Sabotaged Peace: How the West Torpedoed the recent Istanbul Peace Talks

The Istanbul Ceasefire That Wasn’t

Introduction: The Istanbul Ceasefire That Wasn’t

On June 2, 2025, Russia and Ukraine sat down in Istanbul for what was supposed to be a breakthrough in a war now grinding through its third horrific year. Instead, the much-hyped “peace talks” collapsed almost as soon as they began, lasting barely over an hour (themoscowtimes.com). There were no dramatic handshake moments – in fact, not even a handshake at all (globaltimes.cn). But there was plenty of drama outside the negotiating hall: on the eve of talks, Ukraine launched its largest drone offensive of the war deep into Russia, and Moscow unleashed a flurry of missile strikes hours before delegates met (independent.co.uk). Western officials and media were quick to frame the fiasco as yet another case of Russian intransigence or President Vladimir Putin’s bad faith (abcnews.go.com, bbc.com). But a closer look at what really went down in Istanbul – and what led up to it – tells a far more cynical story. This is a story of geopolitical deception, calculated provocations, and media myth-making, in which NATO and its allies seem to prefer a forever war over any peace that leaves Russia with a shred of satisfaction.

Make no mistake: what happened in Istanbul was not a good-faith failure or an unforeseeable collapse – it was sabotage. And not by the Kremlin, as our enlightened Western commentariat might insist, but by those very Western actors who claim to champion peace while doing everything to prevent it. In this deep-dive investigative account, I will dissect how the June 2 Istanbul peace talks were torpedoed and examine the events and context that turned a potential ceasefire into a charade. From the broken promises of past agreements that shaped Russia’s hardened stance, to Ukraine’s stunning drone blitz codenamed “Operation Spider’s Web” timed to blow up (literally) any goodwill, to the quiet connivance of NATO-side leaders pushing for escalation, I will challenge the dominant NATO/U.S./EU narrative at every turn. If you’ve been fed the standard Western media line about an “unprovoked” war and the virtuous pursuit of peace, buckle up – it’s time for a radically different reading of how we got here.

Istanbul Peace Talks: A Last Chance Derailed

Delegations from Russia and Ukraine meet in Istanbul on June 2, 2025, under Turkish mediation. The second round of peace talks collapsed in just over an hour amid mutual mistrust and heightened tensions (themoscowtimes.com, globaltimes.cn).

The setting was the Ciragan Palace on the Bosphorus, Istanbul’s historic Ottoman-era venue chosen to host the second round of direct Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations (themoscowtimes.com). The cast of characters seemed promising on paper: Russia’s delegation was led by Vladimir Medinsky – the same Kremlin aide who had headed the ill-fated 2022 talks – while Ukraine’s team was fronted by Rustem Umerov, Kyiv’s defense minister (themoscowtimes.com). Senior Turkish officials, including Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, sat between them as facilitators (themoscowtimes.com). Even Western powers were hovering nearby; President Donald Trump’s special envoy Keith Kellogg and security advisors from Britain, France, and Germany were reportedly in town, poised to “assist” in merging proposals into a single peace roadmap (themoscowtimes.com). In theory, everyone who needed to be there for peace was present.

Yet from the first moments, it was clear these talks were on life support. There were no handshakes across the horseshoe-shaped table (globaltimes.cn). Half of the Ukrainian delegation pointedly wore military fatigues, underscoring the entrenched enmity, they even spoke to the Russians through an interpreter, “hinting” at the hostility despite many being fluent in Russian (globaltimes.cn). After barely an hour of going through the motions, the meeting broke up with little to show beyond a vague promise to work on another prisoner swap. A thousand POWs had been exchanged in the first negotiation round two weeks prior (themoscowtimes.com), and now President Volodymyr Zelenskyy could only announce that both sides would “work on” another exchange (aljazeera.com). A humanitarian gesture, perhaps, but hardly the “full and unconditional ceasefire” Ukraine said it wanted (abcnews.go.com). The real issues – an actual ceasefire, territorial questions, security guarantees – remained stuck in stalemate. Why?

Ukraine’s account was predictable: they blamed Moscow for rejecting a ceasefire “unconditionally” and clinging to “maximalist war goals” (aljazeera.com, abcnews.go.com). Indeed, Kyiv’s memorandum heading into talks centered on a 30-day ceasefire, full POW release, return of deported children, and even a possible Zelenskyy-Putin summit (themoscowtimes.com). Russia, however, had shown no intention of agreeing to a pause that didn’t address its core demands. According to reports from the prior May 16 round, the Kremlin’s draft (not shared publicly) likely insisted on recognizing the new status quo – including Russian control of four eastern regions and a permanent bar on Ukraine joining NATO (abcnews.go.com). In May, Russian negotiators had bluntly demanded Ukrainian forces withdraw from those occupied eastern territories, even threatening to capture additional regions like Kharkiv and Sumy if negotiations failed (themoscowtimes.com). In other words, Putin’s team arrived in Istanbul not as repentant doves but as hard-nosed bargainers determined to secure the fruits of war.

From Moscow’s perspective, “peace” could only be conditional – requiring concrete concessions from Ukraine – whereas Kyiv (backed vocally by the West) kept insisting on a “full, unconditional ceasefire” as a starting point )globaltimes.cn). As Chinese observers drily noted, this gap between Russia’s idea of a “conditional peace” and Ukraine’s push for an unconditional halt in fighting was “wide” and seemingly unbridgeable (globaltimes.cn). Little wonder then that the June 2 meeting, which started late after unexplained delays (themoscowtimes.com), ended with no joint statement, no ceasefire deal, and no roadmap to end the war (themoscowtimes.com). Even U.S. President Trump’s much-trumpeted mediation was hitting a wall. His envoy Kellogg admitted the next phase would involve painstakingly trying to merge the starkly different Russian and Ukrainian proposals into one document (themoscowtimes.com) – a diplomatic mission from hell, essentially.

So was it just “Russia says tomato, Ukraine says tomahto,” and never the twain shall meet? The mainstream narrative would have us believe that: Russia simply won’t stop fighting, Putin doesn’t want peace. But this glib explanation ignores why Russia was stonewalling on a ceasefire, and what had happened in the 24 hours before Istanbul that doomed any goodwill. The truth is that by the time the delegates sat down, the atmosphere was purposefully poisoned. To understand that, we need to rewind and examine the betrayal-fueled calculus driving Moscow’s stance – and the deliberate provocation Ukraine (with some Western cheering) launched on the eve of the talks.

