Ukraine: a chance for talks or just a bluff?

Former member of parliament and blogger Boryslav Bereza warns of a major Russian offensive in a Facebook post republished by gazeta.ua:

“No one on the front line is putting their faith in any negotiations in Istanbul or promises that there will be a ceasefire. The occupiers have completed the deployment of 15 divisions and are not there to collect plants but plan to launch a major offensive in the summer and autumn. This is probably the best answer to the question of whether anything can be expected from the meeting in Istanbul on 15 May.”

On Facebook sociologist Igor Eidman sees a way for Moscow to turn the tables:

“Putin could decide to negotiate with Zelensky only in the presence of the US president if he can reach an agreement with the latter [beforehand] - so it would be two against one, so to speak. This could lead to another scandal and the cancellation of US aid to Ukraine. If the Kremlin suddenly announces a visit by Putin to Istanbul for talks with Trump (this is how it would be officially presented in Russia, and Zelensky would be included, as it were), this would mean that an agreement has been reached to put the Ukrainian leader through the wringer together. In view of the unofficial direct contacts between Trump and Putin that have existed for some time, the possibility of this happening certainly exists.”

The taz's Kyiv correspondent Bernhard Clasen welcomes the fact that the Ukrainian government is prepared to travel to Istanbul:

“It has thus made a leap of faith in several respects. There are Russian demands that Ukraine cannot fulfil: it cannot, as Russia demands, simply hand over cities like Zaporizhzhia to the Russians. Russia's demand to end discrimination against the Russian language in Ukraine, on the other hand, certainly deserves consideration. It is unacceptable that teenagers are summoned to the SBU domestic intelligence service simply for listening to Russian-language music on the street, as happened in Kyiv in April.”

In a Telegram post republished by Echo, TV Rain editor-in-chief Tikhon Dziyadko describes a diplomatic duel:

“Putin proposed negotiations in a late-night address and stood as a peacemaker in Trump's eyes. Then Zelensky raised the stakes and said he was ready to negotiate with Putin - and lo and behold in Trump's eyes he was now the peacemaker. Moscow didn't want that and planned to send someone like [former culture minister] Medinsky or Slutsky [head of the opposition party LDPR], which would mean that the talks would fail. Then Trump insists on negotiations - and Kyiv can hardly push for negotiations with Putin personally. But then Trump goes one step further and says he personally will fly to Istanbul - which means that Moscow can't just send clowns anymore. ... The ball is in the Kremlin's court now.”

Avvenire is on tenterhooks:

“If the Kremlin leader really does get on a plane to visit his difficult friend Erdoğan and sit down with the man he calls the 'head of the Kyiv Nazis' (and this will remain uncertain until the last moment), then something has really changed after more than three years of fierce fighting. The Russian president does not like ultimatums - and Europe, which has regained some unity and determination - perhaps thanks to the new German Chancellor Friedrich Merz - has given him one.”

Eesti Päevaleht calls for consistent implementation of the "massive sanctions" with which Starmer, Macron, Merz and Tusk threatened Putin on Saturday:

“There is no sign of a ceasefire, which naturally requires a yes from Russia. ... The time has come to make it clear that the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia in packages so far, with much effort going into ensuring that there were plenty of loopholes and exemptions, can also be taken to a whole new level. ... The Kremlin has laughed enough at us and our sanctions. The games must finally end. It's not just about peace, but also about the credibility of the West in this whole process - and about the lives of thousands of innocent Ukrainians.”

Le Figaro draws three conclusions:

“Firstly, diplomacy is gaining momentum. Only slowly, perhaps, but this development must nevertheless be supported. Secondly, the Europeans are back in the game - aided by Trump's failure and his attempt to turn his back on Ukraine. This gives them the weighty responsibility of supporting Kyiv while at the same time becoming an acceptable dialogue partner for Moscow again. Thirdly, although the American U-turn is noteworthy, at this stage it remains primarily tactical and does not call into question Trump's strategic goal of reconciliation with Putin.”

Political scientist Vladimir Fesenko comments on Facebook:

“Zelensky's statement that he will be waiting for Kremlin boss Vladimir Putin in Turkey on 15 May is a continuation of active tactical manoeuvring around the issue of peace talks. This is not about negotiations but about the willingness to negotiate. Formally, it's an appeal to Putin, but in reality it's a signal to the chief arbitrator in Washington - US President Donald Trump. And for that matter Putin's statement offering negotiations in Istanbul is also essentially aimed at Trump.”

Dagens Nyheter is pessimistic:

“It's telling that although Putin claims he is proposing unconditional negotiations in Istanbul, these are in fact linked to numerous conditions: Putin's foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov says the talks should be based on the terms of the negotiations that took place in Istanbul in spring 2022 when among other things Russia demanded Ukrainian neutrality and strict limitations on Ukrainian defence forces. Moscow is also demanding that the 'root causes of the war' be addressed. This is the Kremlin's way of saying that Nato enlargement is to blame for the Russian war of aggression.”

Political scientist Abbas Gallyamov explains on Facebook why Moscow is offering negotiations:

“There are those who are now writing that Putin 'rejected the ceasefire offered by Ukraine'. What did they imagine? That Putin would stand up and say: 'I accept Zelensky's proposal?' No politician would do that. You can't play second best in politics. ... You have to ignore your opponent's proposal and present your own - slightly modified - version that looks original and not like a copy of your opponent's. These are basic rules in public policy and Putin knows them. Nevertheless, in effect Russia's president had no choice but to agree to Zelensky's proposal. Because it was backed by Trump.”

Naftemporiki stresses the need for long-term thinking:

“European politicians must work on developing a coherent plan for a lasting peace in Europe which influences not just the future of Ukraine, but the security of the entire Old Continent and also Russia's stance. Because when the peace process is eventually finalised, for better or for worse, Russia will still be in the same geographic position in which it is today. And the same goes for Europe.”