The Istanbul Talks: Russia-Ukraine Scenarios
The Istanbul Talks: Russia-Ukraine Scenarios
This article was last updated on May 12, 2025, at 13:00 GMT.
I. Diplomacy in Istanbul
In the spring of 2025, amidst the grinding fourth year of Europe's largest land war since World War II, a sudden flurry of diplomatic activity centred on Istanbul. On May 10th, following a high-profile meeting in Kyiv with the leaders of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Poland, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy joined his European counterparts and the United States in calling for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire with Russia, to commence on May 12th. This unified push, backed by the threat of "massive" new sanctions should Moscow refuse, appeared to be a concerted effort to force a pause in the bloodshed and create space for negotiation.
Within hours, however, Russian President Vladimir Putin effectively rejected the Western-backed ultimatum. Instead, speaking to the media overnight, he issued a counter-proposal: direct talks between Russia and Ukraine, to be restarted in Istanbul on May 15th, significantly, "without preconditions". This carefully timed offer placed the onus back on Kyiv and its partners. It arrived just as the deadline for the proposed ceasefire loomed, seemingly calculated to disrupt the unified Western stance and seize the diplomatic initiative. By proposing talks after the requested ceasefire start date and framing them as unconditional, Moscow shifted the narrative, forcing Kyiv and its allies to react to Russia's agenda rather than their own.
President Zelenskyy’s response was swift and calculated. He declared Ukraine's readiness to meet on May 15th, stating pointedly, "I will be waiting for Putin in Turkiye personally". Yet, he critically reiterated his core demand: "We expect Russia to confirm a ceasefire – full, lasting, and reliable – starting tomorrow, May 12th". He underscored that a ceasefire remains "the very first step in truly ending any war". This conditional acceptance came amidst significant external pressure, notably from US President Donald Trump, who publicly urged Ukraine to accept Putin's offer "IMMEDIATELY". Zelenskyy's decision to attend, even with the ceasefire precondition unmet – a possibility hinted at by Ukrainian officials – represents a high-risk diplomatic maneuver. It appears driven by a complex mix of factors: bowing to American pressure, signaling a continued commitment to peace for domestic and international audiences, and potentially aiming to expose Russian intransigence should Putin fail to engage seriously or refuse the ceasefire outright.
Turkey, reprising its role from the early days of the full-scale invasion, immediately embraced the opportunity to mediate. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan welcomed Putin's proposal in a call with the Russian leader and reaffirmed Ankara's readiness to host the negotiations. Having previously brokered ill-fated talks in March 2022 and the vital Black Sea Grain Initiative later that year, Turkey seeks to leverage its unique geopolitical position straddling the Black Sea and maintaining communication lines with both Moscow and Kyiv. As one observer noted, Turkey occupies a "very important but also very fragile one" position in these efforts.
Thus, the stage is set for a high-stakes encounter in Istanbul, but one overshadowed by a fundamental disagreement. Ukraine and its Western allies insist on a cessation of hostilities before substantive talks can begin. Russia, conversely, proposes talks first, suggesting a ceasefire might emerge during the negotiation process itself. This is not merely a procedural quibble; it reflects deep-seated mistrust and conflicting strategic objectives that go to the heart of the conflict.
This report will dissect the complex dynamics surrounding the proposed May 15 Istanbul talks. It will examine the historical echoes of previous negotiations, the motivations and pressures shaping the actions of key players, the intractable disagreements that threaten to derail the process before it begins, and the ever-present shadow cast by the ongoing war. By analyzing plausible scenarios and their likelihood, this report ultimately seeks to assess whether this Istanbul gambit represents a genuine, albeit fragile, opportunity for peace, or merely another diplomatic mirage in a protracted and devastating conflict.
II. The 2022 Negotiations
The choice of Istanbul as the venue for renewed talks is laden with historical significance, evoking the memory of negotiations held there in March 2022, just weeks after Russia launched its full-scale invasion. Those initial talks, also facilitated by Turkey, ultimately collapsed, leaving a legacy of mistrust and competing narratives about their failure. Now, three years later, the Kremlin is explicitly invoking that past effort as a foundation for the present.
