Geneva talks reopen as fighting grinds on along a long frontline
What’s happening
Delegations from Kyiv, Moscow and Washington will meet in Geneva on February 17–18 for a fresh round of trilateral talks aimed at tamping down violence that has continued along a protracted frontline. The session follows earlier talks in Abu Dhabi and comes amid ongoing strikes on military and economic targets and reported civilian harm.
Why this matters
Talks on paper rarely end fighting by themselves. Negotiations matter only to the extent that they change incentives on the ground — and that requires clear, enforceable procedures: who verifies compliance, how violations are documented, and what penalties follow. Observers will be looking for substance over rhetoric: timelines, monitoring mechanisms and any immediate limits that could reduce civilian suffering.
Who’s in the room and what they want
– Kyiv’s team is led by Rustem Umerov, head of the National Security and Defence Council, and includes senior military and diplomatic figures such as Kyrylo Budanov.
– Moscow’s chief representative is Vladimir Medinsky, a presidential aide who has headed Russian negotiating teams before.
– The United States is co‑facilitating the talks, as it did in earlier trilateral rounds.
Delegates are expected to focus on practical, near-term measures: ceasefire lines, rules of engagement around critical infrastructure, civilian-protection steps, and the nuts-and-bolts of verification — who inspects, how information is exchanged, and which third parties might act as guarantors. The session is being framed as a technical exercise to narrow gaps, not as a forum for resolving final territorial disputes.
Core issues on the table
– Ceasefire design: how to create and police a monitored cessation of hostilities, including buffer zones, patrol routes and procedures for real-time incident reporting.
– Verification and monitoring: which international teams will observe, what authority they will have, how evidence will be collected and shared, and what enforcement steps follow breaches.
– Territorial and governance questions: the legal status and administration of contested areas, and the sequencing of withdrawals so that redeployment does not create new security vacuums.
– Security guarantees: Kyiv seeks Western-backed assurances to deter renewed large-scale offensives; Russia continues to press territorial claims in parts of Donbas. Reconciling those positions without undermining domestic political support will be difficult.
Operational detail will be decisive. Technical accords have failed in the past when parties disagreed over who could verify compliance or when monitors had limited access. A ceasefire without credible, transparent monitoring risks becoming a lull rather than a lasting pause.
Practical sticking points
Negotiators must answer a string of practical questions: How are troops redeployed without leaving towns undefended? What institutions certify compliance? Who funds long-term monitoring, reconstruction and humanitarian relief? Which escalation ladders will be accepted if violations occur? The answers will shape whether any agreement can be implemented and sustained.
International response and political constraints
European leaders and other partners are watching closely. Many are willing to engage with Moscow but insist that any outreach yield verifiable reductions in violence. Kyiv has intensified diplomatic outreach to lock in allied support for its positions and to translate pledges into concrete commitments. At the same time, divisions among external backers — between those who favour quick, narrow steps and those insisting on broader guarantees — will limit what negotiators can realistically deliver in Geneva.
What success would look like
Real progress in Geneva would mean a compact set of implementable measures: clearly drawn ceasefire sectors, deployed monitoring teams with unambiguous access and mandate, agreed timelines, and an enforcement framework that makes violations costly. Immediate humanitarian gains — safe corridors for civilians, limitations on strikes near population centres and restored services where possible — would be the most visible markers of success.
Risks and limits
Trust is the single biggest constraint. Ongoing battlefield incidents sap confidence and complicate verification. Even well‑crafted technical measures can unravel if parties or backers lack the will to enforce them. Funding, long-term oversight and political follow-through are equally crucial; without them, small gains may evaporate. Expect a focus on verification, sequencing and immediate humanitarian measures rather than grand political settlements. If the talks produce precise, enforceable steps and clear monitoring, they could reduce violence and create space for broader talks. If those operational details remain vague, the session will likely add another page to a long-running process with uncertain outcomes.