The trilateral Geneva talks among Russia, Ukraine, and the United States have entered a critical phase.

On February 23, Kirill Budanov, the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, confirmed in Kyiv that Ukraine, Russia, and the United States plan to hold a new round of trilateral talks in Geneva, Switzerland, from February 26 to 27. Although the specific date is yet to be finalized, this will mark the return of the three parties to the negotiating table within ten days, following the talks held from February 17 to 18. Budanov stated that the negotiations are approaching a moment where all sides need to make a final decision—whether to continue the war that has lasted for four years or to shift toward peace. On the same day, U.S. State Department Special Envoy Steve Witkoff revealed that, with U.S. mediation, a meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin could be finalized within the next three weeks. While the frontline conflict continues, the diplomatic contest in Geneva has entered a critical stage.

Core Disagreements and Limited Progress

From the information disclosed by various parties, the negotiations in Geneva on February 17-18 were tense and difficult. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described the talks as challenging and acknowledged progress only on military issues. This progress refers to a key arrangement: if a ceasefire is achieved in the future, its supervision and verification mechanism will involve the United States. This reflects Kyiv's core concern—any ceasefire requires reliable and robust third-party guarantees to prevent Russia from unilaterally undermining the agreement. The Ukrainian side rejected Russia's proposal to establish joint civilian administrative bodies in disputed territories, viewing it as a disguised recognition of Russian occupation.

Russia's demands are clear and firm. Their delegation head, Vladimir Medinsky, described the discussions as tough yet pragmatic, but Moscow's bottom line remains unchanged: controlling the entire Donbas region (i.e., Donetsk Oblast) is seen as a prerequisite for ending hostilities. This stance is directly linked to the actual frontline control on the battlefield. Analysis indicates that Russia is attempting to solidify the territorial gains made over the past four years of military operations through negotiations. Regarding Ukraine's proposal for a Zelensky-Putin summit, Russia had not given a clear response as of the 23rd, and such delay itself serves as a pressure tactic.

As a mediator, the United States has adopted a more proactive stance. Envoy Witkov stated that the negotiations have made substantial progress. Washington views the maintenance of the negotiation process itself as an achievement, aimed at preventing the escalation of conflict and creating space for diplomatic efforts during the election year. However, a report by the American media Axios pointed out that the negotiations have reached a deadlock due to Russia's position. This inconsistency in public information reflects the delicacy of the current negotiations: all parties are conveying narratives favorable to themselves both domestically and internationally.

Three-party strategic considerations

The motivation for the three parties to return to the negotiating table must be examined from their inherent strategic logic.

For Ukraine, Budanov's remarks convey a sense of urgency. He warned that such a war will not end on its own—it will either lead to a just resolution or return on a larger scale. Therefore, Ukraine’s goal is not merely to stop the shooting but to seek security guarantees that can prevent a recurrence of Russian aggression. This means that any agreement lacking clear security commitments—especially from the United States—and territorial concessions is seen in Kyiv as merely a pause in fighting rather than genuine peace. Current diplomatic efforts are both preparing for difficult political decisions and reinforcing its image as a defender in the international community, particularly within the United States.

Russia's strategy blends military attrition with diplomatic assertiveness. The four-year-long war of attrition has strained Russian military resources and the domestic economy. Some Western military analysts believe that from a purely military perspective, the war has long lost its meaning. However, the Kremlin views the conflict as part of a geopolitical contest with the West. The negotiating table is an extension of the battlefield. Russia insists on controlling Donbas, which is not only about territory but also about redrawing spheres of influence and demonstrating to the domestic audience that the special military operation has achieved results. By delaying summit meetings, Russia aims to accumulate leverage and force Ukraine into making more concessions.

The role of the United States is the most complex. The Biden administration faces election pressures, with voters weary of overseas interventions. Promoting peace talks, even if just as a gesture, can address domestic calls to end the war. At the same time, the U.S. needs to balance its security commitments to Ukraine with the risk of avoiding direct conflict with Russia. Participating in ceasefire monitoring is key for the U.S. to maintain influence over the post-war Eastern European security architecture without deep military involvement. The statement that Vitkov may arrange a summit meeting within three weeks is a diplomatic-driven strategy aimed at setting short-term goals, advancing the process, and demonstrating the sincerity of U.S. mediation to both Russia and Ukraine.

Donbass: The Core Obstacle

All analyses point to the same core obstacle: the ownership of the Donbas region. Russia treats it as a precondition for negotiations, while Ukraine regards it as a red line of sovereignty. This industrial area in eastern Ukraine has been mired in conflict since 2014. Following the outbreak of full-scale war in 2022, most of the region has come under Russian military control.

Moscow demands administrative control over the entire Donetsk Oblast. This is not merely a territorial issue. The Donbas region possesses abundant coal mines and heavy industrial infrastructure, and its demographic composition has changed after years of conflict. For Russia, full control of the Donbas means establishing a land corridor connecting to Crimea, consolidating the narrative of "Novorossiya," and securing a permanent lever for future engagements with Ukraine and the West.

For Kyiv, agreeing to this demand would be tantamount to political suicide. It would mean recognizing the alteration of borders by force, violating the Ukrainian constitution, and potentially triggering a domestic political earthquake. Zelenskyy has repeatedly stated that the Ukrainian people would not allow the surrender of Donbas. Therefore, in negotiations, Ukraine prefers to focus on discussing security guarantees and ceasefire mechanisms, attempting to temporarily set aside the territorial issue or link it to broader security arrangements. However, Russia is unwilling to let this bargaining chip be diluted.

Currently, the positions of both sides are like parallel lines. The room for compromise is narrow: there may be temporary arrangements regarding a transition period or special status, but any plan for permanent territorial concessions would be difficult for Ukraine's current regime to accept, while an agreement without territorial transfer would hardly meet Russia's declared war objectives. This deadlock is precisely the grim implication of Budanov's statement that a final decision needs to be made.

The coming weeks: rupture or truce?

Looking ahead, the negotiations at the end of February and even the potential summit meeting are more likely to yield temporary and unstable arrangements rather than a permanent peace treaty.

One possibility is reaching a frozen conflict agreement. This includes a ceasefire along the existing contact line, establishing an international supervision mechanism involving the United States, and reaching agreements on specific issues such as prisoner exchange and humanitarian corridors. The final status of Donbas would be postponed for future discussion. This model has been common throughout history, such as in Transnistria or Nagorno-Karabakh. While it can temporarily halt the war, it sows the seeds for future conflicts. Budanov's warning that the war could return in a more dangerous form precisely points to this possibility.

Another possibility is that negotiations completely break down, with both sides launching large-scale offensives in the spring, attempting to gain on the battlefield what they cannot achieve at the negotiating table. This will depend on each party's assessment of the military situation, logistical supply, and domestic political tolerance.

Judging from the three-week timeline set by the U.S. envoy, Washington is pushing hard for diplomatic achievements in the short term. However, a real breakthrough would require one or both sides to make painful concessions on core interests. Currently, there is no indication that Moscow or Kyiv is prepared to do so. The negotiation rooms in Geneva remain brightly lit, yet they illuminate a path still fraught with thorns. A window for peace may be emerging, but its cost could far exceed the public expectations of either side. Every closed-door meeting and every draft text in the coming weeks will shape the fate of millions across the Eastern European plains.