The fact that the meeting between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States ended without any breakthrough or tangible achievements also points towards the biggest paradox relating to this situation – that even as efforts are being made towards resolving this conflict diplomatically, the situation is being taken neither by Ukraine nor Russia. The trilateral meeting took place while missile and drone attacks are being increasingly launched on key infrastructure and energy facilities.
As opposed to an escalation reduction, the timing of these negotiations implies these negotiations served more as a form of theatre than an actual policy of ending conflict.
Can Negotiations Succeed While the Battlefield Dictates Terms?
The continued Russian strikes on Ukraine’s energy grid during negotiations raise a fundamental question about Moscow’s intent. Thousands of buildings, without heating in sub-zero temperatures, the attacks seem calibrated not only to weaken Ukraine militarily, but to make civilians suffer as leverage.
Ukraine’s leadership has framed these strikes as an attack on the negotiations themselves, positing that violence during negotiations undermines good-faith engagement of any kind. If military pressure continues to define leverage, then diplomacy risks remaining subsidiary, rather than primary, to the pathway of peace.
Is Russia Using Talks to Legitimize Territorial Gains?
Russia’s posture still rests upon its territorial claims, which involve the recognition of its annexation of 20% of Ukrainian territory. The mention of the earlier “Anchorage formula,” which allegedly gave Russia control of Crimea and the Donbas region, shows the negotiations strategy that Russia followed to freeze the conflict rather than bring it to an end.
If viewed from the perspective of Ukraine, inviting negotiations centered on territorial giving in is to reward aggressions. In fact, the gap points to the fact that the negotiations might not be centered on compromises but on how strongly Ukraine and its allies can withstand such pressures.
What Role Is the United States Really Playing?
The involvement of US forces brings confusion, not much clarity, to these peace talks. Zelenskyy has repeatedly stressed to all parties, including President Putin, that Zelenskyy considers American involvement, including under American monitoring, essential. Still, no one is sure what any promised American security guarantees will actually look like, when Congress will clarify any legislation, or when these guarantees will actually take effect.
In the background, meetings between the US special envoy and family members indicate the very personal nature and unconventional character of US diplomacy during this period of the conflict. Indeed, there is a risk that this unofficial approach is eroding the credibility of both institutions at a critical juncture.
Are Security Guarantees a Substitute for Sovereignty?
Zelensky’s comments in Davos dramatize once again the fundamental unsolved problem: territory. Even security guarantees, however strong they may appear in their formulation, cannot compensate in their absence, provided fundamental changes in Ukrainian sovereignty and identity are not made.
Because any such arrangement is a trade-off and is necessarily unstable, it would perpetuate existing grievances, encourage future coercion, and cause Ukraine to remain dependent on fluctuating enforcement structures as political parties switch hands in Washington and across Europe.
How Credible Are Claims of Commitment to Peace?
The “sincere commitment” that the Russians declare towards a political settlement is difficult to reconcile with the strikes, casualties, and war crimes being reported. Ukraine’s leadership believes that such actions by the Russians show that they are looking to discuss a settlement on their own terms, rather than making compromises.
At the same time, these alleged attacks by Ukraine upon ambulances and civilian targets, whether true or untrue, speak of a larger emerging information war where moral narratives form part of a negotiating balance.
Is This a Ceasefire Process or a Conflict Management Exercise?
The decision to schedule further talks may appear encouraging, but the absence of ceasefire commitments suggests the process is aimed at managing the conflict rather than ending it. Without de-escalation measures, humanitarian corridors, or verified pauses in fighting, negotiations risk becoming cyclical and inconclusive.
History suggests that talks held under active fire often entrench positions rather than soften them, especially when one side believes time and attrition are working in its favor.
Does the Territorial Question Make Peace Structurally Impossible?
At the heart of the ongoing stalemate are the irreconcilable positions over Donbas and Crimea, with Ukraine ruling out the ceding of any territory categorically, and Russia equally categorically ruling out compromise on the issue of territory. Thus, the stalemate also seems to imply a choice between imposition and inability because of political opposition within countries for a solution to the conflict to emerge in the short run.
Until this structural contradiction is overcome, either by a different model of battlefields or a different model of international enforcement, such meetings can be expected only to produce appearances, but not outcomes.
