Ukrainian, Russian, and American officials gathered again on Wednesday for a second day of trilateral talks. These negotiations represent the latest attempt to forge a lasting peace deal, a goal that has remained frustratingly out of reach.
Rustem Umerov, Ukraine’s chief negotiator and the secretary of the National Security Council, announced on social media that the new round of talks in Geneva, Switzerland, commenced shortly after 9:30 a.m. local time. Following the conclusion of the first day of discussions on Tuesday, neither side publicly indicated any significant progress.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky characterized Tuesday’s meetings as “difficult,” suggesting that Russia was deliberately prolonging negotiations that could otherwise be nearing their conclusion. While he didn’t specify the exact disagreements, Ukrainian officials previously expressed unease over the return of Vladimir Medinsky, a Kremlin aide with a reputation for hard-line positions, to head the Russian negotiating team.
Mr. Umerov confirmed on Wednesday that the talks would be divided into separate political and military discussions. Although the specific agenda wasn’t detailed, it’s understood that a central point of contention is the status of Ukrainian-held territory in the east. Russia insists on controlling these areas as a prerequisite for peace, a demand that Kyiv categorically rejects.
This territorial dispute stands as one of two major impediments to a peace agreement, alongside the critical issue of securing comprehensive postwar Western security guarantees for Ukraine to prevent any future Russian aggression.
President Zelensky has indicated a willingness to consider compromises regarding the territorial issue. He previously proposed a demilitarized zone in Donetsk, which would involve both Ukrainian and Russian forces withdrawing from equivalent sections of territory. However, he has consistently emphasized that any such concession would only be made after Ukraine receives concrete security assurances from its Western partners, particularly the United States.
Analysts highlight that the issues of territory and security guarantees are deeply intertwined. The order in which these complex matters are resolved could significantly influence which side gains a strategic advantage in the ongoing negotiations.
“The sequencing matters a lot,” explained Harry Nedelcu, a senior director at Rasmussen Global, a prominent research organization.
“The U.S. seems to prefer Ukraine making territorial concessions initially, with Washington providing security guarantees only afterward,” Mr. Nedelcu stated. “This approach could inadvertently trap Kyiv, as Russia might exploit any pause to initiate further attacks.”
This apprehension is especially strong concerning the remaining Ukrainian-controlled part of Donetsk. This region is heavily fortified; therefore, ceding it, or even retreating as part of a demilitarized zone, could strategically empower Russia to restart hostilities.
“However, if security guarantees are established first,” Mr. Nedelcu continued, “it would provide Ukrainians with stronger leverage in negotiations and ensure Kyiv has international protection to deter any future invasions.”
Under such circumstances, Kyiv could approach negotiations with greater confidence, assured of its postwar security. Robust guarantees might even sway Ukrainian public opinion to accept certain territorial concessions, an idea that is slowly gaining acceptance locally.
President Zelensky has previously stated that the United States and Ukraine have reached an understanding on postwar security guarantees, although the specifics remain unrevealed. Meanwhile, European diplomats in Kyiv harbor doubts about whether these guarantees are fully solidified. This skepticism fuels concerns that the current talks in Switzerland, which prioritize territorial discussions without firm security commitments, might be happening too soon.
This week, President Zelensky alluded to this very concern in a social media post.
“Our American friends are indeed preparing security guarantees. However, their proposal was to first address territorial exchanges or similar arrangements, and only then provide security guarantees,” he shared. “My view is: first, security guarantees. Second, we will not relinquish our territories, though we are open to compromise. But the compromise must not enable Russia to swiftly regroup and launch another invasion.”