‘These were not negotiations’ — Ukraine’s deputy foreign minister on Istanbul talks with Russia in exclusive interview

When Sergiy Kyslytsya returned to Kyiv in February 2025 to take on the role of first deputy foreign minister after serving as Ukraine’s ambassador to the United Nations, he brought with him expertise essential to modern Ukrainian diplomacy.

After five years in New York and earlier experience at Ukraine’s Embassy to the U.S., Kyslytsya has developed a deep understanding of the American political landscape — a vital asset as Ukraine works to keep Washington as its key ally.

During his posting to the UN, he also regularly engaged with Russian diplomats and officials at General Assembly and Security Council meetings, studying their propaganda narratives and countering them in the ongoing fight for international support amid Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine — an equally crucial skill as Ukraine seeks to defeat Russia.

“When you go to the Security Council, you don’t just sit with (Russian Ambassador to the UN Vasily) Nebenzya or his crazy deputy — you also have (Russian Foreign Minister Sergey) Lavrov visiting, his deputies coming, and you must not only listen to these toxic, poisonous speeches but also respond to them,” Kyslytsya told the Kyiv Independent in an exclusive interview on July 7.

A career diplomat, Kyslytsya was selected by President Volodymyr Zelensky to join the Ukrainian delegation in the U.S.-initiated talks with Russia in Istanbul, Turkey, this May and June — the first direct negotiations between the two countries since 2022.

However, Kyslytsya argues that the Istanbul meetings, for the most part, couldn’t truly be called negotiations due to Russia’s rigid, ultimatum-like approach.

In the interview with the Kyiv Independent, recorded at the Foreign Ministry in Kyiv, Kyslytsya shared insights from the Istanbul talks, explained why he believes the U.S. will remain Ukraine and Europe’s key long-term ally, and spoke about Russia’s growing dependence on its remaining allies to continue the war.

Editor’s Note: This interview was edited for clarity and length.

The Kyiv Independent: At the Istanbul negotiations, the primary task of the Ukrainian delegation was to try to reach a ceasefire agreement with Russia. Was there any flexibility from Russia on this issue or did they insist on their maximalist demands?

Sergiy Kyslytsya: First of all, I insist that except for the humanitarian component, there were no negotiations in Istanbul.

Yes, we all arrived in Istanbul — the Ukrainian delegation, the Russian delegation, both delegations were in the same room, we sat opposite each other, but these were not negotiations.

This was a situation where, in the first and second Istanbul meetings, the Russian side presented their ultimatum demands. It wasn’t even a “maximalist” approach in the classical sense where you have a range of options and you aim high to get the maximum.

No — this was a dynamic where you find yourself facing Russians who came with a mandate to dictate an ultimatum. They didn’t even have a mandate to listen to your arguments and seek common ground.

Our mandate had three points: first, ceasefire; second, create conditions for a meeting between the Ukrainian president and the Kremlin dictator; and third, confidence-building measures, which included humanitarian issues, such as prisoner exchanges.

They (Russians) were categorically opposed (to the ceasefire). Both at the first and second meetings, they firmly rejected the possibility of an unconditional ceasefire before a leaders’ meeting.

In this third point, there was at least some conversation — I wouldn’t even call it negotiations, but rather a dialogue. At the first Istanbul meeting, one Russian representative told me: “I can’t leave the room empty-handed. We must at least agree on prisoner exchanges.”

The Kyiv Independent: Are there currently talks about another meeting?

Sergiy Kyslytsya: This format has practically exhausted itself if this delegation does not receive another mandate from its master — from (Russian President Vladimir) Putin.

Unlike the Ukrainian delegation, which has clear discipline but also real discussions inside the team – because within the directives set by the president, we still exchange ideas and approaches – on the Russian side, there is very rigid discipline in carrying out Putin’s mandate.

And Putin’s mandate is to force capitulation. Their logic is the opposite of ours. We say: let’s create a ceasefire as a contribution to establishing proper conditions for a leaders’ summit, to create a constructive environment that facilitates agreements.

They openly say: “No, first you accept our demands – capitulation – and only then do we organize the leaders’ meeting. And after that, you work on implementing those demands.”

The Kyiv Independent: Why does Ukraine keep insisting on a Zelensky-Putin meeting?

Sergiy Kyslytsya: Because due to the complexity, the depth of Europe’s largest war and all its consequences, in combination with Russia’s dictatorship — where everything depends on the will of one person — experts (delegations) cannot achieve breakthrough results on their own.

