Officials from Ukraine, Russia, and the United States met again on Wednesday for the second day of trilateral discussions. These talks represent the latest attempt in a series of negotiations to forge a lasting peace deal, a goal that has remained frustratingly out of reach.
Rustem Umerov, Ukraine’s chief negotiator and secretary of its National Security Council, announced on a public platform that the fresh round of discussions in Geneva, Switzerland, kicked off just after 9:30 a.m. local time. Following the initial day of talks on Tuesday, neither his team nor their Russian counterparts provided any public indication of breakthroughs.
On Wednesday, Mr. Umerov stated that negotiations would advance along distinct political and military lines. While a specific agenda wasn’t detailed, it’s widely anticipated that the central focus will be the future of Ukrainian territories in the east, which Moscow insists on controlling as a prerequisite for peace—a demand unequivocally rejected by Kyiv.
This territorial dispute stands as a significant barrier to a peace agreement, alongside the critical issue of robust Western security guarantees for Ukraine to prevent future Russian aggression.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has indicated a willingness to consider compromises on territorial matters, proposing, for instance, a demilitarized zone in Donetsk. This would involve both Ukrainian and Russian forces retreating from equivalent sections of land. However, he has consistently stressed that any such concession would only occur after Ukraine receives concrete security assurances from its Western partners, particularly the United States.
Analysts emphasize that the intertwined nature of territory and security guarantees means the order of their resolution could significantly influence which side holds the advantage in the ongoing discussions.
“The order in which these issues are addressed is critically important,” noted Harry Nedelcu, a senior director at the research organization Rasmussen Global.
“The United States appears to prefer Ukraine making territorial concessions first, with security guarantees from Washington following afterward,” Mr. Nedelcu explained. “This approach, however, could inadvertently set a trap for Kyiv, potentially allowing Russia to regroup and launch further assaults during any ceasefire.”
This apprehension is especially strong regarding the Ukrainian-controlled segment of Donetsk. The region is heavily fortified, and any withdrawal or surrender, even as part of a demilitarized zone, could strategically empower Russia to restart hostilities.
“Conversely, establishing security guarantees upfront would provide Ukraine with significant leverage in negotiations and ensure international protection, effectively deterring future invasions,” Mr. Nedelcu concluded.
Such an arrangement would allow Kyiv to negotiate with greater confidence, secure in the knowledge of its post-war safety. Robust guarantees could even sway public opinion in Ukraine towards accepting territorial adjustments, an idea that is gradually finding more support.
President Zelensky has indicated an agreement with the United States on post-war security guarantees, although specific details remain confidential. However, European diplomats in Kyiv express ongoing doubts about the finalization of these guarantees. This skepticism fuels worries that the Geneva talks, by prioritizing territorial issues before security commitments are firmly established, might be happening too soon.
This week, President Zelensky subtly voiced his concern in a public online post.
“Our American partners are indeed preparing security guarantees,” he wrote. “However, their stance suggests a territorial exchange first, followed by security assurances. My view is: security guarantees first. Second, we are not abandoning our territories, though we are open to compromise. But this compromise must not enable Russia to swiftly recuperate and launch another invasion.”