Three rounds of talks
Published 6 October 2026
The 2022 Istanbul round provides an earlier attempt to exchange alignment for security. On 29 March 2022, Ukrainian negotiators publicly proposed permanent neutrality in return for guarantees along the lines of NATO's Article 5. They said Ukraine would not join military alliances, host foreign bases or deploy foreign military contingents. Their proposal included 15 years of consultation over Crimea and could take effect only after a complete ceasefire. Poland, Israel, Türkiye and Canada were named as possible guarantors. Reuters described these as the most detailed public Ukrainian proposals at that stage, not as a completed treaty. (Reuters, 29 March 2022)
The June 2025 Istanbul round revealed a different gap between humanitarian agreement and political settlement. Reuters reported the 2 June meeting lasted barely an hour and produced no breakthrough on a ceasefire. Russia's memorandum demanded international recognition of Crimea and the four Ukrainian regions Moscow claimed, with Ukraine withdrawing from all of them. Ukrainian Defence Minister Rustem Umerov said Kyiv would review the document. Ukraine's own roadmap, seen by Reuters, rejected restrictions on its military strength and recognition of Russian sovereignty over seized territory and sought reparations. The documents were rival positions, not jointly agreed parameters. Describing the exchange of memoranda as a completed set of concessions would overstate the common ground. (Reuters, 2 June 2025)
Reuters's 3 June 2025 comparison showed the conflict over sequencing. Moscow proposed a limited two-to-three-day truce to exchange bodies, before negotiation of conditions for any wider halt. Kyiv required a full unconditional ceasefire initially lasting at least 30 days, with possible extensions, then confidence-building measures and preparation of full peace talks. The Ukrainian plan included return of children, releases of civilians and prisoners of war, and progressive sanctions relief with a snapback option. The plans disagreed on what would happen first, not merely on how the final document would be written. Those ordering differences help explain why another meeting did not mean the start of agreed nationwide ceasefire implementation. (Reuters, 3 June 2025)
Moscow's memorandum offered two truce routes in Reuters's comparison. One would start when Ukraine began withdrawing from the remaining parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, with withdrawal completed within 30 days. The other would require Ukraine to halt troop movements, enlistment and foreign military assistance, and stop what Russia labelled sabotage and subversion. The political sequence included lifting martial law and elections within 100 days, before a final treaty's approval and ratification. These are conditions in the Russian proposal, not obligations Ukraine had accepted. (Reuters, 3 June 2025, ceasefire section)
The final-settlement positions also conflicted. Russia wanted neutrality, a NATO bar, limits on Ukraine's forces and foreign military support, lifting of sanctions and waiver of mutual war-damage claims. Ukraine wanted the right to join NATO if the alliance accepted it, rejected force limits, and wanted Russian sovereign assets used for reconstruction or held until reparations were paid. Russia wanted recognition of the whole of five regions; Ukraine said the contact line was the starting point for negotiation. These are not minor implementation details. They specify the territorial, financial and security order after the war, and the report shows how far apart the parties remained despite the existence of written plans. (Reuters, 3 June 2025, final-settlement section)
The humanitarian dimension had its own limits. Zelenskiy said on the 2 June talks date that Ukraine presented a list of 400 children it wanted returned and Russia agreed to work on only 10. Russia's position was that children had been moved from war zones for safety. These numbers are Zelenskiy's account of that meeting, not independently verified national totals. The point is the narrowed scope of discussion at a particular negotiation, not a new census of the deportation programme. Reuters, 2 June 2025; Commission, A/HRC/61/61.
Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha told AP on Friday, 2 October 2026, that Ukraine had received separate partial-truce proposals from the United States, India, Turkiye and Egypt. The report established that Kyiv was considering diplomatic approaches, not that all participants had accepted the same terms. (ABC News)
Ukraine's stated condition connected energy and shipping. Sybiha said: "We are ready for an energy and Black Sea ceasefire, but only in that combination. Energy and a ceasefire in the Black Sea." The words identify a negotiating position. They do not establish Russia's acceptance or a starting time. (ABC News)
Ukraine also repeated its offer of an unconditional ceasefire along the front. AP said Moscow had rejected a temporary truce in favour of first agreeing a comprehensive settlement. Those positions expressed a disagreement about sequence. Kyiv was willing to stop fighting while negotiations continued; Russia argued for settling the broader deal before a pause. Each sequence changes leverage and risk. (ABC News)
Get the next file
One email when a new file is published. No paid service needed.