President Putin, in proposing the May 15th meeting, suggested resuming discussions based on the framework explored in 2022, specifically referencing a draft agreement circulated in April of that year. Russian officials have reinforced this linkage, stating that any new negotiations must consider the results of the talks interrupted in 2022, alongside the crucial caveat of "the situation on the battlefield". This deliberate callback serves a dual purpose. It allows Russia to frame its current proposal as a return to a previously considered path, potentially appearing reasonable to some international observers. However, it simultaneously resurrects demands that were widely seen as tantamount to Ukrainian capitulation.
The terms reportedly under discussion in the spring of 2022, particularly as outlined in the April draft agreement cited by Moscow, were severe. They included:
Permanent Neutrality: Ukraine would be required to abandon its NATO membership aspirations, amend its constitution to enshrining neutrality, and commit to never joining any military alliances or hosting foreign military bases, personnel, or advanced weapon systems. This neutrality was to be guaranteed by a group of states including Russia and Belarus, alongside permanent UN Security Council members. Crucially, these guarantor states would be obligated to "terminate international treaties and agreements incompatible with the permanent neutrality [of Ukraine]," a clause seemingly aimed directly at halting Western military aid.
Draconian Military Limits: The draft protocols demanded a radical downsizing of Ukraine's armed forces to just 85,000 soldiers. Severe restrictions were placed on heavy equipment, limiting Ukraine to 342 tanks and 519 artillery systems. Furthermore, Ukraine's missile capabilities were to be capped at a range of a mere 40 kilometers (25 miles), effectively preventing Kyiv from threatening Russian force concentrations or logistical hubs near its borders. Ukraine would also have had to surrender its long-range strike capabilities.
Territorial Concessions: While the specifics varied in reports, the 2022 framework involved Ukraine recognizing Russian control over occupied regions. Given that these demands were made when Russian forces were still attempting to encircle Kyiv and held significant swathes of territory, the implication was clear: acceptance would mean formalizing Russian territorial gains achieved through force.
The fact that Russia is now explicitly referencing this 2022 framework as the starting point for renewed talks sends a powerful signal. It suggests that despite three years of grueling warfare, significant Russian losses, and Ukraine's determined resistance, Moscow's fundamental strategic objectives – achieving effective control over Ukraine's sovereignty, geopolitical orientation, and military capacity – remain largely unchanged. The demands from 2022, formulated perhaps under the expectation of a swift victory, are being presented again as a basis for negotiation, implying that Russia's definition of an acceptable "peace" still involves outcomes that Kyiv would view as surrender on core issues of national existence. This continuity in maximalist aims significantly dims the prospects for finding mutually acceptable compromises.
The 2022 talks ultimately failed for a confluence of reasons. The sheer extremity of Russia's demands, amounting to what analysts described as a "capitulation document", made them politically impossible for Kyiv to accept. Shifting dynamics on the battlefield, particularly Ukraine's successful defense of Kyiv, likely hardened resolve on both sides. Moscow has consistently blamed Kyiv and the West for the collapse, promoting a narrative, particularly since the failure, that Western powers (specifically mentioning former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson) pressured Zelenskyy to abandon a near-finalized deal. This narrative, while disputed by Ukraine and Western officials, serves Russia's current diplomatic positioning. By referencing the 2022 talks, Moscow can project an image of consistency and reasonableness ("we are just returning to what was almost agreed") while simultaneously anchoring the negotiations to demands it knows are likely unacceptable to Kyiv. This strategy potentially sets the stage for Russia to blame Ukraine and its Western backers should the May 2025 talks also fail.
III. The Ceasefire Disagreement
Looming over the proposed Istanbul meeting is the immediate and seemingly intractable dispute over a ceasefire. This disagreement transcends mere scheduling; it cuts to the core of the strategic calculations and profound mistrust defining the conflict.
Following their meeting in Kyiv on May 10th, President Zelenskyy and the visiting leaders of France, the UK, Germany, and Poland issued a clear, unified demand: an "unconditional ceasefire lasting at least 30 days," commencing Monday, May 12th. Their joint statement emphasized the non-negotiable nature of this precondition: "An unconditional ceasefire by definition cannot be subject to any conditions. If Russia calls for such conditions, this can only be considered as an effort to prolong the war and undermine diplomacy". French President Emmanuel Macron stated the US would lead monitoring efforts, warning of "massive sanctions... prepared and coordinated" should Russia violate the truce. President Zelenskyy himself repeatedly stressed that "the very first step in truly ending any war is a ceasefire". This position was echoed by US Special Envoy Keith Kellogg, reflecting President Trump's stance: "An unconditional 30-day ceasefire first and, during it, move into comprehensive peace discussions. Not the other way around".
