Geneva Trilateral Talks: The Difficult Engagement Between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States and the Realistic Dilemmas of the Peace Process.

On February 18, a two-day closed-door meeting in Geneva, Switzerland quietly concluded. Senior representatives from Russia, Ukraine, and the United States held a new round of direct talks aimed at ending the four-year-long war. The meeting was led by U.S. Special Envoy Steve Wittkopf, with Russian chief negotiator Vladimir Mekinsky and Ukrainian delegation head Rustem Umerov in attendance. White House spokesperson Caroline Levitt stated after the meeting that the talks had made meaningful progress, but Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly accused Russia of delaying negotiations, while Mekinsky also acknowledged that the discussions were difficult and pragmatic. These statements point to a clear fact: on core issues such as territory and security, the positions of Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart. A diplomatic effort aimed at achieving a ceasefire is stuck between battlefield realities and political bottom lines.

The negotiation process and the specific connotation of "limited progress."

Based on information from various sources, the actual contact time during the Geneva talks was limited. The meeting on February 17 lasted until late at night, but the agenda for February 18 only proceeded for about two hours. Notably, after the formal trilateral talks concluded, Medinsky returned to the venue and held a closed-door bilateral meeting with the Ukrainian delegation for approximately one and a half hours, the content of which was not disclosed to the public. This pattern continued the pace of previous negotiations in Abu Dhabi, UAE—in early February this year, the two sides met in Abu Dhabi under U.S. mediation, leading to the first prisoner exchange in months. During the Geneva conference, Zelensky hinted that another prisoner swap might be imminent. This appears to be one of the few areas in the current negotiations capable of yielding immediate results.

A diplomatic source from Ukraine revealed to the media that the talks have made some progress on military issues, including frontline positioning and ceasefire monitoring mechanisms. This may correspond to what Zelensky said in his interview with Piers Morgan: there is progress from a military perspective, but it is more difficult in terms of political direction. Umerov's assessment is relatively restrained. He said the discussions were substantive and in-depth, and while there has been progress, details cannot be disclosed at this stage. He emphasized that this is a complex task requiring coordination among all parties and sufficient time. These remarks outline a typical negotiation deadlock: technical and procedural issues can be discussed, but as soon as core political issues are touched upon, the dialogue quickly stalls.

From a geopolitical perspective, Geneva's simultaneous hosting of the U.S.-Iran nuclear dialogue and Russia-Ukraine negotiations this time aims to revitalize its traditional role as a diplomatic hub. However, the symbolic significance of the negotiation venue cannot conceal the difficulty of the process. Even as talks were underway, the smoke of battle had not dissipated: during the night of February 17 to 18, Russian shelling and airstrikes resulted in 4 deaths and 30 injuries in Ukraine. Continuous attacks on energy infrastructure have left millions of Ukrainians facing power outages and heating disruptions amid severe cold. The pace of war has not slowed due to diplomats' conversations in meeting rooms.

Core Disagreements: The Donbas Territory and the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

All superficial progress appears feeble in the face of territorial issues. Russia insists on complete control over the Donbas region, namely the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. This stance is unacceptable to Ukraine. Zelenskyy made it clear to Axios that any plan requiring Ukraine to cede parts of the Donbas not yet occupied by Russia would be rejected by the Ukrainian people if put to a referendum. He compared this to the 1938 Munich Agreement, when European powers allowed Hitler to annex Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland. Many Ukrainians believe that relinquishing this territory would leave the country more vulnerable to future Russian invasions.

Currently, Russia controls approximately 20% of Ukraine's territory, including Crimea, which was annexed in 2014, as well as parts of the Donbas region occupied after the full-scale invasion in 2022. Ukraine has established extensive defensive lines and multiple heavily fortified cities in the Donetsk region, such as the strategic stronghold of Avdiivka (though it fell several months ago). Abandoning these areas would not only mean the permanent loss of sovereign territory but also entail surrendering a significant population and industrial base, severely weakening future defensive depth.

Another key sticking point is the status of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. As Europe's largest nuclear facility, it has been under Russian control since March 2022 and is located near the intense front lines of the conflict. Ukraine demands that Russia return the plant. Zelenskyy has suggested that Kyiv could share control of the nuclear facility with the Americans—a proposal Moscow is highly unlikely to accept. The issue of the nuclear plant intertwines sovereignty, security, energy, and environmental risks, making it as complex as territorial disputes.

