The United States, Ukraine, and European officials convened in Geneva for what U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described as the most constructive session yet in the two-year effort to negotiate an end to the Russia–Ukraine war. Rubio said the discussions marked “probably the most productive and meaningful meeting” since President Donald Trump returned to office, underscoring a notable shift in tone after months of stalled diplomacy.

The meeting, held at the U.S. Mission to International Organizations, brought together senior members of the American delegation—Rubio, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, and special envoy Steve Witkoff—with Ukraine’s presidential chief of staff Andrii Yermak and his team. Both sides framed the initial session as a step forward in assessing whether a U.S.-drafted proposal can serve as the foundation for a workable agreement.

The gathering took place under a tight deadline. President Trump had earlier given Ukraine until Thursday to respond to the 28-point plan, though U.S. officials signaled the timeline could shift if meaningful progress was demonstrated. The pressure added urgency to a process already complicated by diverging views among Kyiv, Washington, and European capitals.

Details of the U.S. Peace Proposal

The 28-point draft has circulated among diplomats for several days, generating debate across governments. U.S. officials maintain the proposal was prepared in Washington but incorporates input that has come from both Ukrainian and Russian channels. Rubio and other administration figures have disputed claims that the document originated in Moscow or reflects only Russian demands.

According to documents and reporting shared with lawmakers, the plan would require Ukraine to renounce its pursuit of NATO membership, accept limits on the size of its armed forces, and freeze current front lines—locking in Russian control of several regions seized since 2022. In addition, the plan acknowledges Russian “de facto” authority over Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk, positions consistent with Russia’s long-standing territorial claims.

U.S. officials argue the proposal is designed to halt fighting immediately and create a monitored security arrangement overseen by an international mission. European governments, however, were not consulted during the drafting process, prompting frustration from capitals that have backed Ukraine militarily and financially since the invasion began.

Ukrainian leaders have historically rejected any peace formula that involves territorial concessions. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeated that position, stating that Ukraine will always defend its sovereign territory and will not accept terms that undermine its long-term security. But he also signaled that Kyiv is willing to study the proposal and engage constructively, emphasizing the need to stop the war and prevent future escalation.

Positions of the Parties Involved

The meeting in Geneva reflected a complicated alignment of interests. The U.S. delegation conveyed that Washington sees the plan as a starting point for negotiation rather than a take-it-or-leave-it offer. Rubio said both presidents—Trump and Zelenskyy—would need to approve the final terms but expressed confidence that forward movement is possible.

Ukraine entered the discussions with concerns about sovereignty and security guarantees. Zelenskyy and Yermak have publicly acknowledged the difficulty of balancing military realities with diplomatic pathways, especially with territory still contested. Their message has remained consistent: any plan must ensure durable peace and prevent future conflict.

European governments, meanwhile, have been working on their own counter-proposal, aiming to give Ukraine more time and greater negotiating leverage. A 24-point European framework focuses on a full ceasefire, internationally monitored demilitarized zones, and postwar reconstruction, reflecting broader European priorities for long-term stability and institutional involvement.

Russia has not formally joined the Geneva talks but has transmitted feedback indirectly through diplomatic channels. The U.S. proposal includes several positions aligned with Russian demands, which has intensified debate in Washington and Kyiv over the document’s origin. Lawmakers have expressed mixed interpretations based on briefings from administration officials, though Rubio has insisted the plan is an American product shaped by bilateral input.

International Reactions and Diplomatic Pressure

The proposal has produced strong reactions across the international community. Some U.S. lawmakers have characterized the draft as overly accommodating to Russian interests, while others argue that a negotiated settlement is necessary given the length and cost of the conflict. European leaders have expressed concern about the lack of consultation and the strategic implications of Ukraine accepting significant constraints on its future military posture.

Ukrainian officials engaged with Western security advisers from the U.K., France, and Germany before the Geneva session, signaling ongoing coordination among allies. These governments have supported Ukraine throughout the war and remain cautious about agreements that could weaken Ukraine’s deterrence capacity.

Turkey continues to play a unique role, maintaining lines of communication with both Russia and Ukraine. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced he would speak with President Vladimir Putin following the Geneva talks and would again push for the reinstatement of the Black Sea grain corridor—an initiative that, if revived, could help stabilize economic and humanitarian conditions. Turkey has hosted prior negotiation rounds and has offered to host a leaders’ summit if progress continues.

Next Steps and the Road Ahead

After the initial session in Geneva, both sides prepared for a second round of talks later in the day, with the goal of narrowing differences and refining the language of potential agreements. Yermak said Ukraine and its partners were working through the details carefully and that final decisions would rest with the two presidents, underscoring that Kyiv would not agree to terms without ensuring they meet Ukraine’s core requirements for sovereignty and security.

Rubio echoed the sentiment that continued dialogue is essential. He noted that the U.S. sees real progress and believes that remaining disagreements may be resolved with sustained discussion. The process, however, faces significant political pressure. Trump’s deadline remains a factor, even if negotiators acknowledged some flexibility based on progress.

As talks resume, the central question remains whether the parties can reconcile the competing demands at play: Russia’s insistence on territorial recognition, Ukraine’s refusal to accept permanent losses, America’s desire to end the conflict, and Europe’s priority of ensuring long-term regional stability. The Geneva meeting demonstrated a willingness to engage seriously, but the path to a final agreement remains complex.

For now, the talks continue with cautious momentum. All parties involved signaled that the coming days will be critical in determining whether Geneva marks the beginning of a broader diplomatic shift or simply another round of negotiations in a war that has resisted resolution for nearly four years.