Russia’s Stance: Broken Promises and Hard Lessons of Minsk

Why was Moscow so resistant to an “unconditional” ceasefire, instead dangling only a conditional peace? The answer lies partly in history – specifically, the bitter history of the Minsk agreements of 2014–2015. Those ceasefire accords, brokered by France and Germany in the Belarus capital, were supposed to end the Donbas conflict between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists. Instead in Russian eyes, Minsk I and II became bywords for duplicity and betrayal. President Putin and his circle internalized a painful lesson: Western promises and Ukrainian signatures aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

It’s not Russian paranoia – Western leaders have openly admitted as much. Take former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, one of Minsk’s original architects. In a December 2022 interview that landed like a bombshell in Moscow, Merkel casually revealed that the 2014 Minsk deal was “an attempt to give Ukraine time” – time to build up its defenses against Russia (reuters.com). Ukraine, she noted, “used this time to become stronger” (reuters.com).

And former French President François Hollande discussed the intent behind the Minsk Agreements in a December 2022 interview with (The Kyiv Independent). He stated that the agreements "stopped the Russian offensive for a while" and allowed Ukraine to strengthen its military capabilities. Hollande concurred with former German Chancellor Angela Merkel's earlier remarks that the agreements provided Ukraine with valuable time to become stronger.

Additionally, in an interview released in April 2023, Hollande was duped by Russian pranksters posing as former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. During this conversation, he acknowledged that France and Germany aimed to buy time for Ukraine to recover and bolster its resources through the Minsk Agreements.

Translation: Minsk was less a peace plan than a stalling tactic, a Western-backed ploy to arm Ukraine to the teeth for a future showdown. Little surprise Putin said he felt “betrayed” and “disappointed” by Merkel’s confession (reuters.com).

They were was not alone. Petro Poroshenko, who was Ukraine’s president when Minsk II was signed in 2015, later boasted that the accords achieved their real aim – buying time. It was “critically necessary to take the time to build the effective Ukrainian Armed Forces,” Poroshenko said, “so as to substantially increase the cost” to Russia of any future invasion (ukrinform.netukrinform.net). This starkly contradicts the Western media’s portrayal of Minsk as a good-faith peace effort thwarted solely by Russian “bad behavior.” In fact, both Merkel and Poroshenko confirm what Kremlin insiders long suspected: that the West’s plan was to delay and rearm, not to deliver a lasting settlement (reuters.com).

By late 2021, Moscow saw the writing on the wall – Minsk was dead, and NATO’s shadow loomed ever larger over Ukraine. Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov bluntly stated in December 2022 that the failure to implement Minsk, and Russia’s realization over time that it had been “deceived”, was precisely “the precursor to the special military operation” launched in February 2022 (reuters.com, reuters.com). In other words, Russia went to war because its peaceful avenues were sabotaged. The Kremlin had spent 8 years watching Kyiv stonewall the political provisions of Minsk (such as autonomy for Donbas) while the U.S. and NATO pumped weapons into Ukraine’s army. The loss of trust was total. Why agree to another ceasefire now, Russian officials argue, when the last one was a trap? Putin himself quipped that any future Ukraine deal would be tough after this “loss of trust in the West”, given how partners “cheated in the past” (reuters.com).

This context is crucial for understanding Russia’s hard line in Istanbul. When Ukrainian negotiators pushed their plea for an immediate 30-day ceasefire, the Russians smelt a Minsk 3.0 trap – just another pause for Ukraine to regroup and for NATO to slip in more arms under the table. Putin’s government was insisting that any ceasefire be tied to addressing what it calls the war’s root causes (peacediplomacy.org). What are those? In Putin’s view: Ukrainian neutrality, recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea and other annexed areas, and guarantees that Ukraine will never join NATO (abcnews.go.com). Lofty as these demands are, they did not emerge in a vacuum. They are rooted in Russia’s perception of NATO’s broken promises and encirclement strategies since the Cold War’s end.

Western readers are rarely reminded of this, but once upon a time in 1990, U.S. and German officials told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would move “not one inch eastward” if Moscow allowed German reunification. We now know from declassified documents that this promise was indeed made, and then promptly trashed by the Clinton and Bush administrations (commondreams.org). By 2008, William Burns then U.S. Ambassador and later CIA Director under Biden, was warning Washington that pushing Ukraine into NATO would hit a “raw nerve” in Moscow and could “split the country in two, leading to violence or even…civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” That 2008 cable, titled “Nyet Means Nyet”, eerily foreshadowed exactly what happened in 2014 and 2022 (businessinsider.com). Yet NATO kept expanding, and from 2014 onward the U.S. began openly integrating Ukraine into its military orbit – sending arms, trainers, and holding joint exercises on Russia’s doorstep (commondreams.org).

This history matters. Putin’s oft-repeated rationale – that his invasion was provoked by NATO’s continual enlargement and the West’s role in the 2014 Ukrainian upheaval – is routinely dismissed in Western media as an “excuse” or “disinformation” (euvsdisinfo.eu, other-news.info). But as veteran U.S. diplomat Chas Freeman (whom I interviewed) put it, “We made an enemy of Russia. If Russia is behaving as an enemy, we ourselves have a lot to do with that.” Even Noam Chomsky (here my interview with him), a fierce critic of Putin, emphasizes that NATO expansion was a key missing context in mainstream coverage: “This history must be disentangled… It should be clear that the (Russian) invasion of Ukraine has no justification. But it was provoked”(commondreams.org). As Chomsky wryly noted, if it truly were “unprovoked,” officials wouldn’t constantly need to label it “the unprovoked invasion” in virtual lockstep.

All of this to say: by mid-2025, the Kremlin’s position was hardened by years of perceived Western perfidy. They were not about to grant an “unconditional” ceasefire that did nothing to resolve Russia’s security grievances. Russian negotiators in Istanbul reportedly demanded an initial Ukrainian withdrawal from contested regions – essentially, you pull back your troops, we stop shooting (themoscowtimes.com). From Moscow’s perspective, that was elementary reciprocity. From Kyiv’s perspective, it was an outrageous non-starter that would validate Putin’s conquests. Deadlock ensued.

However, a deadlock on paper might still have been managed with time, diplomacy, and trust-building measures – if both sides truly wanted to make it work. But someone blew up the path to peace before it even began. On June 1, barely 24 hours before Istanbul’s talks, Ukraine launched a massive surprise attack deep into Russia, striking at the heart of Moscow’s strategic bomber fleet. It’s to that fateful operation – and its sinister timing – that we turn next.

