Trump wants Ukraine deal to be based on 'Istanbul Protocols', here's why that will be Russian victory

Steve Witkoff, the principal troubleshooter of US President Donald Trump, has said ‘Istanbul Protocols’ should be the basis of any peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, but that will mean serving a victory to Russia on a platter.

The Istanbul Protocols refer to the talks between Ukraine and Russia in March 2022. During February-April 2022, even as the war was waging in Ukraine, the representatives of two countries engaged in talks that eventually faltered over Russia’s maximalist demands.

In an interview with CNN, Witkoff said that Istanbul Protocols should serve as the “guidepost to get a peace deal done between Ukraine and Russia”.

In recent weeks, Trump has gone from being critical of support to Ukraine to being completely hostile to the country. He has falsely accused Ukraine of starting the war and called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator. While he and his allies have spent weeks in attempts to arm-twist Ukraine into making concessions, they have sought no concessions from Russia. Instead, they have parroted Russia’s talking points non-stop to strengthen Vladimir Putin’s case for the war.

Trump’s plan for peace deal matches Putin’s demands

Just like Trump has been parroting Putin’s talking points for weeks, his idea of a peace deal for the war in Ukraine also matches Putin’s demands.

Witkoff told CNN, “The Russians have indicated that they are responsive to an end to this. There were very, very what I will call cogent and substantive negotiations framed in something that’s called the Istanbul Protocol Agreement. We came very, very close to signing something. And I think we will be using that framework as a guidepost to get a peace deal done between Ukraine and Russia.”

Witkoff, who has taken the lead in the Trump administration’s growing partnership with Russia, said that it “will be an amazing day” when the peace deal based on the Istanbul Protocols would be signed.

ALSO READ: From security guarantees to territorial control, these differences led to failure of Ukraine-Russia peace talks

In the same interview, Witkoff parroted Trump’s lie rooted in Putin’s propaganda that Russia is not responsible for the war. In his rewriting of history, Trump has said that Ukraine started the ongoing war . He has also said that Russia was provoked to enter the war by his predecessor Joe Biden with the promise of Nato membership to Ukraine. That is of course a lie. The Nato membership to Ukraine had been a bipartisan commitment since former President George W Bush’s tenure.

In remarks that may just as well been that of a Kremlin spokesperson, Witkoff said, “The war didn’t need to happen. It was provoked. It doesn’t necessarily mean it was provoked by the Russians. There were all kinds of conversations back then about Ukraine joining Nato. The president has spoken about this. That didn’t need to happen. It basically became a threat to the Russians.”

Deal based on Istanbul Protocols to be ‘capitulation document’, say experts

A peace deal based on the Istanbul Protocols, as proposed by the Trump administration, will be a “capitulation document”, according to experts at the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).

The Istanbul Protocols have maximalist Russian demands that led to the collapse of the talks in 2022. Russia stressed that Russia will be among security guarantors and any intervention by guarantors would require unanimity — a non-starter as the idea of the aggressor being a security guarantor is dead on arrival. Additionally, Russia sought amendments in Ukraine’s constitution to make Russian an official language. In Versailles Treaty-like provisions, Russia also sought to limit Ukraine’s military.

ALSO READ: Trump parrots Putin’s propaganda, blames Nato & Biden for Russian invasion of Ukraine

The ISW said on X, “These demands, which Vladimir Putin has often reiterated, amount to complete Ukrainian capitulation, not a sustainable peace in the interests of the US or Europe, to say nothing of Ukraine.”

These are broad points of Istanbul Protocols as reported by The New York Times for the first time in full last year:

1. Ukraine’s neutrality

Russia sought Ukraine’s neutrality. It meant that Ukraine could never join Nato and not host foreign military bases or hold military exercises with foreign countries without Russia’s approval. In a significant concession, Ukraine agreed to these demands.

2. Security guarantors

The biggest point of contention in talks was the issue of security guarantees.

Ukraine has stressed since the onset that security guarantees are a must in any peace deal and the United States should be part of those guarantees. In the talks in 2022, Russia said that it should be among security guarantors and it should be part of the decision-making process regarding security guarantees.

The idea of having the aggressor, Russia, as a security guarantor was a non-starter — like having Germany as a security guarantor for France after the German invasion of France in the World War II. Russia stressed it would hold veto power in the decisions of security guarantors.

3. The question of territory

Even though Zelenskyy maintained for much of the war that Ukraine would not cede any territory, he was much more flexible in talks in 2022.

Ukraine said that it would not attack Crimea, which Russia invaded and occupied in 2014, and would address the issue via talks. Ukraine also indicated letting Russia keep control of some territory in the east under its control. However, it agreed to both of these things without recognition of these territories as Russian.

Russia, on the other hand, demanded Ukraine to recognise Russian sovereignty over Crimea in lieu of regaining some captured territory in the east. By April, it agreed to Ukraine letting Russia keep Crimea and some territory in the east without recognition of Russian sovereignty.

4. The modalities of a ceasefire

The documents show that Russia proposed that, in case of a ceasefire, Ukrainian forces would withdraw at once whereas Russian forces would withdraw gradually over a long period of time.

5. The question of Ukrainian identity & culture

In a demand that essentially rejects Ukrainian nationhood, Russia demanded that Russian should be constitutionally declared an official language in Ukraine and formal promotion of the Ukrainian language and identity should be stopped. The demands were in line with Putin’s mentality that rejects Ukraine’s right to exist and does not recognise it as a legitimate country.

Ukraine balked at the idea and said the demands were “not related to the subject matter of the treaty”, according to The Times.

6. Limits on Ukraine’s military

Like the Treaty of Versailles that punished Germany for the World War I, Russia sought the demilitarisation of Ukraine — except that such terms were being imposed here on the victim, not the aggressor.

Russia said that Ukraine could not have a military of more than 100,000 personnel and could have a maximum of 147 mortars, 10 combat helicopters, and the range of its missiles would be limited to 25 miles.

Ukraine was willing to accept limits on its military but asked for a higher limit. It proposed to limit its troops at 250,000 people and arsenal at 1,080 mortars, 60 combat helicopters, missiles with range of up to 174 miles.