The atmosphere in Geneva on November 23, 2025, felt less like a breakthrough and more like a protracted stalemate. Following nine months of intense diplomatic maneuvering, the meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Ukrainian Presidential Office Head Andriy Yermak, alongside their respective teams, revealed a deeply entrenched divergence of interests and objectives – a critical assessment for global stability. The core challenge remains not just the negotiation of a ceasefire, but the fundamental disagreement about the future territorial integrity of Ukraine, a persistent obstacle to any lasting resolution. This situation underscores the complex geopolitical ramifications of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the difficulties in achieving a truly durable peace.
The immediate context is dominated by the protracted Russia-Ukraine War, a conflict fundamentally rooted in historical grievances, geopolitical ambitions, and the ongoing struggle for regional influence. Since the February 2022 invasion, the conflict has evolved into a brutal, attritional war characterized by significant casualties, widespread destruction, and a rapidly changing landscape of territorial control. Russia’s objectives, articulated throughout the conflict, include securing control over key Ukrainian territories – notably the Donbas region and significant portions of southern Ukraine – as well as maintaining a security buffer against NATO expansion. Ukraine’s primary goal, repeatedly affirmed by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is the complete liberation of its sovereign territory and the restoration of its internationally recognized borders.
Historically, the region’s geopolitical alignment has been shaped by the Cold War, with Russia seeking to maintain a sphere of influence within its “near abroad.” The Treaty on Open Skies, signed in 1992, and subsequent agreements regarding Ukraine’s neutrality – though ultimately abandoned by Russia – reflect earlier attempts at managing relations. However, Russia’s subsequent actions, including the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the support for separatists in the Donbas, shattered these frameworks. The current negotiations, therefore, confront a legacy of broken treaties and deeply held convictions.
Key stakeholders include, beyond the immediate participants, NATO member states – particularly those bordering Ukraine – who are deeply invested in the country’s security. European Union nations, heavily reliant on Ukrainian grain exports, also exert significant pressure for a resolution. China’s role remains ambiguous, offering rhetorical support to Ukraine while maintaining economic ties with Russia. The United States, providing substantial military and financial aid to Ukraine, seeks to maintain a unified front and to prevent further Russian aggression. As stated by Secretary Rubio, “We have a very good work product that was already built on a foundation of input from all the relative parties involved here, and we were able to go through some of those items now point by point, and I think we made good progress.”
Recent developments, over the past six months, highlight the continued impasse. Despite numerous rounds of negotiations, neither side has conceded on core issues. Russia continues to consolidate its control over occupied territories, while Ukraine, bolstered by Western aid and bolstered combat capabilities, has maintained a resilient resistance. The strategic stalemate around key cities such as Bakhmut and Avdiivka demonstrates the difficult territorial gains that each side has been prepared to give up. Data from the Institute for the Study of War indicates that while Ukraine has successfully counter-offensives in certain areas, Russian forces have consistently adapted, utilizing new defensive strategies and employing significant reserves. “The nature of the conflict is shifting rapidly,” noted Dr. Emily Harding, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, “and the negotiating process is struggling to keep pace with the evolving battlefield dynamics.”
Looking ahead, a short-term outcome – within the next six months – is unlikely to involve a comprehensive peace agreement. Continued military operations will almost certainly continue, with neither side willing to significantly compromise. A potential near-term outcome might involve a limited ceasefire focused on specific, strategically important areas – but these would likely be fragile and easily disrupted. In the longer term – over the next five to ten years – the conflict’s trajectory remains highly uncertain. A protracted stalemate is the most probable scenario, with the conflict potentially escalating into a protracted, low-intensity war. “The risk of miscalculation and escalation remains significant,” cautions Dr. Michael Kofman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The incentive for both sides to test the other’s resolve will only increase over time.”
The challenges extend beyond immediate military considerations. The humanitarian crisis, the displacement of millions of Ukrainians, and the potential for long-term economic devastation represent significant obstacles to any lasting resolution. Addressing the issue of war crimes and accountability is also a critical, yet politically sensitive, component. Achieving a genuine, durable peace will require a fundamental shift in the underlying power dynamics and a commitment to addressing the root causes of the conflict—a task that seems increasingly distant given the current trajectory. Ultimately, the fate of Ukraine and the stability of Europe hinge on the ability of key stakeholders to transcend their immediate objectives and engage in a sustained, constructive dialogue.