Geneva consultations: a successful defensive operation on the diplomatic front
Trump's deadline has been extended and "Moscow's wish list" demands rejected... The most sensitive issues have been moved to discussions directly between leaders, much work still lies ahead, but we have passed the most dangerous initial stage.
Last week, the Ukrainian media discourse was buzzing with alarming insider information. "28-point plan", "demilitarization", "abandoning NATO aspirations", "Trump’s ultimatum deadline of Thanksgiving" - these headlines sounded like a verdict. The White House administration seemed to be only interested in a quick resolution, and not in its quality or fairness. However, on November 23, what diplomats cautiously call a "paradigm shift" and experts a tactical victory for Kyiv took place in Geneva.
The meeting between the Ukrainian and American delegations in Geneva does not portend the signing of a capitulation. Quite the opposite, it initiated a rewriting of the rules of the game. Instead of ultimatums, words about the "most productive day" were heard, and Trump's strict deadlines suddenly became "flexible".
So, what really happened in Switzerland? What made the Americans change their rhetoric, how did European allies get involved, and why do experts believe that the most intriguing thing – Moscow’s response – is yet to come?
Let’s dig into the details.
FROM THE “KREMLIN’S WISH LIST” DEMANDS TO REAL DIPLOMACY
So, the atmosphere ahead of the negotiations was tense. Leaks in the Western media painted a picture where Washington was supposedly ready to impose on Kyiv a plan secretly co-authored by the Russians (the so-called “Dmitriev-Witkoff” plan, – ed.). Sunday, November 23, however, brought an unexpected result for many skeptics. Instead of fixing unfavorable conditions, the parties announced the start of constructive work on updating the document.
The official results sound emphatically optimistic.
The United States and Ukraine recognized their bilateral consultations in Geneva on November 23, 2025, as "highly productive" in a joint statement issued after the meetings. The statement referred specifically to the meeting between the U.S. delegation, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the Ukrainian delegation, which included top envoys like Andriy Yermak and Serhii Kyslytsia.
The meetings were focused on revising and refining the original, controversial 28-point peace plan proposed by the Trump administration.
The joint statement noted that the discussions showed "meaningful progress in aligning positions and identifying clear next steps".
The parties confirmed that any “future agreement must fully respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and ensure a sustainable and just peace.”
Ukrainian officials echoed this sentiment, with First Deputy Foreign Minister Serhii Kyslytsia describing it as a "long but productive Sunday in Geneva". President Zelensky later indicated the revised plan, which incorporated Ukrainian input, was a "truly the right approach".
The statement signaled a positive shift from earlier tensions, where European allies and Ukraine had expressed deep skepticism about the initial plan's terms which favored Russia.
The statement confirmed that both sides had drafted an updated and revised framework document for a peace plan, and this principle was a core component of their shared position. This emphasis on sovereignty was seen as a key Ukrainian priority being incorporated into the updated U.S. peace proposal.
A key marker of the change in attitude was the reaction of Marco Rubio, who described the meetings with Ukrainian representatives and several European allies as "the most productive and significant in the past 10 months". Rubio's statement highlighted that the discussions achieved "meaningful progress in aligning positions" between the U.S., Ukraine, and key allies.
The resulting framework was reportedly scaled down to 19 points and incorporated core Ukrainian principles, such as respecting national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Rubio said there had been a "tremendous amount of progress" in honing the peace plan during the meetings with Ukrainian and European officials.
He highlighted progress rather than a final solution, saying "I don't want to declare victory here or a final solution. There is still some work to be done".
The statement served to soften the initial pressure from the Trump administration for a final deal by Thanksgiving, indicating a more flexible, open-ended process was now underway.
In the same press conference, Rubio stated that ending the war would require Ukraine to feel safe and that it would not be invaded again.
Kyiv has spoken out in the same vein: “We had a very productive first meeting with the American delegation. We have made very good progress and are moving forward towards a just and lasting peace.”
However, the most important outcome of the Geneva talks is the de-facto dismantling of the “28-point plan”.
Oleksandr Bevz, an Adviser to the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Andriy Yermak is categorical in his assessment, saying, “Ukraine discussed with the US every point of the proposed plan. The 28-point plan in the form in which everyone saw it no longer exists. Some of the points were removed, some were updated. Not a single remark from the Ukrainian side was left without a reaction”.
What exactly has changed
According to Western media, the parties managed to agree on most technical and humanitarian issues, but “put aside” the most toxic political demands.
The size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The initial demand to cap the Ukrainian Armed Forces at 600 thousand personnel was purportedly revised.
This highly controversial point was widely criticized by Ukraine and its European allies. Critics argued that limiting the size of Ukraine's military (which is estimated to be over 1 million personnel in November 2025) would leave the country vulnerable to future Russian aggression, effectively neutralizing its ability to defend itself long-term.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that Ukraine is a sovereign state, and there can be no restrictions on its armed forces that would leave it vulnerable to future attacks.
