Geneva without a breakthrough: negotiations between Russia and Ukraine ended without noticeable progress

On February 17–18, another round of Russian-Ukrainian negotiations took place in Geneva with US mediation. The meeting did not yield tangible results. The second day was three times shorter than the first — about two hours instead of six. As a result, the head of the Russian delegation Vladimir Medinsky described the dialogue as “difficult,” limiting himself to a brief briefing without answering most questions.

President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed: the positions of the parties remain different, there is no noticeable progress. Issues of eastern Ukraine and infrastructure facilities were discussed — a formulation that reads as Donbas and the fate of the Zaporizhzhia NPP.

Two tracks: military and political

“Military with military”: technical architecture of a possible truce

According to Zelensky, the military block of negotiations looked constructive. Participants generally understand how monitoring of the ceasefire can be organized — if there is political will. Control, according to him, involves the participation of the US, which Kyiv sees as a positive signal.

A source from BBC at the negotiations explained: the delegations were divided into two subgroups. The military discussed the technical implementation of decisions “on the ground” — disengagement of forces, monitoring, verification of violations, parameters of control of the contact line. This format, according to the interlocutor, “works very well” because it allows for the preparation of tools in advance in case of a political decision.

The logic is simple: if the technical framework is not ready, even an agreement reached may get bogged down in details.

Political block: territories and guarantees

The political subgroup focused on sensitive issues — conditions for ending the war, security guarantees, territories of Donbas. It is here, according to the Ukrainian side, that progress was minimal.

Zelensky noted that a dialogue took place and the parties agreed to continue contacts, but there is no progress comparable to the military track. He also emphasized the importance of Europe’s presence in the further process.

Why the round stalled

According to Axios, the first day of negotiations faced difficulties right from the start — after the Russian position was voiced. Medinsky previously led the Moscow delegation in 2022, and his role was then assessed as hindering serious discussions.

Daniel Szeligowski, head of Eastern European research at the Polish Institute of International Affairs, believes that Medinsky’s reappointment indicates the Kremlin’s lack of readiness for compromises.

The rhetoric of the Russian side again boiled down to previous demands, including the transfer of key Donbas cities under Moscow’s control. Such an approach predictably does not bring positions closer.

American role and further steps

A Ukrainian diplomatic source noted the “positive and constructive” role of the US delegation. According to him, the parties agreed not to disclose details, but contacts will continue “when they are ready.”

In the public sphere, formulations remained cautious. For Washington, it is important to maintain the negotiation channel, even if the substantive content is currently limited.

As noted by NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency, the Geneva round showed a stratification of the process: the technical track is moving faster than the political one. This creates an illusion of dynamics in the absence of strategic convergence.

Outcome: dialogue continues, but there is no breakthrough

The negotiations ended without specific agreements. The military format worked out monitoring parameters, the political one recorded discrepancies.

The key question remains the same: will there be political will for a compromise, without which even well-developed control mechanisms will remain on paper.

So far, Geneva has not become a turning point. Rather, it is another episode of a protracted diplomatic marathon, where the pace is determined not by statements, but by real concessions.