The recent round of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in Geneva has been met with restrained assessments from both politicians and experts. Despite claims of "some progress," the parties have not demonstrated tangible results.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed concern that the current Russian delegation is trying to lead the peace talks into a dead end to buy more time on the battlefield for the Kremlin.
The President of Ukraine reported that the political component of the peace talks remains complex. The parties agreed to continue the dialogue, but without significant progress on the political front.
As for the political component, these are all the sensitive issues you know about. The negotiations were difficult, the positions are different
Meanwhile, US President's Special Envoy Steve Witkoff stated significant progress after the first day of trilateral talks in Geneva. According to him, both sides agreed to inform their leaders and continue working towards reaching an agreement.
International expert, PhD in Political Science Stanislav Zhelikhovsky, in a comment for UNN, emphasizes: it is premature to talk about the success of the negotiations at this stage.
This stage of negotiations has ended, and according to the information currently emerging, there is talk of some progress. But I would not claim that the negotiations in Geneva were very successful or yielded significant results.
He stressed that it is essentially another round of consultations without real breakthroughs.
We can state that this round was not groundbreaking and did not create grounds for talks about meaningful or qualitative agreements.
Humanitarian track: silence instead of results
I have not seen information that an agreement was reached on the release of our prisoners. And this issue should have been raised. If there is not even humanitarian progress, it is a serious signal.
At the same time, the expert admits that some information may appear later, but usually such results are announced immediately after the round ends.
Zhelikhovsky believes that the negotiation process is currently more in the technical plane – the parties are discussing the parameters and mechanisms of possible solutions, but are not moving to their implementation.
Delegation from Moscow: a signal of delay
A separate aspect is the composition of the Russian delegation. It was again headed by Vladimir Medinsky, which, according to the expert, indicates Moscow's unwillingness to raise the level of negotiations.
I believe that Putin is trying to enter the same river again – just as it was last year in Istanbul. For Moscow, these negotiations are rather imitative. This is necessary to buy time.
In his opinion, subsequent rounds may not differ much from previous ones.
The results are likely to be minimal. In fact, the aggressor country needs time – and Moscow is trying to win it to achieve its goals within the framework of the so-called "SVO".
The expert believes that the Kremlin seeks full control over the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and uses the negotiation process as diplomatic cover.
Washington realizes that Putin is stalling for time
According to Zhelikhovsky, Washington is gradually coming to understand the complexity of the situation.
I believe that Washington realizes that ending hostilities is not as easy as it might have seemed before. It's no longer about 24 hours. A year has passed, but there is no tangible progress.
He adds that even at the level of American officials, the rhetoric has become more cautious.
The expert believes that the Trump administration understands: Moscow stands on its positions, Kyiv on its own, and compromise options are rejected.
Everything goes in circles. Formats change, meetings take place, but there is no breakthrough.
War and negotiations – parallel processes
Zhelikhovsky draws attention to another factor – the seasonality of hostilities.
According to him, Russia may use the warm period of the year to intensify offensive operations.
There will likely be attempts at a breakthrough. And in parallel, negotiations will intensify. That is, the situation on the battlefield will determine the parameters of the next phases of negotiations.
He stresses that without a change in military dynamics, a radical breakthrough in the diplomatic process should not be expected.
The Trump factor and US domestic politics
The expert pays special attention to the role of Donald Trump and his political calculations.
Zhelikhovsky believes that for Trump, the negotiation track is currently important given his pre-election promises and the approaching congressional elections.
The more the negotiations reach a dead end, the less interest Trump will have in them. He may switch to other issues that will bring him political dividends.
At the same time, he does not rule out that Russia and the United States may use the negotiation process to restore or strengthen bilateral communication.
For Putin, it is important to emerge from isolation and strengthen Russia's economic capabilities. For Trump, it is important to gain benefits. If he believes that economic cooperation with the Russians is necessary for him, he may go for some rapprochement.
Geneva talks – no successes, but no major failure for Ukraine either
I would not call them a resounding failure, but not a success either. If there are not even intermediate significant results, especially on the humanitarian track, it means that the negotiations did not yield tangible content.
According to Zhelikhovsky, for now, the negotiation process rather maintains formal communication between the parties than brings a real end to the war.
The parties continue to go to negotiations to maintain dialogue and communication. But without Moscow's readiness for concessions, there will be no breakthrough.
The war continues, no peace in sight
The Geneva round only confirmed the main point: despite the formal continuation of dialogue, war remains the defining reality. Claims of "some progress" are not supported by concrete political decisions or tangible humanitarian results. The negotiation process is maintained, but it does not change the strategic picture - hostilities continue, and the positions of the parties remain far apart.
Russia, meanwhile, shows no systemic signs of readiness for peace. There are no signals of abandoning maximalist demands, no steps that would indicate a real intention to end the war. As long as diplomacy remains a secondary tool and military logic is primary, a quick breakthrough in negotiations is not to be expected.
Moreover, public signals from Russian officials indicate that Moscow is talking not only about Donbas. In the rhetoric of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, there have been repeated mentions of the so-called "Novorossiya" - a broader concept that covers a significant part of southern and eastern Ukraine. This demonstrates that the Kremlin's real intentions go beyond individual regions and amount not to a "territorial compromise," but to imposing actual capitulation on Ukraine. And as long as these maximalist demands remain unchanged, diplomacy is unlikely to be able to stop the war.