Russia and Turkey are reported to have held a series of private diplomatic discussions aimed at shaping a framework for Libya’s long-running political crisis, according to diplomatic sources familiar with the talks. The discussions, which have not been publicly acknowledged by either government, are said to focus on preserving the current balance of power in Libya rather than pushing for a comprehensive political transition.

Libya has remained deeply divided since the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, with rival administrations, armed groups and foreign backers competing for influence. Despite repeated United Nations-led efforts to broker elections and unify state institutions, the country continues to operate under a fragmented system, split broadly between the east and west.

Sources suggest that Moscow and Ankara, both influential external actors in Libya, have explored an understanding that would effectively formalise existing zones of control. Under the reported outline, eastern and southern Libya would remain under the security dominance of Khalifa Haftar, including continued oversight of key oil facilities that underpin much of the country’s economy.

At the same time, Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, head of the internationally recognised Government of National Unity based in Tripoli, would remain in office as prime minister within a national administrative framework. However, according to the sources, his authority would be constrained, with major policy decisions requiring the consent of powerful domestic actors and foreign sponsors.

If accurate, the discussions point to a model that prioritises stability and predictability over political renewal. Analysts note that both Russia and Turkey have invested heavily in Libya over the past decade, backing rival sides during periods of open conflict while also engaging in pragmatic cooperation to protect their strategic interests, including access to energy resources, military positioning and regional influence in the Mediterranean.

The reported framework would also represent a shift in the role of Haftar, who has previously sought national leadership and mounted an unsuccessful military campaign to seize Tripoli in 2019–2020. Under the alleged plan, he would retain strong regional authority but be excluded from top-level political negotiations over Libya’s future governance, which would instead be shaped by external powers and a narrow group of domestic stakeholders.

Neither Moscow nor Ankara has commented publicly on the claims. Libya’s political leaders have also remained silent, and it remains unclear whether any such understanding has been formalised or whether it represents exploratory discussions rather than a binding agreement.

Critics of external involvement in Libya argue that arrangements of this nature risk entrenching division and undermining national sovereignty. They point out that similar power-sharing formulas in the past have failed to deliver lasting peace or democratic legitimacy, instead freezing conflicts and delaying political reform.

Supporters of a more pragmatic approach counter that Libya’s fractured security landscape leaves little room for rapid transformation, and that stabilising existing power structures may reduce the risk of renewed large-scale fighting.

For now, the reported talks underline a broader reality of the Libyan conflict: key decisions about the country’s future are often shaped outside its borders. Whether such diplomatic manoeuvres can produce durable stability, or merely prolong a managed stalemate, remains an open question as Libya continues to await elections and a unified state authority.