Operation “Spider’s Web”: Kyiv’s Drone Offensive Sabotages the Eve

Just as negotiators were packing their bags for Istanbul, Ukraine’s security services were readying bombs on trucks that had headed deep into Russia. In the early hours of Sunday, June 1, Ukraine carried out what can only be described as a long-range drone blitz across multiple Russian airbases. Code-named “Operation Spider’s Web”, this offensive was unprecedented: a coordinated strike using over a hundred drones to hit strategic bomber aircraft literally thousands of kilometers from Ukrainian soil. President Zelenskyy exulted that it was Ukraine’s “longest-range operation” to date – a feat of ingenuity and audacity 18 months in the making (reuters.com, bbc.com, independent.co.uk).

The ingenuity was indeed impressive. According to a detailed account by Reuters, Ukraine’s SBU intelligence agents hid explosive-laden drones in the roofs of wooden sheds, then loaded those sheds onto trucks and drove them near the targeted Russian bases. At the right moment, a remote mechanism flipped open the shed roofs, and the drones took off toward their prey. The results were spectacular, at least by Ukraine’s own estimates. Drones swarmed at least four major airfields (from Siberia’s Irkutsk region to Saratov and Ryazan), catching Russian air defenses flat-footed. The SBU claimed 41 Russian warplanes were hit, including Tu-95 “Bear” strategic bombers and Tu-22M3 long-range bombers. Videos posted online showed the hulking bombers engulfed in flames on their tarmacs – a startling sight, given these bases were thought safe in Russia’s far interior (reuters.com, bbc.com, independent.co.uk).

Kyiv was triumphant. Zelenskyy crowed about the “absolutely brilliant outcome” and shared previously secret details once the strike was done. “In total, 117 drones were used,” he announced proudly, hitting “34% of [Russia’s] strategic cruise missile carriers” – i.e. roughly a third of Putin’s bomber fleet wiped out or damaged. The head of Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation gushed that at least 13 bombers were confirmed destroyed. Dramatically, Zelenskyy even revealed that the whole operation had been run from an office right next to an FSB (Russian intelligence) headquarters in Russia – suggesting how deeply Ukraine had penetrated Russian territory under the nose of Putin’s spies. In Kyiv, this daring strike was framed as a historic act of national genius. “This will go in the history books,”Zelenskyy declared of the attack on Putin’s warplanes (independent.co.uk, bbc.com, news.sky.com).

But in Moscow, you can imagine the reaction: shock, rage, and a sense of betrayal at the worst possible time. The Russian Defense Ministry acknowledged drone attacks in at least five regions, denouncing them as a “terrorist act” by Ukraine. Putin, according to Kremlin watchers, was “infuriated” by the humiliation. After all, these strategic bombers weren’t just any military hardware – they were the same planes Russia uses to launch cruise missile barrages at Ukraine’s power grid and cities. For them to be gutted on the ground was a major blow. And crucially, this strike came one day before Russia was supposed to negotiate peace terms. The timing could not have been more provocative if it tried.

Even Western media could not ignore the elephant in the room: Kyiv chose to launch this massive offensive on the eve of peace talks. As The Moscow Times noted, Zelenskyy only confirmed Ukraine’s attendance at the Istanbul talks after“Operation Spider’s Web” was completed successfully. It was as if the Ukrainian side wanted to land one last punch before entering the ring. And punch they did. Ukraine’s former UK-supplied foreign secretary (and avid war-booster) James Cleverly openly cheered the drone blitz, crowing that it showed Ukraine “WILL NOT GIVE UP!” – an unsubtle message that military action, not compromise, was the order of the day. The Britishwere hardly alone in applauding. Western pundits called the strike “daring” and “audacious,” treating it almost like a sporting upset rather than a deliberate escalation on the eve of diplomacy (news.sky.com, bbc.com, independent.co.uk, themoscowtimes.com).

To be clear, from a military perspective Ukraine had its reasons. Those Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers had been hammering Ukrainian infrastructure for months; taking a chunk of them out is a tactical win that could save Ukrainian lives in the long run. But doing it right before ceasefire talks suggests a different calculus – one aimed at sabotaging the peace momentum. Think about it: if you genuinely want your enemy to agree to a ceasefire tomorrow, is it wise to burn dozens of their prized warplanes today? Common sense says no – you’d hold off major attacks to build trust. Unless, of course, you or your patrons don’t actually want the peace talks to succeed.

And this is where the whiff of Western complicity in the timing becomes hard to ignore. It stretches credulity to imagine that Ukraine’s security service undertook a year-and-a-half-long operation, involving satellites, long-range drones, and likely significant intelligence support, without the knowledge or blessing of its NATO partners. Zelenskyy himself insisted the attack was “produced by Ukraine independently” (reuters.com), eager to dispel the notion of direct NATO involvement. But one has to ask: would Kyiv risk derailing U.S.-brokered negotiations (Trump’s team was literally brokering these talks) without at least a wink and nod from hawks in Washington or London? Ukraine’s leadership is brave, yes, but not suicidal – they know their lifeline is Western aid. It’s far more plausible that some Western actors tacitly encouraged a hard hit on Russia’s capabilities to weaken Moscow’s position at the talks, or even to provoke a collapse of the ceasefire initiative entirely.

Sound conspiratorial? Consider the evidence of Western hands guiding Ukraine’s war moves. Leaked documents reviewed by investigative journalists have exposed secret British military-intelligence cells working inside Ukraine to plan operations that “keep Ukraine fighting at all costs”. One such cell, code-named “Project Alchemy”under the UK Ministry of Defence, literally developed blueprints for a major Ukrainian assault (the failed October 2023 Krynky river crossing in Kherson) that led to a bloodbath for Ukrainian marines. The UK’s role was so direct that Ukrainian soldiers had been training in Britain for it, under UK generals’ gaze. The leaked files showed that British planners were willing to send Ukrainians into “disastrous” operations in order to chase some mirage of total victory – or at least to not allow any pause in fighting that might lead to pressure for talks. In the Krynky case, dozens of Ukrainians died in a doomed offensive to “turn the tide” (they didn’t; it was a slaughter). The pattern is clear: elements in the West (especially London) have been egging Ukraine on to escalate, regardless of the cost in blood, because a prolonged war “at all costs” suits their strategic aims (thegrayzone.com).

