Turkey remains engaged in shaping a peaceful path for Ukraine, underscoring a belief that peace benefits all parties and that a true peace leaves no permanent losers. This stance was reiterated by President Tayyip Erdoğan during a dinner hosted by the Turkish American National Steering Committee in New York, a meeting linked to his participation in events surrounding the United Nations General Assembly. The dialogue emphasized Ankara’s commitment to bridging divides and fostering dialogue among Kyiv and Moscow, with the aim of reducing violence and stabilizing the region.
Erdoğan highlighted that Turkey has secured diplomatic gains and will maintain constructive engagement because violence does not yield lasting winners and peace should not create lasting losers. The remarks reflect Turkey’s preference for mediation, trust-building measures, and international cooperation designed to support a sustainable settlement that respects sovereignty and regional security.
On the topic of negotiations, sources indicate Moscow has repeatedly signaled willingness to engage, while Kyiv has imposed legal boundaries limiting talks. The Kremlin clarified there are no formal preconditions for talks, but it remains focused on achieving the objectives of its current operation. This framing points to a strategic calculation where Russia seeks a favorable outcome while presenting room for dialogue within the boundaries it sets.
Earlier in the year, President Vladimir Putin signaled openness to discussions as a means to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, signaling room for diplomatic channels alongside military and political considerations. The emphasis from Moscow is on coordinated efforts that can forward a settlement without undermining regional stability or international norms governing sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Statements from regional figures in the North Caucasus have offered divergent views on the feasibility of negotiations. A former leader from Chechnya characterized talks with Ukraine as unnecessary, reflecting a broader spectrum of opinion within the wider political landscape about the best route to de‑escalation and lasting peace. These comments illustrate the complex array of perspectives that influence state and nonstate actors as they weigh immediate security needs against long-term political objectives.