This, in my view, is one of the elements of Russia’s tactic: They suggest, “Let’s have our experts meet, exchange phone numbers, for them to communicate among themselves.”

We saw this before in the endless Minsk process groups. Lots of movement, people traveled, sat together, held endless meetings — but there were no results.

The same here. They bureaucratize the process so that when you say to Putin: “We should meet,” he replies: “Why? The experts are working.”

It’s also what they tell the Americans: “See, we are sitting down with the Ukrainians.”

By the way, they still refer to us as “Russians.” In the second Istanbul meeting, Medinsky said, “This is a war where Russians kill Russians.”

He sits across from you, from the Ukrainian defense minister, from the first deputy minister of defense, from all kinds of military representatives — and he says to your face: “You do not exist as a nation, as a country. This is a situation where Russians kill Russians.”

The Kyiv Independent: After a series of steps back from Washington, is there an understanding in Ukraine now that America is no longer involved in the peace process?

Sergiy Kyslytsya: Under any circumstances, the United States will remain our key partner.

This is a sine qua non — without it, Ukraine’s secure and successful existence is impossible. Because of the role that the U.S. plays and will continue to play in the coming years. Even if they reduce or suspend aid, or pull out of some diplomatic processes related to negotiations, they will remain fundamentally involved.

Even if ultimately — and I think this is the right trajectory — Europeans take on greater responsibility for their own security, in the foreseeable future, despite all the political hype in America, the U.S. will remain Europe’s key ally.

Therefore, it is the duty of every Ukrainian official to find ways to maintain and strengthen our partnership with the U.S., and to develop it.

The Kyiv Independent: Regardless of whether the U.S. will position itself as an ally of Europe or Ukraine?

Sergiy Kyslytsya: The United States, for at least the last 100 years, has gone through cycles of more isolationist approaches.

This happened before World War II, in the 60s and 70s after the Vietnam War, when growing pacifism influenced defense doctrines and security policies.

But then in the 1980s, the U.S. and the U.K. became the driving force behind revising security and defense policies.

Thanks to that shift, the socialist camp in Central and Eastern Europe cracked and then collapsed, followed by the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

It’s a very simplified analogy, but if we look at what is happening today, we see a lot of repetition — a similar cycle.

Because now there is talk of rearming Europe, producing large quantities not only of shells but of entire weapons systems. The entire military-industrial complex on both sides of the ocean will work at new levels of capacity.

But you can’t compare Russia’s economic power even to that of the Soviet Union.

I welcome the fact that most European leaders realized they need to step out of their comfort zone.

Maybe it’s not a pacifist zone like it was in the 60s–70s, but it is a zone of hedonism and sybaritism.

They must decide to leave this comfort zone and explain to their voters that the biblical right to a vacation can only be realized if your vacation is protected by air defense systems, if your companies produce enough ammunition, if modern drones fly over European skies, if electronic warfare systems work, if you don’t just have weapons in storage but also people capable of using them.

Even though we now see positive dynamics in Europe, it is incredibly slow, and there is a lot of frustration in Ukraine because of this.

It’s slow, but also, in my opinion, in some countries, it hasn’t yet reached a deep enough level to become irreversible.

The Kyiv Independent: Do you think it will get to an irreversible point in the future?

Sergiy Kyslytsya: To change this trend, you need not only an external threat — which most responsible politicians in Europe now recognize exists — but also national leaders willing to stand in front of their voters and not feed them political fast food, but tell them the truth.

Unfortunately, even before the (full-scale) war, in my opinion, Europe — especially within the EU — at some stage lost politicians of a pan-European scale with a visionary understanding of where Europe should go.

The Kyiv Independent: Today, in your opinion, are there such leaders in Europe?

Sergiy Kyslytsya: I am very inspired by (German) Chancellor (Friedrich) Merz’s statements, for example.

I am inspired by the U.K.’s position, which has been consistent. I also believe there is a very healthy situation in the Baltic and Scandinavian countries.

Of course, like in any true democratic society, there is active political competition from different parts of the spectrum. But when it comes to Ukraine, they have cross-party agreement — if not full consensus, at least a clear understanding of the need to support Ukraine.

The Kyiv Independent: When we talk about Europe moving to a new level of leadership, what else does Europe need to do, besides serious rearmament, to become that global leader?

Sergiy Kyslytsya: Well, I don’t want to sound like a mentor to Europe — that wouldn’t be appropriate.

