On the eve of the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, reports emerged suggesting that the United States and Russia were close to reaching certain agreements based on what has been referred to as the ‘Istanbul Agreements.’
These claims, notably echoed by Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, have sparked renewed debate over the nature of past negotiations between Ukraine and Russia and whether such agreements ever truly existed.
The Nature of Peace Agreements
Fundamentally, peace agreements are binding legal documents signed by the parties directly engaged in conflict. In the case of Russia’s war against Ukraine, any legitimate peace agreement would require direct Ukrainian participation.
The United States, while a key ally of Ukraine, is not a direct participant in the war and therefore cannot sign a peace treaty with Russia on Ukraine’s behalf. Any assertion to the contrary is legally and diplomatically untenable.
Furthermore, genuine peace agreements necessitate enforceability, international oversight, and structured implementation mechanisms, none of which were in place in the supposed ‘Istanbul Agreements.’
The Reality of the ‘Istanbul Agreements’ and Newly Revealed Documents
Contrary to Russian narratives, no official agreement was signed in Istanbul between Ukrainian and Russian delegations in 2022. However, documents obtained by Welt am Sonntag shed light on the diplomatic efforts that took place during the negotiations.
A 17-page draft agreement, reportedly drawn up during the talks, outlined potential terms for a ceasefire and a framework for peace. This document suggested that Ukraine would commit to neutrality, effectively abandoning aspirations for NATO membership, while Russia would withdraw its forces from occupied territories, with the exception of Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk, which remained a contentious issue.
The discussions held in Turkey were preliminary in nature, with both sides presenting their respective positions. There was no final document endorsed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy or Russian President Vladimir Putin.
At best, what emerged from these talks was a working draft containing points of contention and potential areas of compromise. However, these discussions did not progress beyond preliminary outlines and were never ratified by either side.
Putin has since claimed that these ‘Istanbul Agreements’ were almost finalised, yet there is no verifiable evidence of such a development. If an official agreement had been reached, it would bear the signatures of the heads of state or authorised representatives, making it a matter of public record.
Instead, Putin and Russian officials have repeatedly referred to a document that lacks any legal standing, using it as a propaganda tool to push a narrative that Ukraine rejected a peace deal.
What Was Actually Discussed?
According to media reports, including an analysis by German publication Die Welt, the negotiations in Istanbul did touch on key security issues. Alleged points of discussion included:
- A potential reduction of Ukraine’s military to 250,000 personnel, significantly above Russia’s suggested 80,000 but far below Ukraine’s wartime strength.
- A commitment from Ukraine not to pursue NATO membership, while Russia agreed not to station foreign military forces on Ukrainian territory.
- The withdrawal of Russian troops to pre-February 24, 2022, lines, excluding occupied Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk.
- Security guarantees for Ukraine from multiple states, with provisions resembling Article 5 of NATO’s charter.
- The deferral of discussions on Crimea’s status for 15 years.
- Restrictions on Ukraine’s possession and production of long-range missiles and other strategic weapons.
- A prohibition on foreign military bases being established in Ukraine.
However, these terms were never formalised, and the draft agreement never advanced to an official stage. Its collapse was driven by multiple factors, including Russia’s shifting military strategy, Western reluctance to endorse any deal that could be seen as legitimising aggression, and Ukraine’s hardened stance following the revelation of widespread Russian atrocities, notably those in Bucha.
Russian officials later expanded their demands, effectively nullifying any preliminary understandings that may have been reached. Moreover, the lack of enforceability and shifting Russian conditions meant that any agreement was unlikely to be sustainable in the long term.
Russian Disinformation, Trump’s Narrative, and the Role of Boris Johnson
The Kremlin has continued to weaponise the myth of the ‘Istanbul Agreements,’ portraying Ukraine as responsible for prolonging the war. This narrative has been reinforced by statements from US President Donald Trump, who has suggested that Ukraine could have avoided further conflict by accepting an agreement that, in reality, was never finalised or signed.
By perpetuating the claim that an agreement existed, Russia aims to shift blame away from its continued aggression and frame Ukraine as an unwilling participant in peace efforts.
This narrative has been further amplified by Donald Trump, who has suggested that Ukraine and President Zelenskyy had an opportunity to avoid the war but chose not to accept a peace settlement.
By implying that Kyiv is responsible for the continuation of hostilities, Trump echoes Putin’s rhetoric, which seeks to discredit Ukraine and portray it as the obstacle to peace. His statements not only distort historical facts but also provide ammunition for those in the West advocating for a reduction in military and financial support to Ukraine.
Such rhetoric not only distorts historical fact but also undermines Ukraine’s legitimate sovereignty and right to self-determination.
Additionally, the Kremlin has attempted to further push this narrative by implicating former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. According to Russian propaganda, Johnson played a key role in discouraging Ukraine from accepting an alleged settlement, warning Zelenskyy that Western military and financial aid would cease if Ukraine agreed to Russian demands.
This claim, which lacks concrete evidence, is designed to create divisions among Western allies by suggesting that Ukraine is merely following external orders rather than acting in its own national interest.
In reality, Johnson’s visit to Kyiv in April 2022 reaffirmed the UK’s unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, rather than pressuring Zelenskyy into rejecting negotiations.
A Missed Opportunity or an Inevitable Outcome?
If Russia were able to legitimise the so-called ‘Istanbul Agreements,’ it would set a dangerous precedent for international conflict resolution. It would signal to aggressor states that invading sovereign nations and fabricating diplomatic progress could be an effective strategy for securing territorial gains. This would not only undermine Ukraine’s position but also weaken global norms regarding sovereignty and the rule of law.
The document obtained by Welt am Sonntag raises significant questions about whether a diplomatic resolution was genuinely possible in early 2022. With the war now deeply entrenched, any new diplomatic initiative would require addressing issues that were unresolved at the time, including territorial integrity, security guarantees, and post-war accountability.
The war has since evolved into a broader struggle for sovereignty and survival, making the prospects for negotiations even more complex. The lessons of past failed agreements, including the Minsk Agreements, demonstrate that without proper enforcement mechanisms, Russia will likely use negotiations as a means to regroup militarily and resume hostilities at a later stage.
Could the Istanbul Talks Have Ended the War?
The so-called ‘Istanbul Agreements’ remain a fabrication of Russian political messaging. There was no signed document, no legally binding commitments, and no legitimate peace deal abandoned by Ukraine.
Any diplomatic resolution to the conflict must be based on Ukraine’s terms, respecting its territorial integrity and international law. Efforts to rewrite history should be challenged to prevent the spread of disinformation that serves the interests of the aggressor.
In the broader context, the international community must remain vigilant against attempts to manipulate historical narratives for political gain. The Kremlin’s efforts to paint Ukraine as the obstructionist party in peace negotiations serve only to obscure Russia’s responsibility for its full-scale invasion and ongoing war crimes.
True peace will only be possible through a settlement that is just, enforceable, and respects the fundamental rights of Ukraine and its people.
