Ukraine, the U.S., and the E3 (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) opened negotiations in Geneva this week on a draft peace plan criticized for mirroring Russian demands, amid some of Ukraine’s fiercest fighting in months. According to Reuters, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the session “probably the best meeting…so far,” while Ukrainian presidential chief of staff Andriy Yermak described it as “a very productive first session.” Yet these diplomatic efforts are unfolding amid escalating fighting in the eastern city of Pokrovsk, where Ukrainian forces are battling a major Russian offensive. As Al Jazeera reported on November 28th, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned the nation that this combination of military and diplomatic pressure marks “one of the hardest moments in our history.”

European officials, U.S. lawmakers, and Ukrainian leaders have sharply criticized the initial 28-point peace plan presented by the Trump administration, arguing that the original text skewed heavily toward Russian interests. Reuters reported that the plan drew directly from a Russian non-paper submitted to Washington in October, and that it included key Russian demands: barring Ukraine from NATO membership, recognizing Russia’s annexations, and reducing Ukraine’s army by one-third. The plan also indicated rapid Ukrainian elections that Moscow appears to believe would unseat Zelenskyy. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk wrote that the proposal’s origins were unclear and concerning, while Senator Roger Wicker, Chair of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, said he remained “highly skeptical it will achieve peace.” Russia praised the U.S. initiative: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that many provisions were “quite acceptable,” and Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov described it as aligned with understandings Russia claimed to have reached at the “Alaska summit.” 

The Geneva discussions risk centering the preferences of external actors rather than the rights and security needs of Ukrainians most affected by the conflict. Meanwhile, on the ground, Russia’s assault on Pokrovsk has intensified. According to Al Jazeera, Moscow claims to have seized multiple microdistricts and surrounding villages. At the same time, Ukrainian officials insist the battle remains contested, with forces “holding positions in the centre” of the city. The encirclement threat around Pokrovsk highlights how negotiations conducted during active offensives can entrench, rather than resolve, power asymmetries. Unless future drafts fully reject territorial concessions extracted through aggression and include strong guarantees for civilian safety, these talks risk legitimizing continued occupation and incentivizing future violations of international law.

Since late 2024, Russia has intensified its offensive tempo, with Al Jazeera reporting advances across Donetsk, Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, and Dnipropetrovsk throughout the last week of November. Ukraine disputes several Russian claims, most notably the alleged fall of Kupiansk, while touting limited counteroffensive progress around Dobropillia. Moreover, Ukrainian forces reportedly liberated 430 square kilometers and inflicted heavy losses. Simultaneously, Russia launched 1,169 drones and 25 missiles in a single week, most of which Ukraine intercepted, yet Zelenskyy continues to plead for additional short and medium-range air defenses. These developments accentuate Ukraine’s constrained leverage in Geneva and the urgent need for negotiations that do not merely codify battlefield realities.

The Geneva talks could still evolve into a credible peace process, but only if they reinforce, rather than undermine, principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and civilian protection. The E3’s counter-proposal, which rejects territorial exchanges resulting from aggression and calls for Ukraine to retain an army of at least 800,000 personnel, is a step toward re-balancing negotiations. Moving forward, Western actors must coordinate their positions, strengthen Ukraine’s defensive capacity during talks, and reject any framework that rewards coercion. As Zelenskyy warned, Ukraine should not be forced to choose between “the loss of our dignity or the risk of losing a key partner.” A durable peace must focus on the rights and security of affected civilians, not the strategic conveniences of more powerful states.