ANKARA, July 11 — The mechanics of international mediation in the Russia-Ukraine war have shifted since the early months of the conflict, with Turkey remaining a persistent intermediary while other players have entered and exited the stage at different intervals. The catch, on closer reading of the diplomatic record, is that no single track has yet produced a breakthrough. Turkey has acted as a mediator since early 2022, hosting the Istanbul talks in March 2022 and later facilitating the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which was signed on July 22, 2022.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has repeatedly offered to host further peace talks, positioning Ankara as a bridge between Moscow and Kyiv. The mechanics here rely on Turkey’s NATO membership combined with its willingness to maintain dialogue with Russia — a balancing act few other alliance members have attempted.
The summit track
Switzerland hosted the June 2024 peace summit, an event attended by 92 countries and 8 international organizations. That gathering focused on Ukraine’s peace formula, a framework Kyiv has promoted as the basis for any settlement. The broad attendance suggested significant international appetite for discussion, but the summit’s limited scope — it did not include Russia — raised questions about its path to implementation.
Saudi Arabia hosted a separate meeting in Jeddah in August 2023, bringing together over 40 countries to discuss principles for peace. That gathering cast a wider net, including nations that had maintained more neutral stances, but it too stopped short of producing a concrete roadmap.
The Chinese approach
China presented a 12-point peace proposal in February 2023 but has not mediated directly. Beijing’s document offered general principles — respect for sovereignty, cessation of hostilities, security guarantees — without specifying enforcement mechanisms. On closer reading, the proposal was notable for what it omitted: any direct criticism of Russia’s invasion or demand for territorial withdrawal.
China has positioned itself as a potential facilitator while avoiding the kind of hands-on mediation Turkey has pursued. The United Nations has supported diplomatic efforts throughout, with Secretary-General António Guterres calling for a just peace.
The UN’s role has been largely procedural, providing good offices and humanitarian coordination rather than leading negotiations.
A new dimension
Zelenskyy’s 2025 statement adds a new dimension to these mediation efforts, though the source material provides no further detail on its content or context. What is clear from the record is that the diplomatic landscape has fragmented into multiple tracks — Turkish, Saudi, Swiss, Chinese, and UN — each with different participants, formats, and degrees of ambition. Follow the strategic interests: Turkey gains leverage and trade access from its mediator role; Saudi Arabia burnishes its diplomatic credentials; China advances an alternative security narrative; Switzerland reinforces its traditional neutrality.
The proliferation of mediation tracks may actually complicate the search for a single agreement, as each host country brings its own priorities to the table. The question now is whether any of these channels can converge into a format that includes both warring parties and the key external powers.
For all the summits and proposals, the fundamental obstacle remains the same as it was in March 2022: the gap between Ukraine’s demand for territorial integrity and Russia’s territorial gains. No mediation format has yet bridged that divide.