Moscow's response was unambiguous. President Putin, in his overnight remarks proposing the May 15th talks, explicitly rejected the demand for a ceasefire prior to negotiations. He framed his offer as talks "without preconditions," suggesting a ceasefire was something that might be agreed upon during the Istanbul discussions themselves. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova later reinforced this, stating Putin "clearly said: first negotiate about the root causes, and then we can talk about a ceasefire". This stance is further complicated by a history of mutual accusations regarding ceasefire violations. Putin has accused Ukraine of sabotaging previous temporary truces, while Ukrainian officials maintain that Russia repeatedly violated those same agreements. This legacy of broken truces severely erodes the trust necessary for any new cessation of hostilities to hold.
This fundamental disagreement over sequencing represents the most significant immediate hurdle to any meaningful progress in Istanbul. It reflects diametrically opposed strategic perspectives. For Ukraine and its allies, a ceasefire is essential to halt the daily killing and create a minimally stable environment for genuine negotiation, free from the immediate duress of ongoing attacks. It is seen as a necessary confidence-building measure and a test of Russia's seriousness.
For Russia, however, agreeing to an unconditional ceasefire first likely appears disadvantageous. It would halt the momentum of its forces, which have reportedly made territorial gains over the past year, thereby sacrificing military leverage that Moscow explicitly wants to bring to the negotiating table (as evidenced by its insistence that talks consider the "situation on the battlefield"). Furthermore, Putin has expressed concerns that a truce would simply allow Ukraine to rearm and regroup. Refusing a ceasefire first allows Russia to maintain military pressure and avoids prematurely legitimizing the current front lines from Moscow's perspective. It signals that Russia is not prepared to stop fighting until its broader objectives, framed as addressing the "root causes" of the conflict, are addressed – objectives likely encompassing significant political and territorial concessions from Ukraine. The ceasefire dispute, therefore, serves as a microcosm of the larger conflict over sovereignty, leverage, and the fundamental terms of any potential peace.
The Western threat of "massive sanctions" should Russia reject the ceasefire adds another layer of complexity. While intended to pressure Moscow, the credibility and potential impact of such threats remain open questions. Russia has demonstrated a degree of resilience against previous sanctions regimes, adapting its economy and seeking alternative partnerships. Moreover, the vocal intervention of President Trump, prioritizing talks without the ceasefire precondition, could signal to Moscow that Western unity on this specific trigger for new sanctions might be less solid than portrayed by European leaders. The ultimate effectiveness of any new sanctions would depend heavily on their specific nature, scope, and the degree of global enforcement achieved, all of which remain uncertain.
IV. Motivations and Pressures
Understanding the potential outcomes of the Istanbul talks requires dissecting the complex web of motivations, pressures, and potential hidden agendas driving the key actors involved. Each player approaches the table with distinct interests and calculations.
Russia (Vladimir Putin): Moscow's motives for proposing the talks appear multifaceted. Publicly, the Kremlin frames the offer as a "very serious" initiative aimed at eliminating the "root causes of the conflict" and achieving a "long-term, lasting peace". This projects an image of reasonableness, potentially aimed at audiences in the Global South and countering Western narratives of Russian intransigence. The timing, immediately following the Western ceasefire demand, strongly suggests an effort to undermine Ukrainian and Western unity, seize the diplomatic initiative, and force Kyiv to negotiate under continued military pressure. There is also speculation that the proposal is influenced by pressure from figures like President Trump or a calculation that Western resolve or unity may be weakening, particularly given potential shifts in US policy. Proposing talks, even on terms known to be unacceptable (like the 2022 framework and recent maximalist demands), allows Russia to test the waters, gauge Western and Ukrainian positions, and potentially blame the other side if negotiations collapse. Some analysts suggest it could also be a tactic to buy time for ongoing military operations or to consolidate recent gains. Ultimately, Putin's stated goal of addressing "root causes" likely refers to Russia's long-standing grievances regarding NATO expansion and Ukraine's Western alignment, indicating a desire for a settlement that fundamentally reshapes Ukraine's geopolitical status on Moscow's terms.
