How Prisoner Exchanges Between Russia and Ukraine Are Negotiated

The Brief

Prisoner exchanges between Russia and Ukraine are arranged through a mix of direct, largely confidential contacts between the two states and discreet help from mediators and humanitarian bodies. They continue during the war because each side wants its own people back, because the law of war encourages the return of wounded prisoners, and because a humanitarian channel can survive when political talks stall. What is publicly confirmed is the outline: swaps happen, mediators such as the UAE and Türkiye have been involved, and the ICRC has a defined but limited role. What is not confirmed is most of the detail: who sits in the room, how names are chosen and what is traded.

Where Things Stand

Exchanges have been a recurring feature of the war since 2022 and remain one of the few areas where Moscow and Kyiv regularly reach agreements. Each swap is typically announced by both governments, often with different framing and sometimes different numbers. Thousands of people have been returned in total, according to figures issued by officials on both sides, but those totals are self-reported and are not independently audited. Readers should treat any cumulative number as an official claim, not a verified count, and check the latest announcements from the Ukrainian Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War, the Russian Ministry of Defence and the mediating governments.

Two parallel problems persist. First, many prisoners are not returned in any given swap, and families on both sides press for faster action. Second, access for neutral monitors has been contested, and UN human rights monitors have documented ill-treatment of prisoners of war, mostly by Russian forces but also in some cases by Ukrainian forces.

The Legal Basis: Geneva Convention Basics

The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 sets the baseline rules for prisoners of war (POWs), and both Russia and Ukraine are parties to it. The key points for understanding swaps are:

• Humane treatment (Article 13): POWs must be protected from violence, intimidation and public curiosity.
• Notification and tracing (Articles 70, 122, 123): Each side must set up an information bureau, and the ICRC's Central Tracing Agency collects and transmits data on captured persons.
• ICRC visits (Article 126): Representatives of the protecting power and the ICRC are entitled to visit places of detention.
• Early return of the seriously wounded or sick (Articles 109–110): These prisoners should be repatriated or sent to a neutral country during hostilities, if they are fit to travel.
• Repatriation after hostilities (Article 118): Remaining POWs must be released and repatriated without delay once active hostilities end.

The Convention does not set up a mechanism for mid-war swaps. Exchanges are therefore a political practice built on reciprocity, not a legal obligation. Civilians are covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention and are not POWs, yet civilians have been included in some deals. Because the legal categories do not always match the people being traded, disputes arise over who counts as a combatant, and Russia has also prosecuted some Ukrainian prisoners, which complicates their release.

The Table: Who Is Involved and What They Do

How an Exchange Is Arranged, Step by Step

The sequence below reflects what officials and mediators have described publicly. Details of any specific negotiation are rarely disclosed, so treat this as a general outline.

1. Political opening. A deal is raised through a direct channel, a mediator, or a meeting such as the Istanbul talks. Mediators may offer what diplomats call good offices, meaning they help the parties communicate without taking part in the substance.
2. List preparation. Each side compiles names it wants returned. Families, ombudspersons, military units and intelligence services all feed into these lists.
3. Exchange of lists and checks. The parties share names, directly or via intermediaries, and check identities, health status and whether a person is actually in custody. This is where many deals slow down.
4. Bargaining over numbers and categories. Sides may seek parity, or may accept unequal numbers if specific high-value or vulnerable individuals are included.
5. Logistics and security. Transport, a handover location and timing are fixed. Many reported handovers take place at the Belarus–Ukraine border.
6. Handover and medical checks. Prisoners are transferred, identities confirmed and returnees receive medical and psychological assessment, according to officials' descriptions.
7. Public announcement. Both governments announce the result, usually with different emphasis.

How People Are Chosen

No complete public rulebook exists, and neither government publishes the full criteria. Officials and negotiators have mentioned priorities including seriously wounded or sick prisoners, those held the longest, civilians, and younger prisoners; the June 2025 round of Istanbul talks, for example, referred to categories such as the severely wounded and the very young. Beyond these categories, selection is shaped by:

• which individuals the other side agrees to release;
• the pressure of family associations and public campaigns;
• the intelligence or political value either side places on specific people;
• whether a prisoner is facing criminal charges in the holding state.

Because the detailed process is not transparent, the claim that any swap follows a fair or fully objective queue cannot be verified.

Timeline

• March 2022: Early swaps take place soon after the full-scale invasion, including the release of Melitopol mayor Ivan Fedorov in exchange for Russian conscripts.
• August 2022: Russia's Supreme Court designates the Azov regiment a terrorist organisation, a ruling that complicates releases of its members.
• September 2022: A large exchange involves Ukrainian prisoners including Azov commanders, who were transferred to Türkiye under an arrangement reported to involve Presidents Erdoğan and Zelenskyy; Saudi Arabia also mediated the release of foreign fighters.
• July 2023: The Azov commanders in Türkiye return to Ukraine; Russia says this breached the earlier understanding.
• 2023–2024: Exchanges continue at irregular intervals, with the UAE regularly announcing its mediation.
• 16 May 2025: Istanbul talks produce an agreement on a 1,000-for-1,000 exchange, followed by implementation over the following days.
• June 2025: A second Istanbul round discusses further exchange categories, including wounded, young prisoners and the return of bodies; implementation is marked by mutual accusations of delay.

