Geneva Peace Talks on Ukraine End Without Cease-Fire, Exposing Deep Gaps

Delegates from Russia, Ukraine and the United States left a Geneva hotel last month with no cease-fire, no political framework and only a promise to keep talking—underscoring how far the sides remain from ending Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War II.

The two days of U.S.-brokered meetings on Feb. 17–18 at the InterContinental Geneva were billed by Washington as a centerpiece of President Donald Trump’s push to “end the war” in Ukraine. Instead, the third round of trilateral talks since January broke up early on its second day with what participants described as difficult but limited progress on technical issues—and a wide gulf on core political questions.

Another round of negotiations is expected, but no date or venue has been publicly confirmed.

In carefully worded statements after the talks, all three governments said they would continue working toward a deal. Ukrainian officials called the discussions “difficult, but important.” The U.S. envoy said there had been “meaningful progress.” The head of Russia’s delegation described the sessions as “heavy, but business-like” and “effective.”

But there was no announcement of a formal truce, let alone agreement on the future status of occupied territories, security guarantees for Ukraine or the phased easing of sanctions on Russia—the issues at the heart of any eventual settlement.

Trump’s envoys at the table

The Geneva meetings followed two earlier trilateral rounds in Abu Dhabi in January and early February that set up the format and working groups. The process grew out of an August 2025 summit in Alaska between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, where the leaders signaled a willingness to explore a package linking Ukraine’s status, sanctions relief and broader European security arrangements.

In Geneva, the U.S. delegation was led by real estate executive Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, with the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner also taking part. Their presence reflected Trump’s reliance on a tight circle of trusted advisers rather than a traditional State Department-led process.

On the Ukrainian side, National Security and Defense Council Secretary Rustem Umerov headed the delegation, joined by Kyrylo Budanov, the newly appointed head of the Office of the President, and senior military and intelligence officials. Russia’s team was led by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, who also fronted talks with Ukraine in Istanbul in 2022, along with sovereign-wealth adviser Kirill Dmitriev and the head of military intelligence, Adm. Igor Kostyukov.

European allies were not in the room. National security officials from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland held separate side meetings with the U.S. and Ukrainian teams, but the trilateral format was tightly controlled by Washington.

Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis opened the talks, saying Switzerland “is not a party to the negotiations, but actively supports this trilateral approach aimed at promoting de-escalation and the search for lasting peace.”

A long first day, a short second

The first day of talks on Feb. 17 ran for about six hours behind closed doors. Umerov said afterward that the meeting was “focused on practical issues and the mechanics of possible solutions,” and thanked the U.S. delegation for “constructive cooperation.” Witkoff told reporters that Ukraine and Russia had agreed to brief their leaders and “continue working towards a deal,” saying Trump’s role in bringing the parties together had produced “meaningful progress.”

A Russian official cited in state media called the negotiations “very tense” but confirmed they would resume the next day.

In his nightly video address the same evening, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy struck a sharper tone. He accused Moscow of trying “to drag out negotiations that could already have reached the final stage” and said he had given the Ukrainian team a “clear task … to do everything possible so that the negotiations are nonetheless productive and increase the chances for peaceful solutions.” Zelenskyy also pointed to Russian missile and drone strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure as the talks opened, calling it an example of “negotiating under fire.”

The second day in Geneva began late in the morning on Feb. 18 and ended abruptly in less than two hours, far earlier than scheduled. There was no joint statement. Kyrylo Budanov, speaking for the Ukrainian side, said only that “another round of negotiations in Geneva has concluded. The discussion was difficult, but important.”

Cease-fire mechanics without a cease-fire

People familiar with the discussions say negotiators worked through detailed scenarios for a possible cease-fire, including mapping current lines of contact and options for phased or regional truces. Military and technical experts from all three countries reportedly examined ideas for monitoring any cessation of hostilities using international observers, drones, satellite imagery and joint coordination centers.

The United States also pressed both Russia and Ukraine to refrain from long-range strikes on each other’s energy infrastructure, according to officials briefed on the talks. Ukrainian representatives signaled Kyiv could consider such restraint if Russia did the same, but no formal “energy cease-fire” was announced.