Ukraine (Volodymyr Zelenskyy): Kyiv's decision to accept the invitation, despite the critical ceasefire precondition remaining unmet, is a complex balancing act. Zelenskyy aims to demonstrate Ukraine's unwavering commitment to exploring all avenues for peace, both to a war-weary domestic population and crucial international partners. There is undeniable pressure from allies, particularly the US under President Trump, to engage in dialogue. Attending the talks allows Ukraine to maintain vital Western support – military, financial, and diplomatic – by showing itself to be proactive and reasonable. There is also a strategic element of calling Russia's bluff; by agreeing to meet Putin "personally," Zelenskyy puts the onus on the Russian leader to show up and negotiate seriously. Should Putin demur or prove unwilling to discuss a ceasefire, Ukraine can portray Russia as the obstacle to peace, potentially strengthening the case for continued aid and sanctions. Nonetheless, the primary stated goal remains securing a "full, lasting, and reliable" ceasefire as the essential first step. Presidential Office chief Andriy Yermak has voiced skepticism about negotiating with anyone other than Putin himself, implying only the Russian president can make substantive decisions, while also dismissing Russia's talks-first proposal as a potential stalling tactic.
Turkey (Recep Tayyip Erdogan): For Ankara, hosting the talks offers significant diplomatic advantages. It reinforces Turkey's image as an indispensable regional power and a unique mediator capable of engaging both Moscow and Kyiv. Successful mediation would bolster Erdogan's international standing and allow Turkey to carefully balance its complex relationships with Russia, Ukraine, and the West. Ankara has tangible interests in regional stability, particularly in the Black Sea, where it controls vital straits and previously helped broker the grain deal. Erdogan likely views this as a "historic turning point" and an opportunity to be seized.
USA (Trump Administration) & EU: External powers play a crucial, if sometimes divergent, role. President Trump has been vocal in demanding an end to the "bloodbath," pushing both sides, but particularly Ukraine, towards negotiations without necessarily prioritizing the ceasefire precondition. His administration has linked continued US aid to Kyiv's willingness to negotiate, creating significant leverage. This approach potentially aims for a quick diplomatic resolution, aligning with campaign rhetoric, but risks pressuring Ukraine into concessions. European leaders (Macron, Starmer, Merz, Tusk), while coordinating with the US, have placed stronger public emphasis on the unconditional ceasefire as a prerequisite for talks and maintained the threat of sanctions. This reflects a continued commitment to solidarity with Ukraine and maintaining pressure on Russia, though the degree of transatlantic unity on the precise sequencing and conditions for talks appears nuanced.
Underpinning these motivations is the stark reality that Moscow has recently reiterated maximalist demands that go even beyond the harsh 2022 terms. These include formal recognition of Russia's annexation of four Ukrainian regions (Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia), a permanent ban on NATO membership, demilitarization, and changes favoring the Russian language and religious organizations linked to Moscow. The fact that Russia is doubling down on such demands even as it proposes talks suggests the gap between the two sides' fundamental positions remains immense, casting a long shadow over the prospects for any substantive agreement in Istanbul, even if the immediate ceasefire hurdle were somehow overcome.
V. Military Situation
Diplomacy rarely occurs in a vacuum, and the proposed talks in Istanbul are inextricably linked to the brutal realities of the ongoing war. The situation on the 1,000-kilometer front line inevitably shapes the calculations and leverage of both Moscow and Kyiv as they contemplate negotiations.
As of May 2025, the conflict remains characterized by intense, attritional fighting. Reports indicate that Russian forces made significant territorial advances in 2024, capturing key settlements, particularly in the Donetsk region. Offensive operations continue in multiple directions, including Kupyansk, Lyman, Chasiv Yar, and Pokrovsk, although assessments suggest these pushes face challenges, including the use of older, less capable reinforcements and logistical problems in some sectors. Russian forces employ tactics such as massed motorcycle assaults and fiber-optic drones. Despite calls for a truce, Russian attacks continued across Ukraine even as the diplomatic track opened, injuring civilians.
Simultaneously, Ukrainian forces demonstrate continued resilience. They reportedly maintain positions inside Russia's Kursk Oblast, conducting ground attacks across the border. Recent tactical advances have also been noted near Toretsk in the Donetsk region. However, Ukraine's ability to sustain its defense and potentially launch counter-offensives remains heavily reliant on the consistent flow of Western military and financial aid. This dependency makes Kyiv susceptible to external pressure, particularly threats from Washington to curtail support if negotiations are refused.
This military landscape profoundly influences the diplomatic maneuvering. Russia's recent gains, however incremental and costly, likely embolden the Kremlin's belief that military pressure favors its negotiating position. Moscow's explicit insistence that talks must consider the "situation on the battlefield" is a clear reflection of this perspective. It signals an intent to translate military successes, or the perception thereof, directly into diplomatic concessions from Kyiv. This approach treats diplomacy not as an alternative to conflict, but as an extension of it – a means to ratify gains achieved through force. This fundamentally clashes with Ukraine's position, which seeks a settlement based on international law and the restoration of its territorial integrity, not the acceptance of lines drawn by invasion.
Furthermore, the very fact that intense fighting continues unabated, even as leaders prepare to potentially meet, severely undermines the trust required for genuine dialogue. Meaningful negotiations typically necessitate at least a temporary de-escalation to build confidence and demonstrate serious intent. Russia's continued offensive operations while simultaneously proposing talks sends deeply contradictory signals and reinforces Ukrainian skepticism about Moscow's motives, born from experiences with previously violated ceasefires. Proceeding with high-level talks under such conditions suggests that both sides may view the Istanbul meeting less as a forum for substantive negotiation and compromise, and more as an arena for political signaling, diplomatic positioning, and managing relations with key international partners. The long shadow of the battlefield thus darkens the prospects for any immediate breakthrough at the negotiating table.
VI. Scenarios and Forecasts
Predicting the outcome of high-stakes diplomacy amidst an active war is inherently fraught with uncertainty. The situation surrounding the May 15th Istanbul talks is exceptionally fluid, subject to rapid shifts based on battlefield developments, external pressures, and the personal calculations of the leaders involved. While some forecasts, such as one from Max Security suggesting a 60% probability of a ceasefire deal emerging in 2025, offer a degree of optimism, the specific dynamics leading into the Istanbul meeting warrant a more cautious assessment. The profound disagreements over the ceasefire precondition, coupled with Russia's invocation of the harsh 2022 framework and its recently reiterated maximalist demands, suggest the chasm between the parties remains vast.
Based on the available information and the analysis presented in this report, the following scenarios represent the most plausible trajectories for the Istanbul talks, with estimated probabilities reflecting the significant obstacles to a breakthrough:
Scenario 1: Immediate Collapse / Failure to Launch (Probability: 55%)
Description: The talks falter almost immediately, potentially even before substantive discussions commence. The primary trigger would likely be the deadlock over the ceasefire precondition, with Ukraine insisting on its implementation before talks proceed and Russia refusing. Alternatively, the meeting could collapse if President Putin opts not to attend personally, sending a lower-level delegation – a move President Zelenskyy might interpret as a lack of seriousness, potentially leading him to withdraw. Even if both leaders attend, an immediate impasse could arise over the agenda, particularly if Russia insists on starting from the 2022 Istanbul protocols or its current maximalist demands, which Kyiv would reject outright.
Drivers: Unyielding positions on ceasefire sequencing; Russia's maximalist demands; deep mutual distrust fueled by past experiences; potential for perceived diplomatic slights or procedural disagreements.
Outcome: A swift return to the status quo ante, characterized by mutual recrimination and intensified rhetoric. Each side would blame the other for the failure, seeking to solidify support from respective allies. The threatened "massive" Western sanctions against Russia might be triggered. International focus would likely shift back entirely to the military dimension of the conflict.
Scenario 2: Protracted, Performative Dialogue (Probability: 35%)
Description: The leaders, or high-level delegations, meet and engage in discussions, but fail to achieve any tangible progress on the core issues of ceasefire, territory, neutrality, or security guarantees. The talks might be characterized by lengthy restatements of existing positions. To maintain a facade of diplomatic engagement, both sides might agree to further consultations or establish working groups, but without genuine political will for compromise. The process becomes primarily performative, serving domestic political needs and international public relations more than actual peace-making.