President Trump's impatience displayed before the talks added another layer of uncertainty to the negotiations. He publicly stated that Ukraine should quickly come to the negotiating table, a remark directly dismissed by Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy argued that demanding Ukraine compromise is unfair. He even admitted that he cannot truly understand Trump's relationship with Russian President Putin and feels very, very distressed because Trump's attitude toward Putin sometimes... is better than Putin deserves. The personal inclinations and public pressure from the American leader force Ukraine to strike an extremely careful balance between relying on Western military aid and defending its own stance.

Europe's Role and the Fragile Foundation of Future Negotiations

The Geneva talks centered on the trilateral framework of the United States, Russia, and Ukraine, but officials from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy were also fully present and held consultations with the Ukrainian delegation during breaks in the trilateral meetings. European countries have been striving for greater influence in the U.S.-led negotiations. Zelensky emphasized that Europe's involvement is indispensable for any final agreement. This reflects a strategic consideration in Kyiv: avoiding tying its security entirely to the political shifts of the United States alone, especially given the potential policy uncertainties arising from the U.S. elections later this year. If European countries can become more deeply embedded in the peace framework as security guarantors, they may offer Ukraine more enduring and diversified security commitments.

However, there are differing voices within Europe on how to end the war, and its willingness and capability to provide security guarantees remain to be tested. What Ukraine is seeking is a legally binding international security guarantee system that can effectively deter Russia from future aggression. This goes far beyond a simple defense treaty, involving a series of complex arrangements such as permanent troop deployments, intelligence sharing, weapon pre-positioning, rapid response mechanisms, and trigger conditions. In the absence of a decisive military defeat for Russia, whether and to what extent the West is willing to provide Ukraine with commitments comparable to NATO's Article 5 (collective defense) remains a significant question mark.

From a negotiation strategy perspective, Russia appears to be deliberately employing a stalling tactic. At the end of the talks, Zelensky accused Moscow of attempting to prolong negotiations that might otherwise have entered their final stages. Russian news agencies cited sources stating that the first day of talks was highly tense and lasted six hours. This combination of tension and delay may indicate that Moscow, on one hand, hopes to stabilize the situation through negotiations and solidify its battlefield gains, while on the other hand, it is in no hurry to reach an agreement. Instead, it aims to use time to consolidate control over occupied territories and wait for signs of Western fatigue in supporting Ukraine. The continuous strikes on Ukraine’s energy system during the winter are one of its means to force negotiations through warfare and exhaust the opponent’s endurance.

The Harsh Reality and Limited Options at the Four-Year Mark of the War

On February 24, it will be four years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The war has resulted in hundreds of thousands of military and civilian casualties, displaced millions of people, and left cities and towns in eastern and southern Ukraine in ruins. The conflict has profoundly reshaped Ukrainian society, which is facing such a severe demographic crisis that the government has even begun funding soldiers to freeze their sperm in response to the population disaster. Within Russia, the impact of the war is gradually becoming apparent, with soaring food prices starting to affect the lives of ordinary citizens.

Against this backdrop, the lack of a breakthrough in the Geneva talks is disappointing but not surprising. The nature of negotiations reflects the balance of power. Although the front lines are largely stable, no party has reached a point where it believes it can no longer strive for further advantages. Ukraine is awaiting a new round of Western aid, particularly whether the $60 billion aid bill stalled in the U.S. Congress will be passed. Russia, meanwhile, is adjusting its economy for a prolonged war and attempting to leverage its air superiority to maintain pressure. When no party feels the urgent pressure to make peace, significant compromises at the negotiating table are unlikely to emerge.

Looking ahead, Zelensky confirmed that more talks will be held in Switzerland. The negotiation process may continue slowly, taking two steps forward and one step back, seeking limited outcomes on relatively secondary issues such as prisoner exchanges, local ceasefires (such as around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant), and grain exports, in order to accumulate some mutual trust for the eventual resolution of core political issues. However, as long as the status of Donbas and Crimea remains unresolved, any temporary arrangements will be fragile and short-lived. True peace remains hidden behind the fog of an undecided battlefield and the ultimate strategic choices yet to be made by major powers in their geopolitical calculations. The meeting rooms in Geneva can temporarily block out the sound of artillery fire, but they cannot block out the heavy logic of war itself.