Now apply that pattern to Istanbul. Is it so far-fetched that those who wanted to “keep Ukraine fighting” might have urged Zelenskyy’s team to deliver a heavy strike on Russia’s homeland as a show of strength and a means to scuttle any soft compromise? After all, nothing galvanizes hardline positions like a fresh wound. Sure enough, Putin’s government reacted to the drone onslaught not by suddenly offering concessions at Istanbul, but by retaliating. Within hours on Sunday night, as Western journalists noted with some glee, “Moscow pounded Ukraine with missiles and drones just hours before” the peace talks began. Putin was essentially baited into a violent response – precisely the kind of spiral that obliterates the trust needed for fruitful negotiations. Western media narratives then spun this as Russia undermining the talks (“Putin launches retaliatory strikes just hours before meeting,” blared headlines), conveniently glossing over the fact that Russia was retaliating to an Ukrainian attack that Western officials likely green-lit. We witnessed a one-two punch of provocation and propaganda: Ukraine strikes, Russia hits back angrily, and the Western establishment shrugs, saying “See? The Russians aren’t serious about peace.” Game, set, match – peace talk torpedoed (independent.co.uk).

The Instigators: Who Really Sabotaged the Ceasefire?

So, cui bono – who benefits from blowing up a potential peace deal? Let’s examine the usual suspects. First, there’s the Ukrainian leadership itself. One might ask, why would Zelenskyy’s government risk sabotaging negotiations that could spare their country further bloodshed? The uncomfortable truth is that by mid-2025, Kyiv was under immense pressure from its most hardline factions and Western backers not to settle for anything less than a total Russian defeat. Any ceasefire seen as freezing front lines (with Russia still occupying territory) or rewarding Moscow’s aggression could be political suicide for Zelenskyy – unless sweetened by absolute security guarantees from the West, which were not forthcoming (peacediplomacy.org). Ukrainian officials repeatedly insisted they would not countenance partition or appeasement; indeed Zelensky’s own 10-point peace “formula” essentially demands Russia’s unconditional withdrawal and war reparations, terms no realist expected Putin to accept. In this maximalist climate, launching a daring offensive like Operation Spider’s Web may have been seen by Kyiv as a way to force the issue: to show Russia that Ukraine can strike anywhere, thereby perhaps shocking Moscow into concessions. Alternatively – and more cynically – it could have been intended to make the talks fail and justify a continued fight.

But Ukraine’s agency only goes so far. Ultimately, NATO is the wind beneath Kyiv’s wings, financially and militarily. And within the NATO camp, there were stark divisions about Trump’s peace push. Which brings us to the second and more decisive group of suspects: Western political leaders who had no intention of allowing Trump (or anyone, for that matter) to clinch a peace that might be seen as favorable to Russia.

Start with the European heads of state. Publicly, figures like Germany’s Olaf Scholz (by 2025 replaced by a more hawkish Chancellor Friedrich Merz), France’s Emmanuel Macron, Britain’s Rishi Sunak (then ousted by Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer), and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni all mouthed support for “peace” – but on terms completely unacceptable to Moscow. Over the preceding year, each of these leaders had in fact doubled down on war. Germany and France ramped up heavy arms deliveries to Ukraine and spearheaded an EU commitment to “European rearmament”, painting Russia as an existential threat to the continent. Britain, ever the hyper-hawk, went so far as to entertain sending British troops to Ukraine, according to Starmer’s own musings – a brazenly escalatory idea that underscores London’s staunch opposition to any outcome seen as a Kremlin win (peacediplomacy.org). As for Italy’s Meloni, despite leading a country historically more dovish on Russia, she toed the NATO line faithfully, keen to shake off any suspicions that her right-wing coalition might go soft. Their incentives? Arms industry profits, domestic politics, and U.S. pressure.

The incentives are key to unmasking their duplicity. Let’s talk money first. The war has been a bonanza for Western arms manufacturers, and Europe’s leaders know it. Europe’s defense contractors saw record profits and stock surges in anticipation that the war (and resulting defense spending) will drag on. Britain’s biggest weapons maker, BAE Systems, doubled its stock price and topped £3 billion in profits for the first time in 2024. Germany’s Rheinmetall, France’s Thales, Italy’s Leonardo – all have enjoyed massive growth as orders boom (theguardian.com). Nothing greases the political wheels in the West quite like the military-industrial complex, and a “hot” conflict in Ukraine means big budgets and big contracts for European firms (not to mention U.S. giants like Lockheed Martin). It’s cynical but true: peace is bad for business in this sector. A ceasefire might stop the gravy train of EU-funded arms packages and force these leaders to explain to their publics why they spent billions only to freeze the war with Russia still holding land.

Then there’s electoral optics. By 2025, supporting Ukraine unequivocally had become a litmus test of European politicians’ loyalty to the post-WWII liberal order (or as critics call it, the U.S.-led order). No leader wanted to be tagged as the one who “sold out” Ukraine or appeased Putin. This is partly genuine moral stance, but partly fear of domestic opponents painting them as weak. For example, Germany’s Scholz was hammered early in the war for hesitating on sending tanks; he eventually over-compensated by becoming one of Ukraine’s top arms suppliers. France’s Macron, after some early talk of not “humiliating” Russia, also fell in line, supplying long-range missiles and pushing EU allies to do more. In the UK, the Labour government of Starmer was, if anything, more gung-ho than its predecessors – Starmer proudly hosted a summit with Zelenskyy and 18 other European leaders in London, declaring Europe was “at a crossroads in history” and must redouble support for Ukraine (theguardian.com). Each leader faced different domestic pressures, but none had a political incentive to champion a compromise peace. They had more to gain by appearing tough – and if that meant peace talks failing, so be it.

Finally, U.S. pressure cannot be understated. Although Trump was (at least superficially) pushing this Istanbul track, significant parts of the U.S. foreign policy establishment were deeply uneasy with any Trump-driven peace that might undercut their long-term goal of weakening Russia. The Pentagon and State Department hawks had spent years arming Ukraine and laying plans to integrate it with the West; they were not about to let all that effort end with a frozen conflict that left Russian troops in place. One telltale sign: even as Trump publicly advocated a deal, his own administration kept ramping up sanctions and military aid as leverage on Putin. Trump’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, dutifully told Lavrov that the U.S. wanted “continued direct talks” – but Trump also threatened harsher measures if Russia didn’t budge (abcnews.go.com). Carrot and stick, perhaps. Yet to the Kremlin that looked like the same old double game: talk peace, but keep sending weapons (the U.S. and Europe were still dispatching advanced arms to Ukraine’s forces even during the ceasefire discussions). It would not be surprising if some within NATO quietly communicated to Kyiv that now is not the time to relent. After all, a genuine truce could freeze NATO’s plans to eventually expand into Ukraine or at least turn it into a heavily armed “porcupine” state on Russia’s border (peacediplomacy.org).

