Are the talks between Russia, Ukraine and the rest of the world real negotiations? A technical analysis

In the negotiations surrounding the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russia imposes rigid conditions, Ukraine defends its sovereignty while remaining open to dialogue, the European Union relies on multilateral solutions grounded in legal frameworks, the United States adopts a transactional and inconsistent approach, and China follows a strategic, “low visibility” path. But are these five actors truly negotiating?

One essential condition for meaningful negotiation is the creation of a shared space within which all parties can operate. No matter how skilled the negotiators involved may be, if each party negotiates outside of this common ground (and if so, one must question the scope of their negotiating mandate), there is no true negotiation, only a collective monologue.

The origins of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, better defined as a global political and diplomatic crisis, can be traced back to the 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, following the Maidan revolution and the ousting of the pro-Russian government in Kyiv. Although Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine, Russia's military intervention in the Donbas region and the failure of the Minsk Agreements (2014 and 2015) to produce lasting outcomes led to the current situation. Years of escalation culminated in the full-scale invasion launched on February 24, 2022, igniting the ongoing conflict.

Let us examine the negotiation profiles adopted by each of these actors through three analytical frameworks: principled negotiation (Fisher et al., 1981), the negotiator’s dilemma (Lax & Sebenius, 1986), and the three-dimensional prism (Caporarello, 2025), which evaluates negotiation styles across three dimensions: result orientation, relationship orientation, and emotional management.

Russia: The hegemonic actor. The Russian Federation displays a negotiation profile highly focused on unilateral value claiming. In 1960, Thomas Schelling wrote about how the use of force as leverage falls under the category of coercive diplomacy. Russia’s current stance - evident, for instance, in its demand for recognition of Crimea’s annexation and control over vast parts of the Donbas - does not technically align with a collaborative approach. This profile can be labeled as a “hegemonic actor,” characterized by high assertiveness, low relational sensitivity, and strict emotional control. As Galeotti observes (Putin’s Wars: From Chechnya to Ukraine. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2022), “For Putin, negotiation is not a path to peace, but a tool for domination.”

Ukraine: The value builder. Ukraine’s negotiation profile blends defensive determination with tactical openness. This dual approach emphasizes, on one hand, core principles - above all, territorial integrity - and on the other, the importance of keeping channels of dialogue open even amid stark power asymmetries. Kyiv has repeatedly stated its willingness to engage in fair dialogue (“Peace does not mean giving up our territories or our dignity,” Speech to the European Parliament, 2023). This “value builder” profile reflects a balance between result orientation (end of the war) and relationship orientation (international alliance, though at times fragmented), along with mature emotional regulation, given the extreme pressure.

European Union: The diplomat. The European Union displays a negotiation style rooted in diplomacy. Its approach centers on shared values, international law, and multilateralism. The EU acts more as a transmitter of ethical principles than an enforcer of conflict resolution solutions. We can therefore define this profile as a “diplomat,” showing a strong relationship orientation and solid emotional capacity. Its operational impact, though, is limited by internal coordination challenges. As noted in a recent article in Ethics & International Affairs, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has deepened the tension between the EU’s normative identity and its geopolitical ambitions. The EU strives to be both a powerful and moral actor, but its voice is often fragmented and less effective than that of more cohesive players.

United States: The gambler. The United States alternates between unilateral pressure and tactical attempts at direct dialogue with Moscow, often excluding other key stakeholders. These behaviors generate ambiguity and undermine the integration necessary for collaborative negotiation. For instance, a recent call for a ceasefire by the U.S. President, quickly retracted by the White House, reflects a variable and opportunistic approach. This “gambler” profile is defined by a strong focus on individual results, low relational consistency, and instrumental flexibility. As the Washington Post noted, the American approach is driven more by domestic dynamics than a coherent strategy.

China: The silent architect. China, a strategic actor in this scenario, is pursuing a negotiation approach marked by discretion and long-term strategy. This “silent architect” profile is defined by high result orientation, selective relational sensitivity, and tightly managed emotions. Beijing has avoided explicit condemnation of the aggressor, maintaining ties with both Moscow and Kyiv. For example, during the Istanbul talks in March 2022, China supported a compromise solution proposing Ukraine’s neutrality in exchange for multilateral security guarantees. Later, during a bilateral summit with Russia in May 2024, Beijing reaffirmed the “need for a political solution” and the importance of “avoiding escalation.” In March 2025, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi urged both sides to seek a resolution through negotiations. This approach reflects the Chinese diplomatic tradition: exerting influence through indirect dynamics rather than direct intervention, while always keeping its long-term strategic interests in mind.

As stated at the outset, managing this conflict begins with creating a shared negotiation space. In this context, that space must be established through diplomacy, with the inclusion of all relevant parties.

On May 16, 2025, an official meeting was held in Istanbul between Russian and Ukrainian delegations, their first direct talks since 2022. However, no official representatives from the United States, the European Union, or China were present. When the negotiation team is incomplete, the outcome is likely to be partial as well. Although the two sides did reach an agreement on a major prisoner exchange, the road to resolving the conflict remains unstable and fraught with obstacles.