Started in 2022, so it's been a few years now. Any idea what that means? Different views in words, of course....
"The Istanbul Communique was a dangerously flawed attempt to force Ukraine into submission. By stripping the country of its ability to defend itself and offering no solid protection against future Russian aggression, the treaty would have exposed Ukraine to further exploitation and vulnerability. Even the few concessions, such as the prospect of EU membership, barely masked the overwhelming flaws of the agreement. Ukraine deserves a peace that guarantees its future — not a treaty that sets the stage for further subjugation. The Istanbul Communique was a dangerous fantasy, and Ukraine must continue to fight for peace that truly ensures its survival and sovereignty."One observes that 1) the Communiqué's history is years long, 2) it is a NATO document, and 3) Foreign Affairs opined that it was/is "dangerous fantasy, and Ukraine must continue to fight for peace that truly ensures its survival and sovereignty."The Istanbul Communique: A Blueprint for Ukraine's Capitulation PILPG, 17 December 2024.
"A Hidden History of Diplomacy That Came Up Short — but Holds Lessons for Future Negotiations"
The Talks That Could Have Ended the War in Ukraine Foreign Affairs, 16 April 2024.
The NATO text, if one is interested:
Istanbul Summit Communiqué NATO, 28 June 2024.
The last brings us back to Chakhoyan's final statement in the op-ed.
I rather hope that President Trump hands the mess over to the EU, to be point man in contacting and conducting the opening rounds of diplomacy, or perhaps Mark Rutte's as top dog in NATO. I don't think that will be the case, but it would be most interesting to watch.
Your urge for a modified "Istanbul Summit Communiqué" is interetsing. NATO....
I’m not urging Istanbul. But that’s the framework that President Trump’s team is working with. Ukraine’s top negotiator David Arakhamia who was heavily involved in Istanbul negotiations with Russia attended President Trump’s inauguration.