By: Dragana Trifković, Journalist and political researcher
The United States, as the key mediator in the current peace negotiations on Ukraine, has assumed the role of diplomatic patron of a process aimed at calming the armed conflict. At the same time, the fact that the U.S. itself is one of the main political and strategic actors whose decisions and geopolitical approach contributed to the escalation of the crisis raises the question of Washington’s true intentions in the current phase of negotiations. Although the U.S. administration formally emphasizes its commitment to a political solution and stabilization of the situation, it remains unclear whether the primary goal is genuinely the achievement of lasting peace in Ukraine or whether the diplomatic process is also being used as an instrument of broader geopolitical calculations and strategic positioning.
Geneva as a Step Toward Institutionalizing Dialogue
The next round of talks is scheduled for February 17–18 in Geneva, in the format of direct consultations between representatives of Russia and Ukraine, with the mediation of the United States. This marks an elevation of the negotiations to a higher level and the opening of a broader negotiation process. The delegations are expected to discuss the continuation of the diplomatic process aimed at de-escalation, including possible mechanisms for a ceasefire, humanitarian issues, and frameworks for future political negotiations. Although no immediate signing of a comprehensive peace agreement is expected, the significance of this meeting lies in the attempt to institutionalize dialogue and formulate minimal principles that could serve as the basis for the next phases of the negotiation process.
The previous round of talks, held in the United Arab Emirates, was primarily focused on military technical issues and measures to reduce the risk of further escalation on the ground. The Russian delegation was led by Igor Kostyukov, head of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces. The discussions addressed mechanisms for protecting critical infrastructure, possibilities for limited ceasefires in specific conflict zones, as well as humanitarian aspects, including prisoner exchanges and civilian safety. These talks were not intended to produce a political agreement but to create practical preconditions for continuing the broader diplomatic process.
The Composition of the Delegations Reveals the Political Security and Economic Importance of the Talks
The Geneva meeting will serve as a platform for clarifying the positions of the parties and considering possible compromises. Russia will be represented by Presidential Aide Vladimir Medinsky, and the talks will take place in a trilateral format — Russia, Ukraine, and the United States. The composition of the delegations indicates that the discussions in Geneva will have both political security and economic dimensions. The U.S. delegation will include President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, as well as Jared Kushner, signaling the direct involvement of individuals close to the White House. The Russian side will also include the President’s Special Representative for Investment and Economic Cooperation and Director of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, Kirill Dmitriev, indicating that economic aspects of a future agreement — including sanctions and investment cooperation — will be on the table.
According to U.S. officials, the goal of the meeting is to achieve some degree of progress in the negotiations, even though both sides have already significantly solidified their positions. Concrete mechanisms for future political arrangements are expected to be discussed, with Washington making it clear to Kyiv that security guarantees for Ukraine will not be provided before a peace agreement with Russia is concluded. The U.S. side aims to pre regulate as many issues as possible so that a future agreement is sustainable and firmly integrated into the ongoing negotiation process.
At the same time, there are indications that U.S. President Donald Trump may partially withdraw from the negotiation process in the coming weeks due to the approaching U.S. congressional elections. According to The Atlantic, Trump may view the negotiations as a political liability and, in that case, shift the blame for a potential failure of the diplomatic process onto one or both sides. Those closest to President Volodymyr Zelensky warn that if no ceasefire agreement is reached by spring, Ukraine may face years of prolonged conflict. In international circles, the impression is growing that the window for concluding an agreement is closing.
Two Key Obstacles to a Political Solution: Borders and Security
In the current phase of negotiations, the two most contentious issues remain unchanged: the territorial question and security guarantees. Ukraine is formally unwilling to make concessions regarding its territorial integrity, but without acknowledging the reality of losing control over parts of its territory, it is difficult to imagine a lasting political solution to the conflict. On the other hand, Moscow firmly maintains that the territories which, according to the Russian Constitution, have been integrated into the legal order of the Russian Federation cannot be subject to negotiation or compromise.
In addition to the territorial issue, security guarantees represent another major stumbling block. For Moscow, the deployment of foreign troops on Ukrainian territory is unacceptable, as it would, according to the Russian interpretation, constitute a direct threat to its national security. This position fits into a broader demand for redefining the European security architecture, including the withdrawal of NATO infrastructure from Russia’s borders. It is precisely at the intersection of these positions that the most complex part of the negotiation process is unfolding.
A European Signal for Renewed Dialogue with Moscow
The efforts of European actors to re-engage in the diplomatic process are becoming increasingly visible, as demonstrated by the recent visit of an OSCE delegation to Moscow, led by the OSCE Chairperson in Office and Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis. Such steps may be interpreted as an attempt by the European Union and European institutions to restore diplomatic credibility and political influence, which have weakened in recent years due to their limited role in key phases of addressing the Ukrainian conflict. The visit to Moscow, in this sense, represents a signal that Europe is seeking to reopen channels of communication with Russia and reposition itself as a relevant factor in future peace negotiations.
The upcoming talks in Geneva could represent a turning point in the diplomatic process, but their outcome will largely depend on the willingness of the parties to overcome fundamental differences regarding territorial issues and security guarantees. At the same time, the involvement of new actors and Europe’s attempt to reposition itself within the negotiation process show that the diplomatic dynamic is rapidly changing and that a broader framework for a future political settlement is beginning to take shape. It remains to be seen, however, whether the new round of negotiations will bring a concrete step toward peace or merely confirm the impression that the parties’ positions remain deeply opposed, which could prolong the conflict resolution process and increase the risk of the crisis expanding into a wider confrontation on the European continent.
