On October 19, during the “Imedi LIVE” program on the pro-government Imedi TV channel, international relations analyst Lasha Kasradze claimed that in March 2022, the West sabotaged peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. According to him, Russia demanded that Ukraine declare neutrality and reject NATO membership; in return, Ukraine would retain 100% sovereignty. Additionally, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia would guarantee Ukraine’s protection from aggressors. Kasradze also noted that during meetings held in Istanbul, the communiqué discussed the possibility of revisiting the Crimea issue after 15 years, and that Russia was willing to compromise on Donbas. The only condition, as Kasradze highlighted, was Ukraine’s rejection of NATO membership.
The claim voiced by Lasha Kasradze that the West sabotaged peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in March 2022 is not supported by any evidence, and the facts presented are used manipulatively. An investigation by The New York Times revealed that the parties did not reach a real agreement, and the breakdown of negotiations was due to distrust of Russia and disagreements on critical issues from the Ukrainian side.
Between February and April 2022, the opposing parties attempted to negotiate a peace agreement multiple times to stop Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine. Three documents were created, but a final agreement and signing of documents were not achieved. The New York Times obtained the full versions of these documents and interviewed over 10 officials from Ukraine, Russia, and the West directly involved in these negotiations over the course of several months. Their investigation found that the primary reason for the breakdown was the Ukrainians’ distrust of Russia, as the proposed conditions failed to provide sufficient security guarantees for Ukraine.
-
First Stage of Negotiations
On February 28, representatives from Ukraine and Russia met in Belarus for the first peace talks after the war began. Their communication continued regularly online, and the first draft agreement was created on March 17. Sections marked in red highlighted unresolved issues, clearly indicating that reaching an agreement would be challenging. Ukraine demanded international security guarantees, meaning that if it adopted a neutral status, the guarantor states would protect it in the event of military aggression. These guarantor states included the United Kingdom, China, Russia, the U.S., and France. Russia, on the other hand, demanded that Crimea be recognized as Russian, the relinquishment of eastern Donbas (Donetsk and Luhansk regions), the lifting of sanctions imposed on Russia by Ukraine and its allies, and the prohibition of Nazi symbols and naming streets or settlements after Nazi figures. Most importantly, Russia required Ukraine to declare unconditional neutrality, thereby refraining from joining any military alliances, signing any security agreements, and stationing foreign military forces or bases on its territory.
Additionally, Russia demanded military limits for Ukraine, restricting the number of personnel, tanks, and other combat equipment. Ukraine was willing to comply with some limits but requested higher thresholds than Russia had proposed. Ultimately, the terms of the agreement barely addressed Ukrainian interests and, as U.S. officials noted, appeared to aim at Ukraine’s unilateral disarmament, making an agreement impossible.
-
The Istanbul Communiqué
The peace negotiations continued in Istanbul on March 29. By this time, it was evident that the Russian army was struggling to achieve its goals, and Ukraine was making significant military advances. Consequently, Russia’s demands and pressure at the negotiations were reduced. The Ukrainian side summarized the proposed agreement in a two-page communiqué, which Lasha Kasradze mentioned during his interview. According to the document, Ukraine was willing to adopt neutrality, provided that the guarantor countries would protect it from military aggression in a manner similar to NATO’s Article 5. Compared to the initial draft, the list of potential guarantors was expanded to include Israel, Turkey, Poland, Belarus, Canada, Germany, and Italy. Moreover, security guarantees would not apply to Crimea, Donetsk, or Luhansk. Ukraine pledged not to reclaim Crimea by force but insisted that the status of the region should be reconsidered diplomatically within 10-15 years.
The final point proposed a meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin in 2022 to sign the agreement and/or resolve any remaining disputed issues. Although initially willing to compromise on certain details, the Russian side was sending mixed signals publicly, raising doubts about whether it was ready to sign the agreement. Additional demands and amendments from the Russian side, presented in a new document a month later, clarified that Russia was not willing to sign the Istanbul communiqué.
It’s worth noting that the chair of the parliamentary faction of Ukraine’s ruling “Servant of the People” party, Davit Arakhamia, also discussed the Istanbul process. His comments were used by pro-Russian forces to spread the manipulation that an agreement had been reached, but former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson forced Ukraine to reject it and break off negotiations. However, Arakhamia stated that Ukraine had no intention of signing the document, as it lacked trust in Russia and there was a high chance that, after adopting neutrality, Russia would conduct another military intervention to achieve its objectives. He confirmed that Western allies were involved in the negotiation process and provided advice, but Ukraine made decisions independently.
-
Final Attempt at a Peace Agreement
After Istanbul, negotiations continued online, resulting in a 17-page document similar to the initial draft, highlighted in red with unresolved issues. Both parties agreed that Ukraine would become a neutral state with the right to join the European Union. Russia demanded a 25-kilometer range limit on Ukraine’s missiles, while Ukraine insisted on a minimum range of 174 kilometers. Russia also sought to lift restrictions on the Russian language and recognize it as an official language. However, the main issue was the section on international security guarantees. Russia wanted the guarantor countries (the UK, the U.S., China, Russia, France, Belarus, and Turkey) to protect Ukraine in the event of military aggression only if all guarantors agreed. This meant that if neutral Ukraine were attacked by Russia, Russia could veto the protection clause, rendering the guarantees ineffective. This proposal was unacceptable to Ukraine and underscored the lack of trust in Russia, leading Ukraine to end the negotiations, which have not resumed since.
“Myth Detector” has previously fact-checked false claims about the breakdown of peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia.
- Manipulation, as if Arakhamia Said that the Deal with Russia Failed Because of Boris Johnson’s Position
- Why Did the 2022 Russia-Ukraine Peace Deal Fail and Was Russia Backing Down?
The article has been written in the framework of Facebook’s fact-checking program. You can read more about the restrictions that Facebook may impose based on this article via this link. You can find information about appealing or editing our assessment via this link.
Read detailed instructions for editing the article.
Read detailed appeal instructions.