In fact, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov outright accused a “handful of European politicians” of “deliberately sabotaging peace efforts” and pushing Ukraine into “reckless military action” to undermine Trump’s initiative. In late May 2025, Lavrov publicly vented that Trump was frustrated because every time progress was in sight, certain European leaders would egg Zelenskyy on to take a hard line or launch some offensive. “Stop sabotaging Trump’s peace efforts!” Lavrov scolded them (economictimes.indiatimes.com). When a seasoned diplomat chooses such pointed words, it’s likely more than a hunch – Moscow probably had intelligence indicating exactly who in the West was whispering in Kyiv’s ear.

And indeed, the fruits of that whispering were plain to see: Kyiv’s reckless military action in the form of Operation Spider’s Web, coming exactly when it would do the most damage to peace prospects. It’s as if Ukraine’s hawks and their Western backers saw Trump’s 24-hour peace promise approaching its moment of truth and said, “Not so fast – let’s throw a wrench in this.” The wrench was a swarm of drones and a blaze of burning Russian bombers. Mission accomplished: the Russians showed up to Istanbul enraged and unwilling to grant an easy ceasefire; the talks ended in impasse; and the war grinds on – much to the relief (quietly, of course) of those in Western capitals who feel a premature peace would have been a win for Putin.

Trump’s 24-Hour Promise Meets the ‘Deep State’

No examination of Istanbul 2025 is complete without addressing the orange-haired elephant in the room: U.S. President Donald Trump and his boast that he’d end the war in “24 hours.” This soundbite was a staple of Trump’s 2024 campaign, and to the surprise of many, he seemed intent on at least trying to make good on it after taking office in January 2025. Indeed, Trump’s team did broker the renewal of direct talks after a three-year hiatus (abcnews.go.com), and Trump dispatched a high-profile envoy, retired General Keith Kellogg, to shuttle between Kyiv and Moscow. By mid-May, the first Istanbul meeting even yielded a notable result: the largest prisoner swap of the war, with 1,000 POWs exchanged on each side (themoscowtimes.com). That was more progress than had occurred in years. It lent some initial credence to Trump’s bravado – perhaps “only Trump,” self-styled deal-maker, could succeed where others failed.

But fast forward to June, and Trump’s pledge lay in tatters. The war was decidedly not over in 24 hours, 24 days, or even 24 weeks. What went wrong? Publicly, the narrative (especially in U.S. mainstream media) was that Putin wasn’t playing ball: as soon as Trump entered office and pushed for talks, the Kremlin allegedly “intentionally sabotaged”progress by sticking to outrageous demands. Zelenskyy and his government eagerly fed this line, accusing Putin of not really wanting peace and just using Trump’s talks as a smokescreen (abcnews.go.com). They pointed to continued Russian offensive operations and missile strikes as evidence of bad faith. Western commentators nodded along, some even suggesting Trump had been naïve to think he could charm or bully Putin into a deal.

Yet this narrative conveniently ignores the parallel sabotage from Trump’s own side. Multiple reports indicated that while Trump publicly pressured Ukraine and Russia to negotiate, elements within the U.S. national security apparatus and NATO were undermining his efforts behind the scenes. For one, Trump faced dissent within his administration. His Secretary of Defense (Fox News pundit-turned-Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth) and others had to reassure nervous allies that the U.S. wouldn’t abandon Ukraine (peacediplomacy.org). Trump’s initial hard line – telling Europe that America might “abandon its role as mediator” if no progress, and hinting at cutting aid (themoscowtimes.com) – sent European leaders into panic mode, prompting them to stiffen support to Kyiv lest Ukraine feel deserted (theguardian.com). In other words, Trump’s own blustering tactics spooked his allies so much that they double-downed on a maximalist stance, making Putin suspect the U.S. was speaking with a forked tongue. The moment Trump threatened to yank U.S. security guarantees, Europe’s response was not to push Ukraine to compromise, but to promise even more weapons and money to Kyiv from their side (theguardian.com). Talk about perverse incentives.

Furthermore, let’s not forget Trump’s contentious relationship with the U.S. “deep state” (to use his terminology). This is a president who in his first term was openly defied or slow-rolled by parts of the military and intelligence bureaucracy – e.g. when he ordered troop withdrawals from Syria, officials found ways to stall or circumvent him. It is highly plausible that similar resistance met any move that senior Pentagon or State Department figures viewed as too accommodating to Russia. There were whispers (and surely leaks to friendly journalists) that Trump’s peace push was “capitulation” or that he was out of his depth dealing with Putin. New Lines Magazine, hardly a pro-Moscow outlet, observed that Trump grew “weary” of the drawn-out negotiations and hinted that might be “a good thing for Ukraine” – implying that if Trump’s efforts failed due to underlying U.S.-Europe ties, it’d be better for the cause of containing Russia (newlinesmag.com). In other words, parts of the foreign policy establishment may have quietly cheered the derailment of Trump’s 24-hour fantasy, preferring a long war to a rushed deal brokered by a president they distrusted.

Then there’s Trump’s own MAGA base, which is split on foreign policy. Some hardliners like Senator Marco Rubio (whom Trump oddly installed as Secretary of State) are traditionally hawkish on Russia, while others echo Trump’s America First, semi-isolationist instincts. This internal GOP split meant Trump had to constantly watch his right flank. He campaigned on ending the war but also on being the toughest guy in town. So even as he tried to broker talks, he also kept threatening Putin with “further sanctions” if no deal (abcnews.go.com). At one point, he publicly accused Ukraine of not being “ready for peace” to pressure Zelensky (theguardian.com), then days later blasted Putin for unreasonable demands. This incoherence may reflect Trump’s own mercurial style, but also the tug-of-war among his advisors. The net result was a muddled U.S. approach that gave hardliners in Kyiv and Moscow alike reasons to doubt.

One telling anecdote: After the second Istanbul talks failed, Trump reportedly had a heated meeting with Zelenskyy that “descended into acrimony” (theguardian.com). Trump allegedly told Zelenskyy to strike a deal or risk losing U.S. support, to which Zelenskyy retorted that Ukraine would not surrender its land. The meeting went so poorly that Trump emerged claiming Ukraine wasn’t serious about peace, while Zelenskyy’s camp leaked that Trump was trying to strong-arm them into a bad deal. The only beneficiaries of this U.S.-Ukraine spat were the war’s proponents: Russia could now say “even Trump’s own people don’t back him,” and European hawks could say “Ukraine will never yield, so we must keep arming them.”

