Ukraine and Russia Face Off Again in Geneva: Why "Imposing Conditions" Seems to Come Before Reaching an Agreement

Ukraine and Russia Face Off Again in Geneva: Why "Imposing Conditions" Seems to Come Before Reaching an Agreement

In Geneva, Switzerland, new negotiations between Ukraine and Russia have begun. Although Switzerland is often spoken of as a symbol of "neutrality," the atmosphere of the negotiations is far from neutral. Rather, Geneva was chosen as a stage where both sides, without trusting each other, present conditions to end the war to one another—a stronger impression of this kind prevails.


This meeting is considered part of a framework progressing under the mediation of the United States. Ukraine is focusing on humanitarian issues and security, with a limited ceasefire in view to curb attacks on energy facilities that hit the national life hard in the midst of winter. On the other hand, Russia positions the negotiations as "not enough with just security and military" and remains steadfast in putting territorial issues squarely on the agenda. The "main battlefield" for both sides has suddenly shifted to the most difficult points of negotiation.


"Humanitarian" and "Territorial"—The Structural Deadlock Created by Agenda Discrepancies

Ukraine prioritizes realistic themes that first protect lives and livelihoods. Prisoner exchanges, civilian protection, evacuation and recovery, and curbing attacks that shake the energy supply in winter. For a society exhausted by the prolonged war, these are pressing issues that are "difficult to improve without negotiation."


In contrast, Russia pushes territorial issues to the forefront. The demand to fix the treatment of occupied territories in a form close to "final resolution" involves the very foundation of the Ukrainian state. If they concede here, not only will the war not end, but it may also invite the next invasion—this concern is behind the voices from European allies warning against the "rewarding of aggression."


These agenda discrepancies, which may seem like mere differences in priorities, are actually the "structure" that makes negotiations difficult. Humanitarian and energy facility protection can easily be built upon as achievements if agreed upon. However, with territorial issues, the moment of agreement determines victory or defeat. Therefore, for Russia, "territory is the main subject," while for Ukraine, "having territory as the main subject itself is dangerous," making it difficult for both sides to align their goals even when sitting at the same table.


Warnings Before the Meeting—The "Pressure of the Battlefield" Moving Simultaneously with "Negotiations"

Just before the Geneva meeting, President Zelensky referred to the possibility of Russia planning new large-scale attacks, particularly on energy-related targets, and called for expedited air defense support and additional sanctions. There is no guarantee that the battlefield will stop just because negotiations begin. Rather, historically, there have been repeated moves to increase military pressure in line with the timing of negotiations to extract concessions from the opponent.


In other words, Geneva is both a "place of peace" and a "place of pressure." To gain an advantage in negotiations, the opponent is given a "sense of impending loss." What happens outside the negotiations can make the words inside the negotiations heavier or lighter.


The Delegation Lineup Sends a Message

The Ukrainian side has sent members close to the core of national security, emphasizing that they are prepared for practical matters. The Russian side also formed a delegation of about 20 people, adding "depth" to the negotiations, but the person placed at the center is symbolic. The individual named as Russia's chief negotiator has been reported as being perceived by Europe and Ukraine as "difficult to read in terms of seriousness" and "a presence that carries a strong political message."


Additionally, information that the Russian delegation's travel involved "detours" also symbolizes the current negotiation environment. Although there are circumstances that make it difficult to avoid European airspace physically, the very topic of travel routes visualizes the depth of mutual distrust.


Expectations and Concerns About "U.S. Mediation": Results-Driven or Hasty?

In this framework, U.S. mediation is emphasized, and the U.S. representatives and coordination methods are also in the spotlight. The longer the war drags on, the stronger the pressure on the mediating country to "produce results." On the other hand, there is a danger that in the rush for results, issues related to the security and sovereignty of the parties involved may become prone to "transactions." Reports suggest that negotiations are becoming multi-layered, involving not only territory and security but also peripheral issues (such as post-war frameworks and facility handling).


There are two meanings to "ceasefire." Stopping the gunfire and removing the causes of war. Even if only the former is achieved first, if the latter remains vague, the seeds of rekindling remain. Conversely, if one tries to clear up the latter all at once, conditions that the parties cannot accept line up, and negotiations collapse. The Geneva talks are placed right in the middle of this dilemma.


Reactions on Social Media (Organizing Main Opinions)

 

※The following is a summary of the "tendencies" of posts and threads spread on X (formerly Twitter) and Reddit. Since the truth of the claims depends on the position of the poster, the focus is on the "temperature" and "points of discussion" of the reactions.

1) "Negotiations are necessary, but caution against 'fait accompli' of territory"

The most common reaction is that "discussion itself is necessary, but peace in the form of handing over territory is unacceptable." Particularly noticeable are posts stating that Russia's focus on territory as the main agenda is "not peace but a forced surrender."

2) "Doubts about Russia's seriousness indicated by the choice of representatives"

Regarding the appointment of Russia's chief negotiator, posts suggest it is "not a sign of compromise, but a reaffirmation of a hardline stance." Touching on past statements and positions, there were also evaluations that "it may not be about advancing negotiations, but about solidifying a narrative for domestic audiences."

3) "The location of Geneva itself is a 'message'"

Discussions also emerged about "why Switzerland" and "how functional is Switzerland while claiming neutrality." While being a neutral location sets the conditions for dialogue, the view is spreading that it also becomes a stage for maneuvering over "who holds the initiative."

4) "A limited ceasefire over energy facilities could be a 'realistic step'"

Regarding Ukraine's emphasis on curbing attacks on energy facilities, there are voices saying "there is a possibility of agreement here" and "it is directly connected to humanitarian issues and the results are visible," while others doubt, saying "if the limited ceasefire becomes permanent and offensives continue on the front lines, its meaning is thin."

5) "Evaluation of the U.S. as a mediator is split"

There coexist those who expect "stopping it is the priority" and those who are concerned that "a hasty deal will disproportionately burden the parties involved." On social media, the debate continues on whether the U.S.'s "results-oriented approach" will advance peace or lead to precarious compromises.


Sources

Related Articles