Geneva Talks End With No Breakthrough, No Breakdown

In a sterile conference room in Geneva, diplomats spoke of peace while 448 drones and 163 artillery strikes pounded Ukraine's Zaporizhia region just hours earlier. This stark contradiction captures the complexity of the two-day US-mediated talks that concluded Thursday with cautious optimism but no concrete breakthroughs.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy described the negotiations as having made "progress" while acknowledging that "positions differ because the negotiations were difficult." The Ukrainian president later revealed that both sides had moved closer to defining terms for ceasefire monitoring, but "political" issues—particularly the explosive question of territorial control—remained largely unresolved.

The War Doesn't Pause for Peace

While negotiators discussed ceasefires, the battlefield told a different story. Russian forces killed 173 people, including 135 children, forcing evacuations from front-line areas in Donetsk. Ukraine's energy ministry reported widespread power outages affecting over 99,000 households in Odesa alone.

Russia claimed territorial gains, announcing the seizure of Kharkivka village in Sumy region and Krynychne in Zaporizhia. Ukrainian drone attacks responded in kind, killing one person in Russia's Bryansk region. The message was clear: both sides continue fighting to strengthen their negotiating positions.

This military-diplomatic duality isn't accidental. History shows that the most intensive peace talks often coincide with the fiercest fighting, as each side seeks leverage for the conference table.

Careful Words, Calculated Moves

Vladimir Medinsky, Russia's chief negotiator, called the talks "difficult but businesslike." His Ukrainian counterpart, Rustem Umerov, described them as "intensive and substantive," noting that both sides were preparing decisions for their respective presidents.

White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt spoke of "meaningful progress" and pledges to "continue working towards a peace deal." Yet the careful diplomatic language reveals as much about what wasn't achieved as what was.

The real significance may lie not in immediate outcomes but in the establishment of a dialogue mechanism. After nearly three years of war, both sides are talking—even if they're saying very different things.

The Wider Chess Game

Ukraine's decision to sanction Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko during the talks sends its own message. The sanctions target Belarus's support for Russian drone attacks, demonstrating that Kyiv won't compartmentalize peace negotiations from broader accountability efforts.

Meanwhile, Estonia's foreign minister condemned allowing Russian and Belarusian athletes to compete under their own flags at the Milano-Cortina Paralympics, calling it a "disgrace." Estonian public broadcasting announced it would boycott coverage in protest.

These parallel actions reveal how the conflict has fractured international norms across multiple domains—from sports to diplomacy to economic relations.

The Domestic Dimension

Both leaders face domestic pressures that complicate any potential agreement. Zelenskyy must balance war-weary citizens' desire for peace with nationalist demands for territorial integrity. Putin needs to justify enormous costs while maintaining his strongman image.

US Senator Jeanne Shaheen's visit to Kyiv during the talks, promising "stronger efforts" and "real work to put pressure on Putin," signals that American political support for Ukraine remains robust. This external backing gives Kyiv confidence to maintain tough negotiating positions.