|
Lekshmi MK
22 February 2026 |
CONFLICT WEEKLY NOTE
In the news
On 16 February, a third round of trilateral talks began in Geneva with Ukraine, Russia and the US. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that the talks are more about Ukrainian concessions than about Russian concessions. The Geneva talks follow two rounds of US-mediated talks in the United Arab Emirates, which were considered constructive but did not produce any significant breakthroughs.
On 17 February, Moscow said key issues, including territorial disputes, were discussed in the talks. Meanwhile, Russia carried out massive attacks on the energy infrastructures of Ukraine, and Ukraine conducted drone attacks on Russia's energy infrastructure.
On 18 February, President Zelensky described the peace talks in Geneva as “difficult,” accusing Russia of deliberately delaying progress toward a deal to end the war. He also criticised President Trump of exerting undue pressure on Kyiv to secure a resolution to the war. And he stated that it was “not fair” that Trump kept publicly calling on Ukraine, not Russia, to make concessions in negotiating terms for a peace plan. Russia's chief negotiator, Vladimir Medinsky, said that a new round of talks would be held soon.
Issues at large
First, a brief note on peace talks so far. The Geneva meeting represents the third round of trilateral talks between Ukraine, Russia, and the United States. It follows two earlier US-mediated rounds in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, which were described as constructive but failed to yield breakthroughs. Despite repeated diplomatic engagement, core disagreements remain unresolved, including territorial control, security guarantees, and ceasefire terms. The continuation of hostilities alongside negotiations highlights limited trust and hardened positions. The repeated rounds indicate sustained diplomatic efforts. However, the absence of tangible outcomes underscores the difficulty of reaching a mutually acceptable settlement.
Second, the tussle over territorial sovereignty and annexation claims. Ukraine insists that its internationally recognised borders must remain intact and refuses to give up land seized during the war. However, Russia wants the occupied areas to be formally recognised as its own, citing security concerns, historical links, and the protection of Russian-speaking populations. For Ukraine, accepting annexation would mean losing sovereignty. For Russia, retaining control strengthens its political leverage. Because both sides see the territory as vital to national security, neither is willing to compromise.
Third, the differences over security guarantees to Ukraine. Ukraine wants strong security guarantees from its partners to deter future attacks and ensure its safety. These include military support, defence commitments, or long-term security arrangements. Russia opposes such guarantees. For Kyiv, guarantees are essential to avoid another invasion. However, for Moscow, limiting Ukraine’s security partnerships is a strategic priority. Thus, the disagreement is not only about ending the war but about shaping future security and deterrence in the region.
Fourth, an uneven negotiating environment for Ukraine and Trump’s asymmetric pressure on Kyiv. Ukraine feels greater pressure to compromise than Russia. Kyiv depends heavily on military and financial support from Western partners, which limits its bargaining flexibility. President Zelensky has indicated that proposals discussed in Geneva appear to demand more concessions from Ukraine than from Russia. By contrast, Russia faces fewer immediate external constraints.
Fifth, continuing military strikes. Russia continues attacks to pressure Ukraine and weaken its infrastructure, especially energy systems. Ukraine conducts strikes to disrupt Russian logistics and demonstrate its resilience. Neither side fully trusts the other to honour a ceasefire, so neither reduces military pressure. By negotiating while continuing military operations, both attempt to secure better terms.
In perspective
First, tough negotiations over territory. Reaching a settlement remains difficult because the territorial question lies at the heart of the conflict. Russia seeks recognition of territories under its control, while Ukraine refuses to concede sovereignty over internationally recognised borders. With both sides treating territory as central to national security and legitimacy, negotiations remain difficult and progress is limited.
Second, questions over Trump’s neutrality complicate mediation. Proposals linking security guarantees to territorial compromise create perceptions of bias in Kyiv. Pressure from President Trump to accelerate a settlement has further raised concerns about fairness and balance.
Third, the war’s fourth year marks a prolongation without resolution. As the war enters its fourth year, the absence of a political settlement highlights not stability but deepening complexity. Continued fighting has hardened positions, expanded humanitarian and economic costs, and intensified energy and security vulnerabilities across the region. Prolongation has also widened geopolitical divisions and increased reliance on external actors. Instead of moving toward resolution, the war risks generating new security challenges and long-term instability.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
