Table of Contents
High-stakes diplomacy has returned to Geneva, bringing with it a cast of characters and a schedule that critics are describing as chaotic and overly ambitious. The latest round of negotiations involving Russian, Ukrainian, and American delegations—led notably by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner—aims to address the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. However, the structure of these talks, combined with the parallel scheduling of negotiations regarding Iran, suggests a frenetic diplomatic approach rather than a calculated strategy. With the Russians insisting on revisiting the unfinished business of the 2022 Istanbul agreements and the Americans attempting to manage multiple geopolitical crises in a single afternoon, the Geneva meetings offer a fascinating glimpse into the current state of international relations.
Key Takeaways
- Compressed Diplomacy: The US delegation is attempting to conduct high-level negotiations with Russia/Ukraine and Iran on the same day, raising questions about the depth and seriousness of the talks.
- Return to Istanbul: Russia frames these meetings not as new initiatives, but as a resumption of the 2022 Istanbul process, insisting on the original terms regarding demilitarization and neutrality.
- The "Trusteeship" Proposal: Russian hardliners are floating the idea of placing Ukraine under a temporary "foreign trusteeship" to manage elections, bypassing the current administration.
- The Anchorage Mystery: Tensions persist over a rumored, undisclosed agreement between Trump and Putin from previous meetings in Anchorage, the existence of which remains unverified by US officials.
- European Exclusion: Despite the conflict taking place on European soil, EU leaders have been effectively sidelined from these critical discussions.
The Logistics of a "Zany" Diplomatic Marathon
The logistics of the Geneva talks reveal a great deal about the current US approach to foreign policy. The itinerary for the American delegation, specifically Witkoff and Kushner, involves shuttling between negotiations with Russian and Ukrainian representatives and a separate track of talks with Iranian officials—all within the span of a single day. This compression of complex geopolitical issues into back-to-back meetings has drawn sharp criticism regarding the feasibility of achieving any diplomatic breakthroughs.
"Even if they were respectively Napoleon and Hercules... it's just asking too much. You can't possibly conduct effective negotiations at this kind of level on the same day with two completely different parties about a major war."
The choice of Geneva itself appears to be a compromise of convenience for the American delegation rather than a strategic consensus. While the Russians preferred Abu Dhabi or Istanbul and the Ukrainians pushed for Miami, Geneva was selected primarily to facilitate the US team's shuttle diplomacy. This decision forced the Russian delegation to undertake a grueling nine-hour journey to bypass hostile airspace, despite the location being in the heart of Europe—a continent heavily involved in the proxy war against Moscow.
The structure suggests that the United States is prioritizing the optics of activity over the substance of negotiation. By forcing diverse conflicts into a single timeline and location, Washington may be attempting to signal control, yet the result appears to be a disjointed series of bilateral meetings rather than a cohesive peace process.
Russia's Strategic Frame: The Istanbul Continuum
While the West may view these talks as a fresh attempt to freeze the conflict, the Russian delegation views them through a strictly historical lens. Moscow’s stance is that every meeting since February 2022 belongs to a single, continuous negotiation process initiated originally by Zelensky. Consequently, they have sent Vladimir Medinsky, the chief negotiator from the 2022 talks, to lead the political track in Geneva.
This staffing choice is a signal that Russia’s objectives have not shifted. They are looking to implement "Istanbul Plus"—an updated version of the draft agreement initialed in April 2022. This framework prioritizes:
- The rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine.
- Ukrainian neutrality and non-alignment with NATO.
- Demilitarization of the Ukrainian state.
The Trusteeship Proposal
Perhaps the most provocative element of the Russian return to Geneva is the inclusion of Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin. Known as a hardliner, Galuzin has previously articulated a controversial proposal for the future governance of Ukraine. The Russian Foreign Ministry’s position is that the current Ukrainian administration is constitutionally illegitimate due to expired mandates.
Consequently, the proposal on the table—likely to be rejected out of hand by Ukraine—is a "trusteeship plan." This would involve a third party, potentially the United Nations, stepping in to administer Ukraine temporarily. The objective would be to stabilize the country and organize what Moscow deems "proper elections" to form a government capable of negotiating a lasting peace. While unlikely to gain traction with the US, the introduction of this concept signals Russia's refusal to engage with the current Ukrainian leadership on standard diplomatic terms.
The Anchorage Mystery: A Ghost Agreement?
A major point of contention hovering over the Geneva talks is the legacy of the meetings in Anchorage. Russian officials, including Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov, have publicly insisted that the current talks must implement agreements reached between Putin and Trump during previous interactions. The Russian narrative suggests that Witkoff previously delivered a written document to Moscow containing proposals that Russia was prepared to work with.
However, this "Anchorage Agreement" remains a geopolitical ghost. There have been no leaks, no published documents, and no confirmation from the US State Department that such a framework exists. Speculation suggests the document may have proposed:
- Freezing the contact lines in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.
- Revisiting the status of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP).
- Establishing specific economic zones.
Despite these rumors, recent Russian rhetoric contradicts the idea of concessions. Moscow has categorically stated that the ZNPP is Russian property and not up for discussion. Furthermore, the Kremlin maintains that any security guarantees must address the "root causes" of the war—namely, the security architecture of Europe—rather than merely freezing frontlines. This disconnect between Russian claims of a prior agreement and the total silence from Washington adds a layer of intrigue and distrust to the proceedings.
The Business Track and European Exclusion
Amidst the political gridlock, there is a separate, quieter track of negotiations focused on economics. Kirill Dmitriev, the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, is present in Geneva but is reportedly segregated from the main political discussions. His meetings with Witkoff likely focus on business interests, sanctions relief, or economic logistics. Given the backgrounds of the negotiators involved, some analysts speculate that this business track may be the only area where tangible progress—or at least pragmatic understanding—is possible.
The Sidelining of Europe
Noticeably absent from the table are the Europeans. Despite the conflict occurring on their border and the heavy financial toll taken on their economies, leaders like Macron and Scholz have been excluded. The negotiation format has reverted to a Cold War-style bilateralism between Moscow and Washington, with Ukraine present as a proxy and Europe absent entirely.
This exclusion highlights the disorganized state of European diplomacy. Proposals by Macron and Meloni to appoint a dedicated European negotiator have stalled due to internal infighting. As a result, the future of European security is being debated in Swiss conference rooms without a single European representative holding a seat at the main table.
Conclusion: The Art of Stringing Along
The overriding theme of the Geneva talks appears to be procrastination disguised as diplomacy. Both sides seem convinced that time is on their side. The Russians believe their battlefield momentum will eventually force a capitulation, while the Americans may be using the talks to buy time or manage domestic political optics.
Drawing parallels to the Paris Peace Accords of the Vietnam era, which took years to resolve simple procedural issues, the Geneva talks risk becoming a protracted exercise in futility. However, unlike the 1960s, the current conflict does not have the luxury of a six-year timeline. With Russia preparing for potential offensives and the Ukrainian political situation becoming increasingly fragile, the chaotic nature of these negotiations suggests a lack of serious intent to resolve the conflict's root causes immediately. Instead, the world is witnessing a "stringing along" strategy, where the appearance of negotiation serves as a cover for the continued prosecution of the war.
