Steven Sahiounie, journalist and political commentator
US President Donald Trump will hold separate phone calls with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky today.
Trump is seeking a ceasefire deal to end the bloodshed for both parties in Ukraine.
Ukraine has reported that Russia launched its largest drone barrage since the start of its full-scale invasion in February 2022, firing a total of 273 exploding drones and decoys.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has discussed the war in Ukraine with leaders of the U.S., Italy, France and Germany in advance of Trump’s call with Putin.
While Trump has insisted on finding a path to ending the war in Europe, the European leaders have been seen lagging in enthusiasm. The US and Europe have supported Ukraine with cash, aid and weapons, but Europe has been seen as wary of a Trump deal to end the war.
Trump is not a politician, but a negotiator and deal-maker. The European leaders are career politicians, and are generally more liberal than Trump.
The talks Istanbul on Friday were the first time the sides had held face-to-face talks since March 2022, and yielded an agreement to swap 1,000 prisoners of war, the biggest such exchange since the war began.
According to sources familiar with the talks, the Russian negotiators demanded Ukraine pull its troops out of all Ukrainian regions claimed by Moscow before they would agree to a ceasefire.
Putin told Russian state TV, that Moscow’s aim was to “eliminate the causes that triggered this crisis, create the conditions for a lasting peace and guarantee Russia’s security.”
The causes of the conflict include eliminating Nazi political and military groups in Ukraine, protecting Russian speakers in the eastern border, and preventing NATO expansion in Ukraine.
Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Saad Khalaf, an authority on Russian affairs, with a Ph.D. in International Relations and Foreign Policy, for his insight into the current situation.
1. Steven Sahiounie (SS): On Thursday, Ukrainian President Zelensky arrived early in Turkey. He complained to the media that he thought Russian President Putin was not coming to the meeting, and therefore Putin was not serious about peace. What is your view on Zelensky’s theatrical complaints?
Such statements, especially when issued through media channels before officially agreed-upon meetings, are typically directed at a third party rather than the directly concerned party. In this case, Zelensky’s remarks are clearly aimed at Western allies.
He is attempting to use them as a tool for political pressure rather than expressing genuine diplomatic intent. Serious diplomacy, as is well known, requires calmness, not media noise.
From my perspective, the Russian approach to resolving the conflict believes that sustainable peace can only be achieved by recognizing the ‘fait accompli’—that is, the new geographic and geopolitical realities, particularly regarding the four regions annexed after the military operation began in 2022—and committing to them.
As I understand it, Russia has not rejected the principle of negotiation itself, but rather the method of dictating terms and media grandstanding. Therefore, Moscow views such public statements, often framed as complaints, as propaganda rather than a sincere and genuine step toward dialogue.
2. SS: Western media outlets like CNN portrayed Zelensky’s criticism of Putin as fact, as if the Trump opposition in America do not want to see a peace deal. In your opinion, why does the Western liberal media insist on prolonging the war?
To understand this behavior, we must consciously examine the deep structure of Western policies. Major Western media outlets, especially those with liberal agendas, are organically and closely tied to political and financial elites who see prolonging the conflict as a means to weaken Russia and control Europe.
The war in Ukraine, even before Trump’s return to the White House—and still today, in my opinion—is used as a strategic tool to cement American influence in Europe, strengthen Western military alliances, and open markets for the U.S. military-industrial complex, the primary beneficiary of this war so far.
Democrats in the U.S., in particular, exploit this conflict for domestic electoral purposes. Consequently, media coverage becomes a tool for pressure and mobilization, straying from objectivity and balance. This makes it, in my view, part of the conflict rather than a channel for de-escalation.
3. SS: The meeting on Friday between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations resulted in a swap of 1,000 prisoners. In your view, is this a good start for the talks?
Undoubtedly, this agreement to exchange such a large number of prisoners carries positive significance, especially considering that the total number of Russian prisoners in Ukraine is fewer than 3,000 (to my knowledge), while Ukrainian prisoners number around 10,000. In any case, it can be seen as an important step within what is known in international relations as "confidence-building measures." Despite ongoing ground battles, the success of the exchange shows that communication channels have not completely closed and that there is at least partial willingness to cooperate on humanitarian grounds.
From the Russian perspective, as I understand it, this initiative signals goodwill. However, for this step to become a real beginning of serious negotiations, there must be comprehensive political will and mutual recognition of demands and new realities—primarily guarantees of Russian security requirements and Ukrainian neutrality.
4. SS: President Trump has said he would like to meet President Putin face to face. In your opinion, could this meeting happen?
Over the past two days, particularly following the phone call between Marco Rubio and Sergey Lavrov after the Istanbul negotiations, there have been hints in statements from both the U.S. and Russian sides that preparations for such a meeting are underway. However, in my opinion, it is currently difficult for this meeting to occur unless there are serious agreements—whether regarding the normalization of bilateral relations between Russia and the U.S. (such as a tangible American decision to partially lift sanctions on Russia) or on the Ukraine issue (such as Washington recognizing Crimea as Russian territory). Otherwise, Trump’s statement, in my view, carries more electoral than diplomatic weight. It is well known that Trump seeks personal foreign policy successes, but he has yet to offer Putin proposals of genuine strategic substance.
Russia currently pursues a policy based on mutual respect and realistic legitimacy, not ideology or personal relationships—though this important factor is neither ignored nor entirely dismissed in its strategy.
5. SS: The talks between Russia and Ukraine were held in Istanbul, Turkey. In your opinion, what is the significance of that location?
Turkey holds a unique geopolitical position: it is a NATO member on one hand, yet under Erdogan’s leadership, it demonstrates strategic independence in many international policy matters and maintains strong relations with Russia. These factors allow it to play a relatively acceptable mediating role for both sides of the conflict.
Thus, Istanbul, in my view, is not merely a geographically convenient location, but also a civilizational symbol, and a bridge between East and West. Turkey has previously proven effective in settlement efforts for this conflict, such as the grain agreement. Therefore, Putin’s specific choice of Istanbul was not random; it reflects a desire to create a dialogue platform free from direct Western pressure.
Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist.