After more than three years of brutal conflict, the promise of peace in Ukraine still hangs precariously in the balance. Diplomatic efforts are once again underway, this time in Istanbul, where representatives from Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and Turkey have met. Yet the absence of senior leadership ~ most notably the Russian and American presidents ~ raises serious doubts about the credibility and potential outcomes of these negotiations.

It has become increasingly clear that the road to peace in Ukraine runs not merely through diplomatic channels, but through the direct involvement of top leaders who command both the authority and political capital to make decisive moves. In this context, any negotiations lacking the presence of figures like Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump ~ who have each shaped their nations’ foreign policy landscapes in profound ways ~ are likely to achieve little more than symbolic value.

Advertisement

The problem is not simply about protocol or diplomatic stature; it is about the mismatch between the gravity of the crisis and the level of engagement it is receiving. Ukraine continues to bleed, with ongoing military offensives and shifting frontlines. Russia, meanwhile, remains entrenched, controlling around 20 per cent of Ukrainian territory. These are not conditions ripe for incremental diplomacy. They demand bold, top-level political intervention. Ukraine’s president, for his part, has expressed a willingness to meet his Russian counterpart directly. But Moscow’s delegation, led by lower-ranking officials, sends a message of disengagement, if not outright disdain. This decision has also been interpreted as a slight against Turkey’s mediation efforts and the broader international community’s desire for a credible peace process.

The United States remains a pivotal actor. While officially represented at the talks, the absence of its top leadership underscores a troubling ambivalence. Whether one agrees with Mr Trump’s political style or not, his asser tion that peace will require a personal meeting betw – een him and Mr Putin reflects a hard truth: peace often demands more than diplomacy ~ it demands direct confrontation of hard realities by those who hold real power. The optics of the Istanbul talks matter. When a war has cost tens of thousands of lives and displaced millions, sending mid-level negotiators signals detachment. Peace cannot be brokered by those without the mandate to concede or commit.

Diplomacy without consequence merely prolongs the illusion of progress. Symbolic meetings and staged summits will not end the war. What is needed is genuine negotiation underpinned by political courage, strategic compromise, and mutual recognition of human suffering. The Istanbul talks, in their current form, risk becoming yet another footnote in a long series of failed efforts if key actors continue to treat peace as a procedural matter rather than a moral imperative. Until the main architects sit face to face and reckon with the weight of their decisions, peace will remain elusive. In diplomacy, timing and presence are everything. And right now, the world is still waiting for both.