Drivers: A desire by both Moscow and Kyiv to appear open to diplomacy and avoid being labeled as obstructionist; sustained pressure from external actors like Turkey or potentially the US to keep the dialogue channel open; a mutual assessment that the conflict is not yet "ripe" for major concessions; the potential use of talks as a delaying tactic or simply to gather intelligence on the opponent's red lines.
Outcome: The war continues unabated on the ground. The diplomatic track remains nominally active but proves ineffective in de-escalating the conflict or resolving fundamental disagreements. There is a risk of 'talks fatigue' among international observers and potentially waning patience from key partners. The conflict likely settles back into a pattern of attrition.
Scenario 3: Limited Agreement / Path Towards De-escalation (Probability: 10%)
Description: Against the odds, a minor, unexpected agreement is reached. Given the deep divisions, this is highly unlikely to involve a comprehensive ceasefire or resolution of core political issues. Instead, it might focus on more limited, potentially achievable measures, such as expanded prisoner exchanges, localized humanitarian truces for specific areas or durations, agreements on avoiding attacks on certain types of critical infrastructure, or perhaps an agreement merely on the principles or format for future, more detailed ceasefire negotiations. Such an outcome would require a significant, unforeseen shift in the position of at least one, if not both, sides.
Drivers: Intense, unified, and highly effective international pressure exceeding current levels; a dramatic and unexpected shift in battlefield dynamics that significantly alters the strategic calculations of Moscow or Kyiv; unforeseen domestic political developments within Russia or Ukraine creating new imperatives for de-escalation.
Outcome: A slight, temporary reduction in tensions and a potential, albeit fragile, opening for further dialogue. However, the fundamental drivers of the conflict would remain unaddressed, leaving any limited agreement highly vulnerable to collapse. The risk of backsliding into intensified conflict would remain substantial.
Summary of Scenarios:
This assessment, placing a higher probability on failure or stagnation than on progress, reflects the formidable obstacles evident in the lead-up to the Istanbul meeting.
VII. Conclusion
The proposed May 15th talks in Istanbul represent a critical juncture, yet one heavily clouded by skepticism and low expectations. While the mere fact of potential high-level dialogue after a long hiatus offers a faint glimmer of possibility, the path towards any meaningful de-escalation, let alone a sustainable peace, appears fraught with near-insurmountable obstacles.
The analysis reveals a stark reality: the fundamental disagreements between Moscow and Kyiv remain profound. The immediate impasse over the timing and conditionality of a ceasefire serves as a potent symbol of the deeper chasm separating the two sides. Beyond this procedural hurdle lies the vast gulf between Russia's maximalist demands – rooted in the harsh terms of the 2022 Istanbul framework and recently reiterated calls for territorial recognition, neutrality, and demilitarization – and Ukraine's non-negotiable requirements for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and security. Compounding these substantive differences is a corrosive lack of trust, poisoned by years of conflict, broken agreements, and competing narratives. The ongoing war casts a long shadow, with military realities constantly influencing diplomatic calculations, particularly for Russia, which explicitly links negotiations to the "situation on the battlefield".
The motivations driving the key players are complex and often contradictory. Is Putin's proposal a genuine, if conditional, opening towards peace, perhaps prompted by external pressure or a reassessment of the war's trajectory? Or is it primarily a tactical maneuver designed to fracture Western unity, project reasonableness while pursuing military aims, and set the stage to blame Ukraine for inevitable failure? Is Zelenskyy's conditional acceptance a necessary bow to allied pressure and a bid to maintain international support, or a calculated gamble to expose Russian intransigence?
While any direct communication channel carries potential value, the conditions surrounding the Istanbul meeting strongly suggest that the odds are heavily stacked against a significant breakthrough. The fundamental prerequisites for successful negotiation – a degree of mutual trust, a shared understanding of the basic parameters for discussion, and a willingness from both sides to make painful compromises – appear largely absent. The conflicting demands regarding the ceasefire, coupled with Russia's insistence on a framework tantamount to Ukrainian capitulation, make it difficult to envision a scenario where this specific meeting yields a lasting cessation of hostilities or a viable roadmap to peace.
The world will watch Istanbul closely, not just to see if the leaders talk, but how they talk, and whether any diplomatic pronouncements are matched by actions on the ground. The outcome – or, more likely, the lack thereof – will send crucial signals about the probable trajectory of this devastating conflict in the months ahead.