For the wider negotiating context, see Istanbul Talks Between Russia and Ukraine: What Was Discussed and What Came Out of Them.

Why Exchanges Continue During War

Exchanges continue because they serve concrete interests for both sides at low political cost. Four reasons recur:

• Reciprocity: Each party holds prisoners the other wants, so a swap benefits both.
• Domestic pressure: Families and public opinion in both countries expect governments to bring prisoners home.
• Legal and moral norms: The Geneva Conventions give a shared reference point, especially for the wounded.
• Confidence-building: A swap is a limited, verifiable step that does not require agreement on territory or security. Diplomats call such actions confidence-building measures.

A swap does not imply a ceasefire or a wider political settlement. For how formal truces are different, see How Ceasefire Agreements Work: Key Clauses, Monitoring and Why They Break Down.

Typical Delays and Sticking Points

Delays are common and usually come from a handful of causes, though the parties give different explanations for specific postponements.

• Disputed lists: Each side has at times accused the other of changing or rejecting names.
• Identification: Confirming who is alive, where they are held and their condition can take time, especially for people captured in intense fighting.
• Legal status: Prisoners facing trial or designated as terrorists are harder to include.
• Security and logistics: Handovers need safe routes and a pause in nearby fire.
• Linkage to politics: A breakdown in broader talks can freeze exchanges, and a diplomatic round can unfreeze them.

🇹🇷 Diplomatic Role · Mediation & Official Record

Türkiye's Role

Concrete role. Türkiye has acted as a host and facilitator, not as the sole arranger of swaps. It hosted the Istanbul talks, where the May 2025 agreement on a 1,000-for-1,000 exchange was reached, and it was involved in the 2022 arrangement under which Azov commanders stayed in Türkiye. Türkiye maintains working relations with both Moscow and Kyiv, which allows it to carry messages between them, a practice related to shuttle diplomacy.

Official position. Turkish officials, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Presidency, have described Türkiye's approach as supporting dialogue and humanitarian steps between the parties, and have said prisoner exchanges are a positive outcome of the Istanbul format. Readers should consult the Ministry's and the Presidency's official statements for exact wording.

Outcomes so far. The confirmed outcomes include the agreed 2025 exchange and the facilitation of earlier specific cases. The limits are equally clear: Türkiye has not produced a comprehensive ceasefire, and the Azov commanders episode caused friction with Moscow. More on this in Türkiye as Mediator: Its Role in Peace Talks and Crisis Diplomacy.

What to Watch

• Whether Istanbul-format talks resume, since political rounds have been the most visible driver of large exchanges.
• UAE announcements, which often confirm smaller, repeated swaps.
• ICRC access, because broader monitoring would improve verification.
• Categories agreed in talks: wounded, young and civilian detainees, and returns of bodies.
• Disputes over lists, which usually signal a coming delay.

No schedule for future exchanges is publicly guaranteed. Always check current statements from the governments involved.

Source Comparison

The sources frame exchanges differently, and a careful reader should compare them.

• Ukrainian official sources emphasise the return of defenders and civilians, the number of people returned, and criticism of Russian treatment of prisoners.
• Russian official sources emphasise the return of Russian servicemen, and often accuse Kyiv of obstructing or delaying exchanges.
• Gulf and Turkish official sources stress mediation, humanitarian purpose and dialogue. Turkish sources highlight the Istanbul format, and UAE statements highlight repeated mediation.
• International organisations such as the ICRC and UN human rights monitors focus on treatment, access and legal obligations, not on who negotiates.
• Independent media report on lists, families' campaigns and disputes, but often rely on official statements or anonymous sources.

None of these sources has full visibility, so figures and motives should be attributed to whoever states them.

Perspective Note

Frontline Diplomacy covers international diplomacy with a dedicated perspective from Türkiye. Sections marked 'Türkiye's Role' reflect official Turkish policy as stated by Turkish government sources. For our editorial approach, see About Frontline Diplomacy: Mission, Perspective and Editorial Principles. This explainer is written by the Frontline Diplomacy Editorial Team. More process guides are collected in Mediation Files: How International Mediation Works, Process by Process.

Cross-Publication Dossiers & Sister Desk Perspectives

For complementary primary-source analysis across our specialist editorial network, consult:

• Borders & Blocs: Türkiye's Mediation in the Russia–Ukraine War and the Black Sea Grain Initiative — Türkiye mediation in the Russia–Ukraine war explained: Antalya and Istanbul talks, Black Sea Grain Initiative, prisoner swaps, why it ended and its limits.
• World Agenda Review: The Montreux Convention and the Black Sea: How Türkiye Applied the Straits Regime in the Russia–Ukraine War — How Türkiye applied the 1936 Montreux Convention in the Russia–Ukraine war: Article 19, limits on closing the Straits, Istanbul diplomacy and the grain deal.
• Polity Review: Montreux Convention, the Black Sea and Türkiye's Role in the Russia–Ukraine War — How the 1936 Montreux Convention governs the Turkish Straits, how Türkiye applied Article 19 in 2022, and its Black Sea grain and mediation role.