No peace agreement in sight in the negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the US.
Putin expands demands at Geneva talks, one week before the fourth anniversary of the invasion
MoscowFrom Saudi Arabia to Switzerland: exactly one year has passed since the first meeting between Russian and American representatives to end the invasion of Ukraine. On that occasion, Volodymyr Zelensky lamented the attempt to decide how to end the war without consulting Kyiv. A year later, on the cusp of the fifth year of the conflict, one might consider trilateral talks with both sides and American mediation, such as those that began this Tuesday, to be progress. However, Vladimir Putin's inflexibility, the resistance from the Ukrainian side, and Donald Trump's haste to score another international victory without considering the underlying issues of the conflict foreshadow a 2026 of more war and more peace negotiations.
The United States often limits the two major obstacles to reaching an agreement to the territorial issue and security guarantees for Ukraine, elements on which there has been no convergence of positions in the last year. Moscow It seeks international recognition of Russian sovereignty over Donbas. And it doesn't clarify what the situation would be for the Ukrainian parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, while Kyiv is aiming for an agreement that freezes the borders along the front line. At the same time, Zelensky insists that the understanding with Trump to establish mechanisms to deter Russia from future aggression is complete, with the minor drawback that Russia has already warned it will not accept it.
Furthermore, however, US negotiators tend to overlook the fact that there are other elements, just as or even more delicate, that still need to be discussed. These are the so-called "political demands," which form part of the original core of the reasons that led Putin to launch the large-scale invasion. For example, the dismissal of Zelensky to impose a Kremlin-friendly government, the lifting of the ban on pro-Russian parties, the protection of the Russian language and the Ukrainian branch of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the disarmament of Ukrainian far-right groups. Putin, well, Putin has set out to put all these demands back on the table by appointing Vladimir Medinsky as head of the Russian delegation in Geneva.
The current president of the Russian Writers' Union, a former Minister of Culture with absolute loyalty to Putin, is one of the architects of the Kremlin's historical revisionism, a driving force behind patriotic indoctrination in classrooms and a denier of the Ukrainian state. In the talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul last spring, his pseudo-historical lectures and defiant tone irritated the Ukrainian delegation. Hence, his presence does not bode well for the three-way negotiations that are supposed to conclude this Wednesday.
In any case, the parties agree that, while the sensitive issues remain deadlocked and the list of open disagreements could still be expanded, the previous rounds of negotiations in Abu Dhabi were not in vain. According to sources from all sides, the delegations, made up of military personnel, discussed how to technically implement a ceasefire in the event of peace. A task that the participants in the talks describe as "obscure, but necessary," although it does not overshadow the fact that, without a final agreement on the other major issues, no ceasefire will be viable because it suits Russia.
Doubts in the Ukrainian delegation
The Kremlin's unwavering conviction contrasts sharply with the doubts of Ukrainian leaders, who are acutely aware of the accumulated suffering of their citizens. As reported byThe EconomistWithin the Ukrainian delegation, there are those who favor making concessions and seizing the opportunity presented by Trump. The leader of this faction is Kirilo Budanov, Zelensky's current chief of staffWhile those advocating a harder line are influenced by his predecessor, Andriy Yermak. According to this information, Zelensky is navigating between these two extremes, although publicly he shows no willingness to cede an inch of Ukrainian territory.
One of the main arguments of the compromise camp is that rejecting an agreement now could mean having to accept a worse one in the future. This is the narrative promoted by the US president himself when he repeats that Ukraine "would be wise to come to the table quickly," implying that Putin is already happily at the table. This is despite the fact that his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, admitted this weekend that he doesn't know if Russia has a genuine desire to move toward peace. As proof, he cites a new massive attack against Ukrainian energy infrastructure, with more than 400 missiles and drones, just hours before the negotiations were set to begin. Kyiv also hopes that the Geneva talks will lead to a meeting between presidents to address more thorny obstacles. Moscow will continue to delay this scenario, arguing that the heads of state only need to sign the agreements and will insist on persisting with technical discussions. The reality, however, is that Putin would only agree with Zelensky to sign Ukraine's surrender.