Despite those discussions, the Geneva round closed with no agreement on stopping active combat. Russian missiles and drones have continued to target Ukrainian cities and power facilities, while Ukraine has kept up strikes on Russian positions and logistics.

Territory, security and sanctions remain unresolved

Negotiators also confronted questions that have defied resolution since Russia’s full-scale invasion began on Feb. 24, 2022: who controls which territory, how Ukraine is guaranteed future security, and what, if any, sanctions relief Russia might obtain under a deal.

Ukrainian officials have consistently ruled out recognizing Russian annexations or formally ceding regions such as Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. In an interview during the Geneva talks, Zelenskyy suggested Ukrainians might consider temporarily “freezing” current front lines in parts of Donbas as part of a broader agreement but would reject being asked to “hand over” the territory outright.

The fate of Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, and other occupied areas in the south was discussed only indirectly, according to diplomats, given the political sensitivity on both sides. Ukrainian officials have highlighted the Russian-held Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant as a specific sticking point, pushing for its demilitarization and placement under international oversight.

On security guarantees, Zelenskyy said in public remarks before Geneva that Washington’s draft proposal envisaged 15 years of guarantees for Ukraine, while Kyiv was seeking commitments of more than 20 years from the United States and key European states. Russia, meanwhile, has demanded that Ukraine adopt neutral status outside NATO and accept restrictions on its armed forces and defense partnerships—conditions Kyiv has so far rejected.

Economic issues added another layer of complexity. U.S. officials have privately linked the pace and scope of sanctions relief to Russian steps on cease-fire and potential troop withdrawals. Frozen Russian energy and corporate assets, including an estimated $22 billion in Lukoil holdings under U.S. jurisdiction, are among the tools Washington is using for leverage, according to people familiar with the talks.

Separately from the trilateral format, Umerov and Witkoff remained in Geneva for a bilateral meeting on Feb. 26 to discuss what both sides have described as a “prosperity package” for Ukraine. The concept aims to mobilize hundreds of billions of dollars in public and private financing over a decade for reconstruction and investment, contingent in part on security conditions.

Domestic and global constraints

Any agreement hammered out in hotels and conference rooms will also have to survive politics at home. Zelenskyy has repeatedly said that any peace deal must be put to a nationwide referendum, a commitment that effectively gives Ukrainian public opinion a veto over the terms.

After nearly four years of war, opinion surveys and public statements indicate that many Ukrainians are exhausted but remain deeply opposed to territorial concessions and skeptical of Russian promises. That limits the space for compromise on borders and status, even as pressure builds to end the fighting.

In Russia, state media have framed the Geneva meetings as evidence that Moscow is a central interlocutor with Washington on European security, not simply a party to a conflict with Ukraine. Russian officials have linked the talks to their broader demand for limits on NATO expansion and deployments in Eastern Europe.

The Geneva round also took place against the backdrop of rising nuclear risks. The New START treaty, the last remaining bilateral agreement capping U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals, expired on Feb. 5 without a replacement. Arms control experts warn that a prolonged stalemate over Ukraine could feed a wider deterioration in U.S.-Russian relations and accelerate a new arms race.

Next steps uncertain

Officials in Kyiv, Moscow and Washington have all said they expect further talks in the coming weeks, potentially in Turkey, the United Arab Emirates or again in Switzerland. But by early March, with both Russian and Ukrainian forces claiming incremental advances along the front, diplomats acknowledged that the process was effectively on hold.

For now, the Geneva meetings have produced more detailed blueprints for how a cease-fire might one day be monitored, how prisoners of war and civilians might be exchanged, and how Ukraine’s reconstruction could be financed. They have not resolved who controls what territory, under what security arrangements, and at what cost.

Those unresolved questions will determine whether Geneva is remembered as the point where the path to peace began to take shape—or as another stop in a war that ground on despite negotiations, as missiles flew over a country while its future was debated on the shores of Lake Geneva.