Talks in Geneva between United States and Ukrainian delegations on President Donald Trump’s draft peace plan for Ukraine have ended without incident, but with many questions still unresolved.
In a joint statement, both sides described the discussions as “constructive, focused and respectful”. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said afterwards that there were “signals” that the American side had begun to listen to Ukrainian concerns about elements of the draft. His comments suggested Kyiv believes contentious points in the document can still be re-examined as negotiations continue.
The Geneva round comes as European leaders start to involve themselves more directly. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said he is unaware of any separate European peace blueprint. For diplomats in Kyiv and Brussels, however, the central issue is not the existence of a rival European plan, but the extent to which allies can influence the direction of Washington’s own proposals.
According to Ukrainian analysts, a notable feature of the current process is the degree to which Trump himself appears to be removed from the detail. Reports suggest the president is briefed in broad terms about proposals that aides say could help bring the war to an end, but that he does not personally engage with the technical texts. In this reading, officials initiate, shape and advance plans in the president’s name, while his role is largely confined to giving or withholding political approval.
Critics in Kyiv and elsewhere argue that this dynamic places an unusual burden on European leaders, who, in private conversations with Trump, are forced to explain the implications of proposals drafted by his own envoys. Diplomats liken this to walking a counterpart through a position paper prepared by staff shortly before a meeting – an arrangement that increases the risk of misunderstanding and mixed signals.
Analysts also dispute whether there is, in fact, a single, coherent “Trump plan”. What exists today, they say, is a bundle of proposals assembled by Trump’s special representative Steve Witkoff and the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, with Rubio playing a supporting role. This package was first presented to Trump and later shared with Zelenskyy during the Geneva talks, and is understood to overlap with a 28-point framework already reported in US and European media.
Several investigative reports have linked the origins of the draft to Kirill Dmitriev, the Russian president’s special envoy and head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. Dmitriev is said to have supplied Witkoff with an earlier paper setting out Moscow’s preferred parameters for a settlement, at a time when he was lobbying in Washington against new US sanctions on Russia’s major oil companies Rosneft and Lukoil. Those sanctions were subsequently imposed, and later strengthened, but elements of the Dmitriev paper appear to have survived in the working text now under discussion.
Ukrainian commentators stress that Dmitriev’s reported initiative was not aimed at securing a durable peace, but at delaying or diluting energy sanctions that directly affect the Kremlin’s revenue. They also question whether Dmitriev fully coordinated his efforts with President Vladimir Putin. In their view, there is little evidence that the Kremlin has authorised any compromise that would require it to halt military operations in Ukraine in the foreseeable future.
As a result, both Dmitriev and Witkoff are portrayed by critics as having fallen short of the core tasks assigned to them. Dmitriev did not prevent sanctions; Witkoff has not, so far, produced a framework that Moscow is prepared to endorse. For Kyiv, the concern is that negotiations over such a text consume political bandwidth without bringing an end to Russian aggression any closer.
The episode highlights a broader uncertainty surrounding the peace process. On the American side, there is a fluid interplay between domestic politics, sanctions policy and diplomacy with both Ukraine and Russia. On the Russian side, there are doubts over whether any paper negotiated with intermediaries can bind a leadership that continues to insist publicly that it will not retreat.
For Ukraine, the Geneva talks have at least created a channel to contest provisions it regards as unacceptable, and to press the United States to maintain – rather than relax – economic pressure on Russia.