In the end, Trump’s grandstanding promise to end the war in a day collided with geopolitical reality – and with deliberate sabotage by actors who prefer a protracted conflict that grinds down Russia. The Pentagon gets to test its latest weapons against Russian armor (by proxy), NATO gets a renewed sense of purpose (and expansion, as Finland and Sweden joined the alliance), and defense contractors laugh all the way to the bank. Meanwhile, Trump has egg on his face, exposed as a negotiator who couldn’t seal the deal. Perhaps the cruelest irony is that Trump might have genuinely wanted to boast a peace trophy, but found himself boxed in by the very “deep state” he derides and the allies he once called irrelevant.

Russian officials certainly saw it that way. They noted how quickly Trump’s bravado wilted under pressure. By April 2025, mere months after swearing he’d solve it overnight, Trump was reportedly ready to abandon the peace effort due to frustration (reddit.com). A Russian commentator sardonically quipped that Trump must have discovered being a wartime deal-maker is “not like selling condos – the State Department doesn’t work on commission.” In Moscow’s view, Trump was either powerless or unserious; either way, Russia recalibrated to focus on dealing with the entrenched Washington establishment that has no interest in compromises.

Manufacturing Consent: Western Media’s War Narrative

If Western leaders acted with cynical intent, they’ve been aided every step by a compliant media machine that shapes public perception of the war. From day one of Russia’s invasion, major U.S. and European outlets established a narrative that leaves little room for nuance: Russia is the aggressor (true), Ukraine the innocent victim (true to an extent), and crucially, that the war erupted completely without provocation (an oversimplification bordering on propaganda). The phrase “unprovoked invasion” became a mandatory prefix to any mention of Russia’s actions – a linguistic trick to preempt any discussion of NATO expansion, Donbas civilian deaths, or other context. As Noam Chomsky noted, “They wouldn’t refer to it all the time as an unprovoked invasion if it wasn’t provoked – by now, censorship in the U.S. has reached such levels that Americans are not allowed to know what the Russians are saying” (commondreams.org). This “narrative management” ensures that even raising the question of provocation gets one labeled a stooge or traitor in Western discourse.

Crucial history was effectively erased. How many people watching CNN or BBC coverage of the war remember that 14,000 people were killed in the Donbas conflict between 2014 and 2021 before Russia’s full invasion? (Of those, about 3,400 were civilians on both sides – lives snuffed out largely in the separatist regions by a war Kiev waged against Russian-backed forces, and vice versa). How often do you hear about the 2 May 2014 Odessa massacre, where dozens of ethnic Russian protesters were burned alive by Ukrainian ultranationalists? Or about neo-Nazi militias like Azov Battalion being integrated into Ukraine’s National Guard? Instead, Western media largely airbrushed these inconvenient facts away, leaving the public with a Manichean comic book: a madman Putin attacking a peaceful democracy out of sheer evil, and Western governments riding to the rescue like valiant knights. The effect of this narrative vacuum is that any alternative framing – for instance, that NATO’s expansion and constant poking at Moscow’s red lines contributed to the war – is dismissed not on its merits but as “pro-Kremlin talking points” (euvsdisinfo.eu, other-news.info).

This media bias continued into the coverage of the Istanbul talks and surrounding events. Consider the immediate aftermath of Operation Spider’s Web. Western coverage praised the Ukrainian drone strikes in Russia as a “triumph” (independent.co.uk) and “daring attack” (news.sky.com), highlighting the brilliance of Ukraine’s tactics and the humiliation for Putin. Meanwhile, Russia’s retaliatory missile barrage hours later was portrayed as yet another example of Putin’s cruelty and disregard for peace – “pounding Ukraine… just before talks”. The Independent (UK) ran live updates headlined “Dozens of Russian warplanes destroyed… Putin will be infuriated… a day before talks”– the tone almost gleeful that Putin’s temper would flare. There was scarcely any criticism of Ukraine’s timing; on the contrary, quotes from Western figures like James Cleverly and others framed it as proof of Ukraine’s resolve (independent.co.uk). Imagine if roles were reversed – if Russia had, say, bombed a major Ukrainian arms depot the day before peace negotiations. We would have heard endless lamentations about Moscow “sabotaging diplomacy” and calls to maybe cancel talks. But when Ukraine does it, the predominant framing is “bold move” or strategic savvy.

Another aspect of real-time disinformation was the omission or downplaying of the West’s own role. For example, many media reports breathlessly covered Russia’s refusal of an “unconditional ceasefire” at Istanbul (aljazeera.com), implicitly casting Putin as the obstacle to even a temporary halt in fighting. What they rarely mentioned is why Russia was so skeptical: the last time Russia entered a ceasefire (Minsk), the West armed Ukraine to the gills under that cover (reuters.com). That context would at least make Russia’s stance understandable, even if not agreeable. But acknowledging it would puncture the neat moral narrative. Better to leave it unsaid.

Similarly, Western outlets amplified Ukrainian and European accusations that Putin was the one intentionally stalling Trump’s peace plan. ABC News, for instance, dutifully reported that “Zelenskyy and his government have repeatedly accused Putin of intentionally sabotaging peace talks since Trump returned to office in January” (abcnews.go.com). The average viewer hears that and concludes: Okay, so it’s Putin’s fault, as usual. Absent is any mention of Lavrov’s opposing accusation that Europe was sabotaging Trump’s efforts by pushing Ukraine into new attacks (economictimes.indiatimes.com). That part of the story doesn’t fit the official line, so it gets little to no airtime on CNN or BBC. Instead, if covered at all, it’ll be buried in a dismissive blurb (if not outright ignored or ridiculed as propaganda).

Even the labelling of the Istanbul talks themselves was revealing. Western media often referred to them as “U.S.-brokered” or “Trump-brokered” peace talks (abcnews.go.com), giving Washington the credit for any positive movement – even as those same outlets were skeptical Trump could achieve anything. Meanwhile, Turkey’s significant role as host and mediator (President Erdoğan’s diplomacy was crucial) was downplayed, perhaps because Turkey is seen as a wildcard not fully under Western control. And when talks failed, the narrative quickly shifted to, “oh well, we tried; time to send more weapons.” The possibility that maybe someone on our side torpedoed the deal doesn’t surface on the evening news.