Territories and NATO. Following intense pressure and negotiations with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and European allies, Ukrainian officials managed to have the provisions on territorial concessions, Ukrainian “Red Line”, removed from the main body of the revised 19-point plan.
Ukrainian officials, including Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Khrystyna Hayovyshyn, had clearly stated that "our land is not for sale" and that no territorial concessions would be acceptable. The issue of borders and territory has been moved to be discussed directly between the leaders (presumably Presidents Trump and Zelensky) at a later date, rather than being part of the foundational framework.
European leaders also reiterated their position that international law prohibits changing borders by force, supporting Ukraine's stance against ceding territory.
Neutral status for Ukraine was a key point in the original U.S.-Russia 28-point peace plan, but this provision was reportedly removed during the Geneva consultations. The initial peace proposal, drafted by the Trump administration and presented to Ukraine, included a provision that Ukraine would agree to enshrine its neutral status in its constitution and formally renounce its aspirations to join NATO.
Ukrainian officials firmly rejected this proposal, arguing that a neutral status did not protect them from Russian aggression in 2014 or 2022 and would leave the country vulnerable to future attacks.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has consistently maintained that Ukraine's constitutional course toward NATO membership is a cornerstone of its national security.
Security guarantees. Discussions in Geneva on November 23, 2025, made significant progress in aligning the U.S. and Ukrainian positions on security guarantees, with a focus on ensuring a "sustainable and just peace" that respects Ukraine's sovereignty. Instead of ephemeral commitments, the parties began to discuss mechanisms that look similar to real security guarantees.
The European allies have played a key role in changing the US position. While negotiations were underway in Geneva, Britain, Germany and France put their alternative plan on the table, which became a powerful counterargument against capitulation. The European proposal looks much more realistic and safer for Ukraine: no territorial concessions, capping the military at 800,000 personnel instead of 600,000, NATO accession depends on consensus, not on a ban, robust and reliable security guarantees and, critically important, no recognition of the occupied territories as Russian, and the renewal of “snap-back” sanctions (if Russia violates the agreement, sanctions are re-imposed immediately, - ed.).
This European plan became the lever that allowed the Ukrainian delegation to show the Americans: we are not alone, and forcing us into to surrender will not work.
Donald Trump, who had initially pushed for an agreement by Thanksgiving (November 27), placing significant pressure on Ukraine to make rapid concessions, has recognized the reality. The deadline has been canceled. Marco Rubio effectively abandoned the hard deadline for Ukraine to accept the original peace plan during the Geneva consultations, indicating that the terms would be flexible and the process ongoing. This means that the blitzkrieg of forcing Ukraine into a quick and disadvantageous peace has failed, giving way to complex but real diplomacy.
EXPERT ASSESSMENTS: HOW KYIV MANAGED TO “BREAK” THE COERCION ALGORITHM
Leading Ukrainian experts’ assessments regarding the Geneva consultations are surprisingly unanimous in their cautious optimism. They see the results of the negotiations not so much as a breakthrough towards peace, but as a successful defensive operation on the diplomatic front.
Diplomat Vadym Tryukhan suggests looking at the situation without rose-colored glasses, but with an understanding of the importance of the moment. In his opinion, the main achievement is the burial of toxic ideas.
“Yesterday in Geneva, what many would refer to as “peace talks” took place. But let’s be honest: peace is still a long way off, while the burial of the most dangerous provisions of the initial American plan is very close,” the expert claims.
He highlights several key victories achieved by Ukrainian diplomats during this round. First, this is the agreement on a “framework” rather than a specific agreement, which gives room for maneuver.
Second is the removal of direct territorial concessions and restrictions on sovereignty from the agenda. “The ban on joining NATO and restrictions on the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces are also in the trash bin. There is not a word about “neutrality.” Not a word about “600 thousand personnel maximum.” Not a word about changing the Constitution. The US clearly understood that such things will not pass either in Ukraine, or in Europe, or even in its own Congress,” Tryukhan emphasizes.
The expert draws special attention to the role of the US Congress, which actually acted as a safeguard against the implementation of the scenario that benefits Russia to the detriment of Ukraine. Republicans and Democrats alike have made it clear that the plan, which looks like a “Kremlin’s wish list,” will not find support on Capitol Hill. “The conclusion: in Geneva, they did not agree on peace, in Geneva they agreed on what kind of peace it definitely will not be. And this is crucial. Because when the “framework” is written not between Moscow and Washington, but between Kyiv, Washington and Brussels, the chance for a just peace, and not a “new Minsk,” is much higher,” Tryukhan summarizes.
Political scientist Volodymyr Fesenko emphasizes that Ukraine’s tactics of “strategic patience” and involvement in the process have yielded results. Instead of taking a stand and rejecting Trump’s initiatives, Ukraine has gone for dialogue, gradually eliminating unacceptable provisions from the proposed plan.
