Officials from Ukraine and Russia were scheduled to convene in Switzerland for a fresh round of U.S.-facilitated peace talks. However, expectations for a significant breakthrough to end the ongoing war remained low. The conflict continues fiercely, previous discussions have yielded scant results, and fundamental obstacles to an agreement persist.
This gathering represents the third trilateral meeting involving Ukrainian, Russian, and American negotiators within a few weeks.
While both Ukraine and Russia characterized two earlier rounds of talks held in the United Arab Emirates as productive, concrete advancements beyond a prisoner exchange were minimal. The war is set to enter its fifth year this month, highlighting the urgency yet difficulty of these diplomatic efforts.
Kyiv and Moscow remain fundamentally at odds over the central impediments to a peace agreement. These include the future of eastern Ukrainian territories coveted by Russia – a topic anticipated to be central to this week’s discussions – and the critical question of post-war Western security assurances aimed at preventing future Russian aggression.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reiterated these profound disagreements in recent social media statements. He cautioned against allowing “the aggressor to take something,” a clear reference to Russia’s territorial demands in the east. Zelensky also pressed the United States to accelerate efforts on security guarantees, a process complicated by Moscow’s firm stance against any Western troop deployments in Ukraine as part of such assurances.
Steve Witkoff, special envoy for President Trump, and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, are slated to mediate this week’s talks, scheduled from Tuesday to Wednesday in Geneva. They are also expected to engage in parallel negotiations concerning Iran.
Ukraine’s delegation will comprise Rustem Umerov, Secretary of the National Security Council, and Kyrylo Budanov, Mr. Zelensky’s chief of staff. Russia’s representatives will include Vladimir Medinsky, a senior Kremlin aide, alongside military intelligence officials.
The inclusion of Vladimir Medinsky, a former culture minister and historian who previously led Moscow’s negotiations, has been met with apprehension by some Ukrainian observers. During past discussions, Medinsky’s prolonged historical discourses and unyielding position, including warnings of Russia’s intent to fight indefinitely, often frustrated his Ukrainian counterparts.
Notably, Medinsky was absent from the two prior trilateral meetings in the United Arab Emirates, where Russia instead sent security and military intelligence officials. This change, according to Ukrainian officials, led to a more constructive tone in those discussions.
Commenting on the earlier meetings, Andrii Sybiha, Ukraine’s foreign minister, remarked to Ukrainian media last month, “These are different people, and there were no more pseudo-historical lectures. The conversations were very focused.”
Last week, President Zelensky informed Bloomberg that the previous discussions centered on the practicalities of a ceasefire and its U.S.-monitored implementation. Crucially, these talks avoided the more significant disputes over territorial integrity and security guarantees, a fact analysts suggest might explain their “constructive” label.
Zelensky indicated to Bloomberg that territorial issues would likely be the focal point of this week’s negotiations. Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, confirmed this on Monday, noting that this renewed emphasis had led to Medinsky’s reappointment as “the chief negotiator.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently maintained that the conflict will not cease until Ukraine relinquishes control of the eastern Donetsk region it currently holds – an area spanning approximately 2,000 square miles, comparable in size to Delaware.
President Zelensky has consistently rejected Russia’s territorial demands. However, he has shown a willingness to explore compromise, proposing a demilitarized zone in Donetsk where both Ukrainian and Russian forces would equally withdraw. Public sentiment in Ukraine, increasingly weary of the war, also indicates a growing openness to territorial concessions.
Russia has continually argued that its gradual yet consistent battlefield gains suggest Ukraine would benefit from accepting a peace deal that includes territorial concessions sooner, rather than risk further losses through prolonged, costly combat.
Conversely, Ukraine’s strategy has been to maximize the human cost of Russia’s offensive by inflicting heavy casualties on its forces. However, Ukrainian officials recently stated that the Trump administration is intensifying pressure for them to make concessions, aiming to conclude the war by early summer.
Nataliya Vasilyeva also contributed to this report.