In essence, the Western media by mid-2025 was functioning less as a critical watchdog and more as an adjunct of government policy – a propaganda arm that uncritically echoed the NATO narrative while marginalizing or maligning alternative views. This was not lost on those paying attention. Many citizens in the West started noticing the inconsistencies: for instance, how news segments would emphasize the phrase “unprovoked war” over and over (commondreams.org), or how they seldom reminded viewers of the NATO expansion issue except to dismiss it via “fact-check” segments parroting government talking points (euvsdisinfo.eu). The management of information was subtle but effective.

One striking example of narrative management occurred in real time during the Istanbul drama: when Ukraine’s drone strike news broke, some major outlets briefly acknowledged it might complicate talks – but by the next day, the talking heads had moved onto condemning Russia’s retaliation and speculating that Putin never wanted peace. The cause and effect (Ukraine strikes -> Russia retaliates -> talks sour) was largely inverted or obscured. Instead, Western audiences heard “Putin launched deadly attacks hours before talks” (news.sky.com), implying he undermined the talks out of spite. True, he did launch attacks – but as a response to Ukraine hitting his bombers. To acknowledge that openly would be to admit Ukraine did something to derail peace prospects. That kind of nuance doesn’t fly in an information war.

The end result of this propaganda onslaught is a Western public that remains largely convinced of a simple morality tale and thus supports policies that lead to more war, not less. When people are kept ignorant of the full context – like the betrayal of Minsk accords, the warnings by U.S. diplomats about NATO, the fact that even Western insiders like former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett say the U.S. and UK blocked early peace efforts in 2022 (thegrayzone.com) – they naturally go along with whatever their leaders propose to “help Ukraine.” As Chomsky observed, Americans (and Europeans) have been “not permitted to read the Russian position”, or hear what Russia actually says it wants, except in caricature (commondreams.org). This censorship, formal and informal, is beyond anything in recent memory. It has allowed myths to thrive: the myth that Russia’s motives are pure irrational expansionism (ignoring their stated security grievances), the myth that NATO is a benign defensive alliance with no agenda in Ukraine, the myth that Ukraine is winning every battle and just needs a bit more aid to finish the job, and of course the ultimate myth of a completely “unprovoked” conflict.

By managing narratives in real time, the Western media prepared the ground for the continuation of war. When Istanbul failed, there was no outcry in Western capitals for another try at talks; instead there was a resigned chorus that “diplomacy has failed” and now it’s time to double down on military aid. Convenient, isn’t it? A peace process gets sabotaged, but thanks to narrative control, the public blames the side we wanted them to blame (Russia) and supports even riskier policies (like perhaps giving Ukraine longer-range missiles or fighter jets, which were under debate). In a sense, the media played the role of an emotional manipulator: whenever peace seemed plausible, they reminded everyone that Russia can’t be trusted; whenever Ukraine did something questionable, they either didn’t mention it or framed it as heroic.

The power of propaganda is such that many Western citizens earnestly believe their governments truly tried every avenue for peace and that only Russian obstinacy foiled it. The idea that Western officials might have themselves torpedoed peace (to borrow the title phrase) is beyond the pale for them, simply because they’ve never heard that perspective presented credibly on the nightly news. But as we’ve uncovered throughout this investigation, there is ample evidence that this is exactly what happened.

Conclusion: Challenging the Official Story

The collapse of the Istanbul peace talks on June 2, 2025, will likely go down in establishment history as “one more failed attempt caused by Putin’s intransigence.” That’s the convenient storyline Western leaders and media will feed their publics. But the evidence I’ve examined tells a radically different story – one of a peace sabotaged from the outset by those who claimed to seek it. From the broken Minsk promises that soured Russia on any trust in negotiations (reuters.com), to the ill-timed Ukrainian “Spider’s Web” offensive likely encouraged by Western hardliners (thegrayzone.com, independent.co.uk), to the European leaders and U.S. insiders who pushed Zelenskyy away from compromise and toward escalation (economictimes.indiatimes.com, peacediplomacy.org), it’s clear that the West – NATO governments and their militaries – carried at least as much blame for Istanbul’s failure as the Kremlin.

Indeed, as we peel back the layers of propaganda, a disturbing picture emerges: For a coalition that incessantly proclaims the sanctity of the “rules-based order” and the need to save Ukrainian lives, NATO and EU actors have been remarkably willing to prolong Ukrainians’ suffering to achieve their strategic goal of “the defeat of Russia” (thegrayzone.com). In the blunt words of Jacques Baud, a former NATO adviser, the West’s aim “is not the victory of Ukraine, it’s the defeat of Russia… We have just instrumentalized Ukraine for the purpose of U.S. strategic interests – not even European interests” (thegrayzone.com). This instrumentalization explains so much: why early peace feelers in 2022 were allegedly blocked by the U.S./UK, why every Russian ceasefire gesture was met with skepticism or ignored, and why, when Trump tried to buck the trend, the entrenched war incentives quickly quashed his plans.

It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but if we truly care about Ukraine and peace, we must confront this reality. The dominant narrative of an unprovoked, one-sided conflict has been meticulously crafted to absolve Western powers of any culpability and to demonize any outcome that doesn’t amount to total Russian capitulation. This narrative management has served to manufacture consent for a war policy that is arguably malign in intent – aiming to bleed Russia, even if it means fighting to the last Ukrainian. Every time a ceasefire nears, something happens to upset it (funny how that works). Every time diplomacy gains traction, an incident occurs or a revelation is made (like Merkel’s “we were buying time” comment) that undercuts trust. These are not coincidences; they are the fingerprints of sabotage.

To the reader, this may feel overwhelming or disillusioning. You might ask, “If all sides are cynical, what’s the point? Who can we trust?” The answer is that in war, moral clarity is often the first casualty. But we can start by trusting evidence and critical thinking over slogans and spin. We can acknowledge that yes, Russia launched an illegal invasion (no one in this piece justified it), but also recognize that NATO’s actions and Ukraine’s internal issues set the stage for this tragedy – and that the West has consistently acted to escalate rather than resolve the war. Challenging the official story is not about parroting Russian propaganda; it’s about seeking the whole truth so that peace can be pursued realistically.

The Istanbul talks, sabotaged as they were, at least forced some truths into the open. We saw that Putin, for all his bluster, would engage in talks – but only if Russia’s security concerns (NATO) were addressed (abcnews.go.com). We saw that Zelensky, despite his peace rhetoric, is constrained by hardliners and beholden to Western aid, making him unwilling to compromise on territory or neutrality. And we saw that Western leaders preach peace while enabling war, smiling for photo-ops in summits about ceasefires even as they sign new arms packages in the back room (peacediplomacy.org, theguardian.com). Recognizing these realities is the first step to breaking the cycle of hypocrisy.

