Geneva, Feb. 18, 2026 — Talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations, organized and hosted by U.S. mediators, ended without a dramatic breakthrough. The sessions were described in the papers we reviewed as professional but cautious: negotiators chipped away at technical and operational details, yet the most consequential political issues — who holds which territory, the shape of security guarantees, and the order of political steps — remained unresolved. With the fourth anniversary of the full‑scale invasion approaching on Feb. 24, both sides signaled they expect more rounds of diplomacy. Still, three stubborn fault lines — territory, security guarantees and sequencing — keep any fragile progress at risk.
What the teams actually worked on
Geneva’s agenda focused on process and practicalities. Delegations swapped written proposals on front‑line management, deconfliction measures and prisoner exchanges. Drafts addressing ceasefire verification and humanitarian corridors circulated widely, but they stayed conceptual rather than becoming binding commitments. U.S. briefing notes repeatedly pushed for incremental, tightly calibrated moves instead of bold gambits; public statements from Moscow and Kyiv largely reiterated familiar red lines. The detailed drafting and legwork fell to military experts, legal advisers and humanitarian officers in specialist groups, while senior politicians confined themselves mostly to high‑level plenaries — a dynamic that limited opportunities to resolve core disputes on the spot.
How the negotiations unfolded
Delegations arrived on U.S.‑organized shuttles and began in plenary before splitting into technical working groups. Early sessions prioritized safety at the front and humanitarian access, then moved into encrypted exchanges of draft language on monitoring and verification. Progress slowed once conversations turned to territorial control and security guarantees — the items that ultimately require political sign‑off. When negotiators hit impasses, they favored follow‑up meetings and written exchanges over on‑the‑spot compromises, a pattern shaped both by logistics and the nature of third‑party mediation.
Who was in the room
U.S. envoys ran the process and provided the venue. Senior Russian and Ukrainian negotiators headed their teams but largely steered clear of direct bargaining over the most explosive political demands; that detailed bargaining fell to advisers and technical experts. International observers and monitoring bodies offered verification models, while each delegation remained tightly tethered to instructions from their capitals. Post‑session statements were carefully worded, aimed as much at domestic audiences and allied partners as at the opposite delegation.
The clearest gains — military and verification work
The most tangible progress in the Geneva files relates to operational matters. Teams discussed systems for monitoring a possible ceasefire: observer deployments, shared telemetry, and standardized incident reporting all made the list. Kyiv pushed for international verification with potential U.S. participation; Moscow sought technical safeguards that preserved operational control. Exchanges were constructive, but drafts stopped short of binding commitments. Both sides admitted more technical refinement and political approval will be necessary before any concept can become policy.
Details from the working groups
Notes from the specialist sessions enumerate possible verification measures and try to define what counts as a breach and how alerts would be validated. Protocols for observer mandates, data formats and dispute‑resolution procedures were sketched out and compared with methods used in past conflicts and new technologies. Yet conversations repeatedly stalled at enforcement: who acts when a threshold is crossed, and what role outside actors can or should play. Those unresolved questions were flagged up to senior officials for further review.
Why these talks matter — and why gains may be fragile
The documents suggest the talks reduced some immediate risks: partial deconfliction measures, if implemented, could lower frontline incidents and civilian harm. But without alignment on security guarantees and territory, those gains could unravel quickly. Ongoing military operations and political posturing have the potential to erode technical advances, which is why allies are quietly preparing contingency plans even as they publicly support continued diplomacy.
What comes next
Both sides indicated a willingness to meet again. Mediators will mainly schedule further technical sessions, while substantive political breakthroughs will likely depend on back‑channel diplomacy and shifts in domestic politics. Observers expect a series of incremental negotiations rather than a sudden settlement; the central test will be whether technical agreements can be turned into enforceable measures and whether either government is ready to soften core positions. The sessions narrowed some immediate risks, yet the bigger questions — who controls what, how security is guaranteed, and how political steps are sequenced — remain the real obstacles to a lasting settlement.