But Europe needs to understand that today and in the near future, there is only one army in Europe capable of defending Europe. That army is the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

So they should accept this and make the most of the fact that Ukrainian soldiers and officers can protect Europe.

The Kyiv Independent: Is Ukraine doing everything possible to convey the urgency to Europe?

Sergiy Kyslytsya: There is no limit to improvement. A lot is being done.

But to move along a progressive trajectory, you need resources, desire, and intelligence. (Diplomacy) also requires creativity, but creativity can’t replace the need for deep knowledge.

Take America as an example.

In my deep conviction, not only Ukrainians but also many Europeans have lived for decades with quite stereotypical and rosy ideas about what the U.S. is. Part of these ideas came from American pop culture. Part was simply due to a lack of knowledge of U.S. history.

It was only in recent years that President (Zelensky) set the task of developing Ukraine’s cooperation with U.S. regions. After he visited Utah, it was systematically decided to develop relationships not just with Manhattan or D.C., but with the regions.

But you need an enormous resource to “cover” every Colorado or Oklahoma. But it’s precisely the Midwest that elects the political leadership.

That is why it is the duty of Ukrainian diplomacy to find a way to explain to tens of millions of Americans why America will not be great if Ukraine falls.

In exactly that formula. Because you won’t reach the American heart by just talking about Ukraine’s importance.

Americans, who are brought up as patriots from childhood, need to be explained why, in their view, the greatest, strongest, most exceptional America can only remain that way if Ukraine is free.

The Kyiv Independent: Could you explain to our audience why you think so? Why, if Ukraine isn’t free, America can’t be great?

Sergiy Kyslytsya: Achieving the MAGA goal is impossible if, under the current administration, Russia defeats Ukraine. It would be an incredible blow to the reputation of the U.S. as the strongest country in the world. It’s that simple.

Arguments like “Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe,” “Ukraine is in the center of Europe,” “Ukraine has a long history,” “We have the best of this and that” — these do not resonate with Americans.

They have a completely different psychology. They are a huge country psychologically. They are moved by everything that confirms their exceptionalism and makes them feel even greater.

Ukraine’s victory with U.S. help would solidify each American’s sense that they are not losers.

Because one of the greatest taboos for any American, in any aspect of life, is to be seen as a loser.

The Kyiv Independent: Speaking of U.S. diplomacy, Politico published a widely discussed article, in which multiple American and Ukrainian officials criticized Zelensky’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, for his poor diplomatic skills and knowledge in talks with the Americans. Do you think Yermak’s involvement in negotiations with the U.S. is appropriate?

Sergiy Kyslytsya: I believe that this is a purely provocative publication aimed at stirring things up.

His role is critical. Because if you look at how structures work in most European and North American countries, you’ll see that there are National Security Advisors or key presidential advisers who do not replace the role of foreign ministers but perform key functions next to presidents or prime ministers.

So ministers talk to ministers, but Andriy Borysovych (Yermak) is in that very narrow circle of key presidential advisers.

And if someone thinks anyone is perfect in this world, that’s not true.

The Kyiv Independent: Looking ahead to the rest of this year, what would be a significant but realistic diplomatic achievement for Ukraine?

Sergiy Kyslytsya: Preserving the unity and resolve of all our transatlantic partners during this critical moment of our struggle for independence and freedom.

And it’s not empty words or slogans — it’s a reality. You just need to internalize how important it is.

Because Russia’s propaganda machine and its henchmen work powerfully.

At the same time, I would add that in my opinion, as a result of this aggressive war, Russia has largely lost its sovereignty.

Russia has found itself, due to its leader’s reckless actions, in relationships with certain global players without whose support it wouldn’t survive — not only in this war but even as a functioning state.

Today, Russia is perhaps more vulnerable than ever in its history.

It had to sacrifice part of its sovereignty to get economic and political support from actors who were never historically natural partners of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, or the Russian Federation.

Note from the author:

Hi! This is Toma Istomina, deputy chief editor. The week I worked on this piece, not a single day passed without a Russian overnight attack on Ukraine. One day brought a record-setting assault in terms of the number of weapons used. Another day, we lived through what felt like the loudest and most intense attack on Kyiv since 2022. Reporting from Kyiv comes with many challenges — constant stress, little sleep — but despite it all, we choose to stay here to bring you the truth about Russia’s brutal war. And we couldn’t do this without the support of our amazing community. Please consider becoming a member of the Kyiv Independent’s 20,000-strong community to help keep our journalism going.