Physical Address
Indirizzo: Via Mario Greco 60, Buttigliera Alta, 10090, Torino, Italy
As the war between Russia and Ukraine grinds on with no immediate prospect of a political settlement, almost every diplomatic channel has narrowed. Yet one space continues to stand out because it is rooted in concrete human experience rather than abstract negotiation. The issue of prisoners and detainees has become the area in which both sides still accept the need for dialogue. In recent weeks, Kyiv announced that it is working on a major exchange that could involve the release of about 1,200 Ukrainian detainees. Whether this ambitious plan materializes or not, the fact that it has returned to the agenda suggests that a humanitarian reality on the battlefield may once again be creating room for diplomacy.
Humanitarian question, high-profile announcement
Ukraine’s leadership presented the proposed exchange as a moral responsibility and an urgent humanitarian priority. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke about bringing families together before the end of the year and framed the initiative as a matter that cannot wait for broader political breakthroughs. His remarks resonated with many inside Ukraine who have spent months campaigning for news about missing relatives.
The emphasis on dignity and family unity is powerful. It also gives Ukrainian officials a visible issue to present to the public during a period when military progress has slowed and political confidence has become more fragile. Announcing a large swap has helped Kyiv highlight the human cost of the war and the need for international attention.
But the announcement raised several practical questions. The figure of 1,200 detainees is striking, yet Ukrainian authorities did not provide clarity regarding the verification of names or the conditions under which the exchange could take place. Human rights groups inside Ukraine noted that earlier lists included individuals whose status was uncertain. Without accurate information, technical negotiations become difficult.
Russia’s response was very different. Moscow did not reject the idea and did not question the humanitarian dimension. Instead, Russian officials chose a careful and silent approach. Past exchanges show that Russia tends to avoid public commitments before technical details are reviewed. It often insists on accurate documentation and verified lists, and considers publicity-driven announcements to be unhelpful.
Although some observers interpreted Moscow’s silence as reluctance, others viewed it as a sign that Russia is willing to consider the proposal but prefers that the process remain methodical. After several years of conflict, this approach reflects a desire to avoid rushed commitments that could later unravel. It also demonstrates that Russia is open to humanitarian cooperation when the groundwork is realistic.
These contrasting styles reveal the underlying challenge. Ukraine needs visible progress to maintain domestic morale. Russia prefers discreet and controlled negotiations. The only way to reconcile these approaches is through reliable mediation. This brings Türkiye to the center of the picture.
Türkiye’s role in structured dialogue
Türkiye has emerged once again as the state both sides feel comfortable engaging. Zelenskyy’s recent visit to Ankara highlighted this reality. Ukrainian officials described Türkiye as an indispensable actor for the success of the talks. For its part, Russia has repeatedly signaled that dialogue through Ankara is preferable to other channels.
Ankara’s role is not accidental. Türkiye has managed to maintain communication with both Kyiv and Moscow throughout the war and has already facilitated sensitive exchanges in the past. It played a central role in the Black Sea grain initiative and helped earlier prisoner swaps proceed without major disruption. These episodes gave Türkiye a distinct credibility that few other countries possess.
The core reason for Türkiye’s effectiveness lies in its approach. Ankara does not rely on dramatic announcements but on sustained and consistent contact. It supports humanitarian cooperation even when larger political negotiations collapse. And it is willing to take on logistical tasks that are often complex and time-consuming.
The current proposal illustrates why an intermediary is needed. A large-scale swap requires verified lists, health assessments, identity checks, safe corridors, transportation routes and synchronized communication. None of these steps can be completed through public statements alone. Türkiye can coordinate the practical aspects and help both sides design a sequence that avoids misunderstandings.
Another actor that has gained attention recently is the United Arab Emirates, which has hosted various discussions involving Russian and Western officials. Yet when it comes to direct Ukrainian-Russian exchanges, Türkiye remains the more engaged and operationally experienced mediator.
Türkiye’s involvement gives the process a structured foundation. It also allows Russia and Ukraine to participate without feeling that they are making political concessions. Humanitarian cooperation is easier to defend domestically than political compromise. If Ankara manages to move the talks forward, even in a phased manner, it would show that diplomacy can still function when tied to tangible human realities on the ground.
Obstacles beneath the surface
Despite renewed interest, the proposed swap faces several obstacles. The first challenge is verification. For an exchange of this size, both sides need to agree on names, legal status and the nature of the detention. In earlier swaps, disagreements over civilians, volunteers and political detainees delayed progress. Today, similar uncertainties could once again complicate the process.
A second challenge involves expectations inside Ukraine. The hope that 1,200 people may return home has generated a strong emotional wave. Families are sharing stories and pressuring the government to deliver. While this momentum gives the initiative visibility, it also creates risks. If the process slows because of technical issues, frustration may grow, and the government could face criticism for raising hopes too quickly.
A third challenge is the operational reality of the war. Drone strikes, artillery activity and changing front lines make it difficult to guarantee safe corridors. Humanitarian channels require predictable communication. When fighting intensifies, these channels often weaken.
In contrast, Russia’s slower and more procedural approach may prove more resilient. By reviewing technical details before making commitments, Moscow reduces the risk of last-minute breakdowns. This method also allows Russia to demonstrate that it is open to humanitarian engagement without changing its political stance. For Russia, agreeing to a well-prepared exchange strengthens its international image as a state that engages responsibly in sensitive humanitarian matters.
Türkiye’s task is to stabilize the space between these contrasting approaches. Ankara’s steady involvement reduces mistrust and helps keep the process grounded. If Türkiye succeeds in finalizing the lists and procedures, progress may come sooner than expected.
Decisive few weeks
The next few weeks will be decisive. If the technical preparation moves forward, the exchange could take place in stages by late December or early January. If not, the initiative may stall, and the diplomatic window could once again narrow.
Yet the broader significance goes beyond the timing of a single exchange. The fact that prisoner talks have returned to the agenda shows that concrete human realities on the battlefield remain the strongest drivers of diplomacy. Political negotiations may be distant, but humanitarian questions cannot be indefinitely postponed. They force dialogue even when politics is frozen.
For Ukraine, turning an emotional announcement into a workable process will require coordination rather than speed. For Russia, measured engagement provides an opportunity to show consistency and pragmatism. For Türkiye, the possible success of the exchange would confirm its status as a stabilizing regional actor capable of promoting dialogue where others struggle.
Whatever the outcome, the renewed attention to detainees underscores a simple truth. In protracted wars, the most durable diplomatic openings often emerge from the most concrete human issues. The lives touched by these exchanges carry a humanitarian weight that political agendas cannot easily ignore. And as long as that weight exists, diplomacy has not entirely disappeared from this conflict.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance, values or position of Daily Sabah. The newspaper provides space for diverse perspectives as part of its commitment to open and informed public discussion.
