The much-anticipated trilateral talks in Geneva between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States have wrapped up, and if you were hoping for a diplomatic miracle, well, you’ll have to keep waiting. The meetings that started with cautious optimism on Tuesday fizzled out after just two hours on Wednesday, with all sides essentially admitting they’re still miles apart on the issues that actually matter.
US envoy Steve Witkoff tried to put on a brave face with his optimistic statements, but both Russian negotiator Vladimir Medinsky and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky weren’t exactly breaking out the champagne. “Difficult” was the diplomatic way they chose to describe things, which in negotiation speak usually means “we got absolutely nowhere.”
Here’s what makes this whole situation even more complicated. After the main talks ended, Medinsky went back for a closed-door session with the Ukrainian side that lasted about 90 minutes. No one’s talking about what happened in that room, which could mean anything from productive dialogue to just more circling around the same impossible demands.
The Territory Problem That Won’t Go Away
A Ukrainian diplomatic source mentioned some progress on “military issues” like where the front line actually is and how they might monitor a ceasefire. That’s nice and all, but it completely sidesteps the elephant in the room: who controls what territory when the shooting stops.
Russia hasn’t budged an inch on its demand for full control of the Donbas region, which includes Donetsk and Luhansk. For Ukraine, that’s a complete non-starter. We’re not talking about minor border adjustments here. This would mean giving up heavily fortified cities and defensive positions that Ukraine has fought tooth and nail to maintain.
Zelensky drew comparisons to the 1938 Munich Agreement, when European powers basically let Hitler take chunks of Czechoslovakia in the name of “peace.” That didn’t work out so well, and the Ukrainian president clearly sees the parallels. He even told Axios that if you put a Donbas handover to a referendum, Ukrainians would reject it outright.
The fear isn’t just about losing territory. Many Ukrainians believe that giving up Donbas would leave them vulnerable to another Russian invasion down the line. It’s the classic problem of whether you can actually trust your opponent to honor any agreement when they’ve already broken previous ones.
Trump’s Impatience and Europe’s Sidelining
President Trump, who’s been driving these diplomatic efforts, is clearly getting frustrated with how slowly things are moving. He told Ukraine to “come to the table, fast” on Monday, which Zelensky immediately pushed back on. The Ukrainian president said it’s “not fair” that his country should be the one pressured to compromise when they’re the ones who got invaded.
That tension speaks to a broader issue in these news cycles about war and peace. There’s always pressure on the defending party to make concessions in the name of ending the conflict, even when they’re not the ones who started it. It’s a frustrating dynamic that puts Ukraine in an impossible position.
Meanwhile, European officials from Britain, France, Germany, and Italy were present in Geneva but relegated to sidebar conversations with the Ukrainians. They’ve been struggling to get a seat at the main table in these US-led negotiations, which has to sting considering Europe’s geographic proximity to the conflict and the massive impact it’s had on European politics and economies.
Zelensky made it clear that European participation isn’t optional for any final agreement. He called it “indispensable,” which is probably the diplomatic way of saying “we’re not signing anything without them in the room.”
The Nuclear Wild Card
Then there’s the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant situation, which adds another layer of complexity to an already impossible puzzle. Europe’s largest nuclear facility has been under Russian control since March 2022, sitting right on the front line like a ticking time bomb that everyone’s trying to ignore.
Ukraine wants it back. Zelensky floated the idea of sharing control with the Americans, which Moscow is about as likely to accept as they are to voluntarily withdraw from Donbas. The nuclear plant issue alone could derail any potential agreement, even if they somehow managed to compromise on everything else.
What Happens Now
Both sides agreed to meet again “soon,” whatever that means in diplomatic time. Rustem Umerov, speaking for Ukraine, tried to sound less gloomy than others, calling the discussions “substantive and intensive.” He admitted there had been progress but couldn’t share details, which is standard operating procedure for these kinds of talks.
The thing is, we’re approaching the four-year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion next Tuesday. Four years of casualties, displacement, and destruction. Four years of Ukrainians dealing with daily aerial attacks, with this week alone seeing four people killed and 30 injured in Russian strikes overnight. Power infrastructure keeps getting hammered, leaving millions without electricity or heating during one of the coldest winters in recent memory.
The distance between what Moscow demands and what Kyiv considers a “just peace” remains substantial, which might be the understatement of the year. After all this time and all these talks, the fundamental question remains unanswered: can you negotiate a lasting peace with someone who’s shown they don’t respect borders, agreements, or basic international norms in the first place?