It is high time to cast a skeptical eye on the narrative fed to us. Rather than accept that Istanbul 2025 failed “because Putin bad,” we should ask: Who torpedoed the talks and why? This article has laid out a compelling case that the torpedo was fired not from Moscow, but from much closer to home – Washington, London, Brussels – launched by those who prefer a long war to an imperfect peace. It’s an uncomfortable conclusion, but the facts support it. If we in the West want to claim the mantle of democracy and truth, we must hold our own leaders accountable when they engage in “strategic distortions” and manipulations that cost lives. We must demand that our media actually report all relevant facts, not just those that fit a narrative.

Above all, we should remember that peace, sabotaged once, can be salvaged again. The war in Ukraine will end one day, either at a negotiating table or with one side utterly exhausted. How many more Istanbuls will we let slip away? How many more times will we allow those with power and profits at stake to derail the prospect of silence on the battlefields of Donbas? These are questions every citizen in NATO countries should be asking their governments. Because if we don’t, we consent by silence to a war that could have ended yesterday – or months ago – if not for the meddling hands of those who claim to be its righteous managers.

In the end, “Sabotaged Peace” is not just a catchy title; it is an indictment. It indicts the NATO officials who played at peace while preparing for war. It indicts the opportunistic politicians who prefer photo-ops over tough compromises. And yes, it indicts the media that parroted one side of the story, betraying the public trust. By confronting this uncomfortable truth, perhaps we can apply pressure to prevent the next peace from being torpedoed. For the sake of Ukrainians, Russians, and indeed the whole world (which holds its breath whenever nuclear powers inch closer to direct clash), we must do better.

The West torpedoed Istanbul 2025 – that much is clear. The question now is whether we let them torpedo the next chance for peace, or whether we wake up, speak out, and demand that this war of attrition be brought to an end before it devours an entire generation. The power to change the narrative – and change the course of history – ultimately lies with us. Let’s use it, before it’s too late.

Sources:

• My interview with Noam Chomsky

• My interview with US Ambassador Chas Freeman
  

• Umut Uras, “Istanbul talks end, Zelenskyy says Kyiv, Moscow to discuss POW swap”, Al Jazeera (June 2, 2025) aljazeera.com.

• The Moscow Times, “Russian and Ukrainian Negotiators End Second Round of Talks in Istanbul”, The Moscow Times (June 2, 2025) themoscowtimes.com.

• ABC News, “Ukraine-Russia peace talks resume in Istanbul after surprise drone attack”, ABC News (June 2, 2025) abcnews.go.com.

• Reuters, “To attack Russian air bases, Ukrainian spies hid drones in wooden sheds”, Reuters (June 1, 2025) reuters.com.

• BBC News, “Ukraine drones strike bombers during major attack in Russia”, BBC (June 2025) bbc.com.

• Arpan Rai, “Dozens of Russian warplanes destroyed in Ukrainian drone attack, claims Kyiv”, The Independent (June 2, 2025) independent.co.uk.

• Noam Chomsky interview, “Not a Justification but a Provocation: Root Causes of the Russia-Ukraine War”, Common Dreams (June 25, 2022) commondreams.org.

• Reuters, “Putin: Russia may have to make Ukraine deal one day, but partners cheated in the past”, Reuters(Dec 9, 2022) reuters.com.

• Reuters, “Kremlin says Minsk deals failure led to Russia’s Ukraine offensive”, Reuters (Dec 11, 2022) reuters.com.

• Petro Poroshenko, “Minsk agreements partially fulfilled their goal”, Ukrinform/RFE (Dec 13, 2019) ukrinform.net.

• William Burns (leaked cable), “Nyet Means Nyet: NATO Enlargement Redlines”, U.S. Embassy Moscow (Feb 1, 2008) businessinsider.com.

• Jacques Baud interview, “US, UK sabotaged peace deal… don’t care about Ukraine”, The Grayzone (Sep 27, 2022) thegrayzone.com.

• Naftali Bennett, “US ‘blocked’ his attempts at a Russia-Ukraine peace deal”, The Grayzone/Antiwar.com (Feb 6, 2023) thegrayzone.com.

• Institute for Peace & Diplomacy, “Will the Europeans Sabotage Peace with Russia?”, IPD panel description(Mar 26, 2025) peacediplomacy.org.

• Lavrov statement, “Stop sabotaging Trump’s peace efforts”: Lavrov rips into Europe, Economic Times (May 27, 2025) economictimes.indiatimes.com.

• Global Times (China), “Russia, Ukraine resume talks after three-year hiatus”, Global Times (May 17, 2025) globaltimes.cn.

• Grayzone (Klarenberg/Reed), “UK intel behind Ukraine’s disastrous Krynky invasion – leaked docs”, The Grayzone (Apr 23, 2025) thegrayzone.com.

• Guardian, “European defence stocks soar as arms makers expect orders boom”, The Guardian (Mar 3, 2025) theguardian.com.

• War in Donbas death toll, Wikipedia (citing UN OHCHR) en.wikipedia.org.

• Crisis Group, “Conflict in Ukraine’s Donbas: A Visual Explainer” (updated 2022) crisisgroup.org.

• Sky News, “Ukraine war latest: peace talks in Istanbul after attacks”, Sky News Live Blog (June 2, 2025) news.sky.com.

• Economic Times (India), Video report on Lavrov (May 27, 2025) economictimes.indiatimes.com.

• Business Insider, “Leaked 2008 cable foreshadowed Ukraine invasion” (May 14, 2014) businessinsider.com.

• Reuters, “Ukraine attack on Russian bombers overshadows new talks”, Reuters (June 1, 2025) reuters.com (via search result snippet).

• The Independent, “Inside Operation Spiderweb: Ukraine’s drone triumph”, Independent (June 2, 2025) independent.co.uk.

• United24 (Ukraine), “Satellite images confirm 13 Russian bombers destroyed”, United24 News (June 2, 2025) united24media.com.

• Kyiv Independent, “What were the Minsk Agreements and why they failed”, The Kyiv Independent (2022) – referenced via analysis.

• Fiona Hill & Angela Stent, “The Kremlin’s negotiations: An missed early peace?”, Foreign Affairs (2022) – referenced regarding early 2022 talks.