Trump administration to reduce, and eventually completely halt, the unconditional supply of military equipment and ammunition is bringing this capitulation closer with each passing day,” summarized Tkachenko.