Geneva Peace Talks Expose a Divide Over Ukraine

Beginning November 23, 2025, U.S., Ukrainian, and European officials held talks in Geneva on the Trump administration’s 28-point peace plan to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Under the proposal, Ukraine would be required to give up effective control of Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk, halt military advances by freezing the lines in Kherson and Zaporizhia, scale its armed forces down from roughly 900,000 to 600,000 personnel, and formally abandon its bid for NATO membership. In return, the plan offered Ukraine unspecified U.S.-supported security assurances and the possibility of reconstruction funding, including money drawn from frozen Russian assets.

European leaders, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, publicly pushed back against core elements of the U.S. plan, warning that aspects of the proposal compromised Ukraine’s sovereignty and security. A joint statement by leaders from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland, Finland, Norway, Canada, Japan, and the European Union reaffirmed that borders cannot be changed by force and cautioned against placing limits on Ukraine’s military capacity. Macron warned that without credible deterrence Russia would eventually break any agreement, while Merz stressed that no settlement could proceed without Ukraine’s unconditional consent.

In response to the U.S. proposal, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany drafted a counter‑proposal that removed the requirement for Ukraine to formally cede territory and lifted the outright ban on NATO membership, allowing Ukraine to maintain up to 800,000 troops and leaving open the possibility of future NATO membership. The European draft also proposed a U.S.‑style Article 5 security guarantee for Ukraine and compensation through frozen Russian sovereign assets.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy faced mounting pressure from Washington to accept the plan by November 27, a deadline Trump later softened, but he emphasized that Ukraine would defend its sovereignty and work constructively with allies to achieve a just peace. Zelenskyy’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak led the Ukrainian delegation in Geneva, joined by Security Council Secretary Rustem Umerov, who said the latest U.S. draft reflected most of Kyiv’s key priorities while still requiring final approval.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll represented Washington in Geneva. Rubio described the talks as the most productive to date. According to a White House statement, U.S. and Ukrainian negotiators agreed on an updated “peace framework” that would fully uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty. The statement called the discussions “highly productive” and confirmed that Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy would make the final decision on any agreement.

Despite diplomatic progress, battlefield conditions remained volatile. Russian forces continued offensive operations in Donetsk and Zaporizhia, claiming new territorial gains and launching a drone strike on Kharkiv that killed at least four civilians and injured seventeen. The Russian Ministry of Defence reported the capture of Zvanivka in Donetsk and intensified strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, while Ukraine’s air force said it intercepted 89 of 104 drones launched overnight.

Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed that Moscow had received the U.S. plan and said it could serve as a basis for a final settlement, though he warned that Russia would continue fighting if Ukraine rejected it. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov indicated that Moscow and Washington were maintaining dialogue channels and did not rule out another Trump‑Putin meeting.

Hungary broke ranks with other EU members, with Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto urging full support for the U.S. plan and calling opposition from Western European states irresponsible. Budapest also secured an exemption from U.S. secondary sanctions on Russian oil imports, reflecting divergent European approaches to sanctions enforcement.

By November 24, the Geneva talks had produced a revised framework that incorporated most of Ukraine’s priorities and addressed European concerns, although it still required final approval and no agreement had been reached. The White House said consultations would continue and indicated that a Trump–Zelenskyy meeting in Washington remained possible if progress continued.

The Geneva talks exposed clear differences within the transatlantic alliance over how the war should end and what a sustainable peace should look like. The Trump administration aimed for a fast resolution and lower long-term costs for the United States, while many European governments focused on protecting Ukraine’s sovereignty, maintaining deterrence, and upholding international law. These different priorities highlight a broader shift in how Washington and Europe approach security, with the U.S. leaning toward a more transactional style and Europe emphasizing stability and long-term principles.

The U.S. plan’s provisions, including territorial concessions, military reductions, and a bar on NATO membership, signaled a move toward meeting some of Russia’s security demands. If adopted, these terms would formalize Russia’s control over occupied areas and weaken Ukraine’s ability to deter future aggression. European resistance, led by Germany and France, reflected concerns that settling too early could embolden Moscow and damage NATO’s credibility. Macron’s emphasis on deterrence and Merz’s focus on Ukraine’s consent showed Europe’s determination to avoid repeating past mistakes where concessions failed to bring lasting peace.

The European counter‑proposal’s inclusion of an Article 5‑style guarantee and compensation through frozen Russian assets demonstrated an effort to balance peace with deterrence. However, this approach risks prolonging negotiations and exposing divisions that Moscow could exploit. Putin’s endorsement of the U.S. plan as a potential foundation for peace suggested that Russia viewed Washington’s proposal as advantageous, particularly given its provisions on NATO and territorial recognition.

The diplomatic rift also has consequences for wider shifts in global politics. Washington’s move to promote its own peace framework without full European support strained transatlantic cohesion just as Russia and China are deepening their strategic cooperation. European leaders’ push for a more inclusive process reflected a desire to maintain their influence over regional security decisions and avoid having outcomes determined solely by Washington.

Energy security and sanctions enforcement further complicated the picture. Hungary’s exemption from U.S. secondary sanctions on Russian oil highlighted the uneven application of economic pressure within the EU and showed the limits of a unified sanctions approach. The U.S. plan’s suggestion that Russia could eventually be brought back into global economic structures, including the possibility of restoring G8 membership, pointed to a willingness to exchange some sanctions relief for progress toward peace. That approach risks weakening Western leverage over Moscow’s future behavior.

On the battlefield, Russian offensives continued even as negotiations were underway, showing that Moscow was intent on bargaining from a position of strength. The strike on Kharkiv and reported advances in Donetsk added to the sense that Russia hoped to secure additional gains before any ceasefire. Ukraine’s success in shooting down most of the incoming drones also highlighted the ongoing value of Western air defense systems and showed that military support remains closely tied to diplomatic leverage.

The internal U.S. political environment also shaped the negotiations. Trump’s public complaints about Ukraine’s “lack of gratitude,” along with Vice President J.D. Vance’s skepticism toward continued aid, reflected a growing domestic debate over long-term support for Kyiv. That tone stood in contrast to the more consistent commitments coming from Europe, further straining alliance unity.

Strategically, the Geneva talks showed how diplomacy, deterrence, and domestic politics all intersect in shaping Europe’s security future. If the United States pushes ahead with a settlement that Europe and Ukraine oppose, it risks weakening NATO unity and raising doubts about Western resolve. If Europe’s counter-proposal becomes the basis for an agreement, the conflict could stretch on longer but would preserve the principle that borders cannot be changed by force. Either path will influence how the transatlantic relationship evolves and how major powers navigate similar crises in the years ahead.

- United States

- Ukraine

- Russia

- European Union

- Germany

- France

- United Kingdom

- Hungary