A fresh round of U.S.-brokered peace talks between Ukrainian and Russian representatives ended abruptly on Wednesday, lasting a mere two hours. This swift conclusion signals minimal progress and highlights the ongoing difficulty in reaching a resolution as intense fighting continues on the ground.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, though not attending in person, shared via social media that the “negotiations were not easy.” He pointed out that while some common ground was found on technical matters, like cease-fire monitoring, significant disagreements persist on core political issues, particularly the future of Ukrainian territories in the east, which Russia demands as a condition for peace.
Similarly, Vladimir Medinsky, the Kremlin aide heading Russia’s delegation in Geneva, recognized the difficulties, describing the talks to Russian media as “tough but businesslike.”
These candid remarks stand in stark contrast to previous trilateral discussions between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States held in Abu Dhabi earlier this month, which negotiators had previously praised as constructive and productive.
Earlier discussions seemingly prioritized technical aspects, like cease-fire protocols and prisoner exchanges, areas typically easier to reach consensus on. However, this week’s agenda was largely expected to tackle contentious territorial disputes, which have consistently proven to be a major hurdle to any lasting peace agreement.
Kyiv had previously expressed apprehension regarding the return of Mr. Medinsky, known for his firm negotiating stance, to head the Russian team in Geneva, especially after his absence in Abu Dhabi. Ukrainian officials saw this as an indication that Moscow might not be genuinely prepared to compromise. “We can state that Russia is trying to drag out negotiations that could already have reached the final stage,” President Zelensky remarked on Monday following the initial day of discussions.
President Zelensky has indicated a willingness to consider concessions on territorial matters, proposing a demilitarized zone in the eastern Donetsk region — an area coveted by Moscow — where both Ukrainian and Russian forces would symmetrically withdraw. However, he emphasized that any such territorial agreement is contingent upon Ukraine first receiving robust security guarantees from its Western allies, particularly the United States.
Analysts highlight the crucial interdependence of territorial questions and security assurances. The order in which these complex issues are addressed could significantly influence which side ultimately gains a strategic advantage in the ongoing negotiations.
As Harry Nedelcu, a senior director at Rasmussen Global, a prominent research organization, succinctly put it: “The sequencing matters a lot.”
Mr. Nedelcu elaborated, stating that “The U.S. wants Ukraine to make territorial concessions first, and only then would Washington give Kyiv security guarantees.” He warned that “This risks to put Kyiv in a trap. Russia would use the pause to launch another attack.”
This concern is particularly pressing regarding the remaining Ukrainian-controlled sections of Donetsk. This region is heavily fortified, and any surrender or withdrawal as part of a demilitarized zone could inadvertently provide Russia with a crucial strategic advantage to recommence hostilities.
Conversely, Mr. Nedelcu argued, “But if you have security guarantees first, it gives Ukrainians bargaining power at the negotiating table and assures Kyiv of international protection to deter another invasion.”
With strong security assurances in place, Kyiv could approach negotiations with greater confidence, secure in the knowledge of its post-war safety. Such robust guarantees might even sway the Ukrainian public to consider territorial concessions, an idea that is gradually gaining acceptance domestically.
While President Zelensky has asserted that the U.S. and Ukraine have reached an understanding on post-war security guarantees, specific details remain undisclosed. Meanwhile, European diplomats in Kyiv express skepticism about these guarantees being definitively secured. This situation fuels worries that the current talks in Switzerland, concentrating on territorial issues without fully established security commitments, might be moving too quickly.
President Zelensky subtly echoed these concerns in a recent social media post.
He articulated, “Our American friends, they are preparing security guarantees. But they said — first this swap of territories, or something like that, and then security guarantees.” Zelensky countered, “I think — first, security guarantees. Second, we will not give up our territories because we are ready for compromise. What kind of compromise are we ready for? Not for the compromise that gives Russia the opportunity to recover quickly and come again and occupy us.”