The Istanbul Communique: A Blueprint for Ukraine's Capitulation
Authors: Sindija Beta, Katie Hetherington, and Paul R. Williams
The Istanbul Communique, an early and ambitious attempt to negotiate peace between Ukraine and Russia, has often been portrayed as a promising step toward ending a devastating conflict. Drafted in Istanbul, Turkey, during March and April 2022, the treaty aimed to halt hostilities soon after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. However, a closer analysis reveals that the agreement would have been disastrous for Ukraine. It left the country vulnerable to future Russian aggression and offered no foundation for lasting peace. The Communique’s key provisions on neutrality, military constraints, and security guarantees amounted to little more than a blueprint for Ukraine’s capitulation.
Neutrality: A Dangerous Gamble
A cornerstone of the Istanbul Communique was the establishment of Ukraine as a permanently neutral state. This neutrality, enshrined in the constitution, would have barred Ukraine from joining military alliances, hosting foreign bases or weapons, or engaging in activities that might compromise its neutral status. At face value, neutrality might seem like a pathway to de-escalation, but in reality, it would have stripped Ukraine of the very means it needed to defend itself against further aggression.
Neutrality is an untenable proposition for a nation sharing a border with an aggressive and expansionist power like Russia. This provision would have stripped Ukraine of its ability to seek military assistance from international partners, severely limiting its defense options in the event of another invasion. In a world where territorial integrity is constantly at risk, neutrality would have only invited further Russian encroachment, leaving Ukraine without the support of allies for protection.
Given Russia's demonstrated disregard for international norms and its pattern of invading neighboring countries, a policy of neutrality would have left Ukraine exposed to continuous threats. It would have denied Ukraine the ability to bolster its defenses or seek support from NATO or other military alliances. Far from fostering peace, the notion of neutrality undermined Ukraine's security and signaled that aggression could be rewarded through diplomatic concessions. Rather than safeguarding Ukraine’s sovereignty, this provision would have left the country vulnerable to future exploitation by its far larger neighbor.
Security Guarantees: Promises Without Guarantees
The Communique’s proposed security framework revolved around guarantees from a group of Guarantor States, including the United Kingdom, China, the United States, France, and Russia. Additional guarantors were suggested, such as Belarus (proposed by Russia) and Turkey (proposed by Ukraine). At its core, the framework aimed to provide a safety net should Ukraine face renewed aggression, yet these guarantees were riddled with flaws.
The draft treaty required the Guarantor States to engage in consultations if Ukraine were attacked. While military assistance was a possible outcome, it was neither automatic nor guaranteed. Unlike NATO’s Article 5, which obligates member states to collective defense, the Istanbul Communique provided no binding mechanisms to ensure a swift and unified response. This reliance on consultations left Ukraine’s security dependent on the alignment of interests among the Guarantor States.
The draft treaty also failed to resolve whether unanimous consensus among all Guarantor States, including Russia, would be required to activate any assistance. If adopted in a final peace agreement, this provision would replicate the dysfunctional decision-making model of the United Nations Security Council’s veto system. It is unthinkable to design security guarantees that give veto power to the very aggressor responsible for initiating the war.
Military Constraints: Ukraine on a Silver Platter
Russia’s demand that Ukraine drastically reduce its military would have amounted to a catastrophic surrender of Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. Without solid, unconditional security guarantees, these constraints would have left Ukraine defenseless against future Russian aggression, effectively handing the country over to an emboldened Russia.
Stripping Ukraine of its military capabilities in a region marked by fragile security and constant threats to territorial integrity would have invited further invasions. Ukraine’s recent resilience against Russian aggression has demonstrated that a strong, modernized military is indispensable for its survival.
Unresolved Issues: Just Peace?
Beyond its provisions on neutrality, military reductions, and security guarantees, the Istanbul Communique left numerous critical issues unresolved. Chief among these was the lack of a clear mechanism for the return of prisoners of war and civilians, including children. While the treaty called for their return, it provided no specific details on how this would be accomplished—an alarming omission given the global outcry over the abduction of thousands of Ukrainian children. This failure would only prolong the suffering of families, perpetuate grave human rights violations, and undermine any hopes for a genuine and just peace.
Moreover, Russia’s demands—such as lifting sanctions, terminating legal cases against Russia, and recognizing Russian as an official language in Ukraine—constituted a blatant infringement on Ukraine’s sovereignty. Accepting these terms would have been tantamount to capitulation, undermining Ukraine’s independence and its international legal rights.
Few Wins for Ukraine
It is worth noting that the treaty did contain a few positive aspects. One notable success was the acceptance of Ukraine’s EU membership. Additionally, Russia did not object to Ukraine’s participation in peacekeeping missions under international frameworks such as the UN, OSCE, or EU. This provision preserved Ukraine’s connection to European institutions and represented a small but meaningful concession from Russia.
The Communique also proposed a procedure for a ceasefire and a monitored troop withdrawal. Russia agreed to withdraw its forces to their permanent deployment positions, with implementation supervised by a joint commission comprising Russian, Ukrainian, and potentially UN representatives. Although the exact timeline for withdrawal was left to future consultations, the inclusion of this framework suggested a step toward de-escalating the conflict and pursuing a peaceful resolution.
Conclusion
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.