“Ukraine has done a significant part of its work and adhered to the tactics it chose from the beginning: we do not reject the plan as such, even if some of its provisions are unacceptable to us, but we enter the negotiation process. This is our usual line: to withstand tough pressure, and then move on to substantive discussions on each provision,” Fesenko explains.
In his opinion, Rubio and his team have accepted that, in this case, diplomacy is a two-way movement.
“The final text of the document is not yet available, but the emerging trend is quite positive for Ukraine at the moment,” the political scientist adds.
At the same time, Fesenko warns against euphoria about the alternative plan suggested by the Europeans. Although it is beneficial for Ukraine, the American document still remains the basis for negotiations.
“However appealing the European plan is, it is not going to become the basis for further negotiation processes. And this must be clearly understood. But Rubio's reaction is noteworthy: he simply hasn't heard anything of it," the expert notes, hinting that the main game is still being played out within in the Kyiv-Washington-Moscow triangle, where Europe is an important but supporting player.
Policy analyst Ihor Reiterovych draws attention to the psychological aspect of negotiations with Trump. For the 47th US president, a victory, a "deal" that can be presented to the voter, is what matters most. And Ukraine seems to have learned to play on these sensitive strings.
“We have entered the process, were able to partially turn the situation around, ensured the Europeans are closely and actively involved. And if we succeed in bringing everything to its logical end in the form of communication with Trump and his statement that the final version was agreed with Ukraine and the US supports it, this would be a very beautiful story,” Reiterovych believes.
He emphasizes that extending the hard deadline of November 27 is a tactical success, but the strategic goal remains unchanged: to succeed in having a face-to-face meeting between the presidents with a turnkey solution.
“The key point is the question of whether a personal meeting between Zelensky and Trump will take place. They can agree on fundamentally important things at it,” the political scientist expects.
Following this logic, this option should be proposed to Russia: “Trump will say that we have already agreed on everything with Ukraine, now it’s your turn. And what if Russia refuses? There is a risk that the Russians will try to get into the negotiation process now and start pushing their agenda – including through Witkoff. They are already starting to throw in theses, saying that they are ready to negotiate the initial plan only. Therefore, it is essential that we interrupt this now, so as not to return to where it all began.”
Finally, diplomat Volodymyr Ohryzko says that any specific conclusions are difficult to make at the moment: “In such circumstances, delegations usually report almost nothing – this is normal practice. Any premature word can cause unwanted deviations from one side or the other. Therefore, such things are not advertised until the last moment.”
However, if we focus on the statements from the Ukrainian and American sides, it looks like there is progress, at least in terms of Ukrainian interests being taken into account.
“This is undoubtedly and absolutely good. And, to be honest, the situation is best illustrated by Moscow’s reaction. If they say that they don’t like the European plan, but like the American one, that is, in fact, the one authored by Moscow, it means that everything is going well. And when some updates are made to this “Moscow” plan, the reaction is predictable: “We don’t want any changes, this is our ultimatum: accept it or goodbye. Therefore, in the end, all these processes are to our advantage,” Ohryzko added.
THE RUSSIAN FACTOR: A TRAP FOR PUTIN AND FUTURE SCENARIOS
The biggest intrigue is not unfolding in Geneva or Washington, but around Moscow’s reaction. Until now, the Kremlin has been in a comfortable observer position, expecting Trump to “press” Ukraine into surrender. However, the transformation of the American plan into a document agreed with Kyiv and European allies disrupts the Russian game.
“Even today we are already hearing statements (from the Kremlin, ed.), saying that if “everything we demand” is not satisfied, we do not need such a plan. A simple conclusion follows from this: then Ukraine and Europe will tell the US president, “Dear Mr. Trump, you are dealing with a bandit who once again wants to wrap you around his finger.”
Ohryzko also points to the economic factor that makes time into Putin’s enemy. Russia cannot wage war forever, and a refusal to compromise now could bring it to collapse in the coming years.
“For Russia, the agreed document would really look like a saving option. Because, given the catastrophic state of the Russian economy, which, according to Russian analysts themselves, will inevitably collapse in 2026 like a cow on ice... The percentage of Russians who have no or insufficient savings that would allow them to get by if they lost their main source of income has reached 65%,” the diplomat cites findings of recent surveys, emphasizing that Putin is driving himself into a dead end.
The future scenarios experts assess as most realistic
Scenario No. 1: Russian refusal and dead end.
Volodymyr Fesenko regards this scenario to be the most likely. Moscow, seeing that the plan does not lead to Ukraine’s surrender, will reject it. “This is how they rejected the “April agreements” in 2022. This is the most realistic prospect,” says Fesenko. In this case, the diplomatic track will be frozen, and the war will grind on, but with the full support from the United States, offended by Putin’s intransigence.
Scenario No.2: Imitation of negotiations (Istanbul 2.0).
A less likely, but still realistic scenario is where Putin decides to play diplomacy so as not to spoil relations with Donald Trump right away. “Moscow can say: ‘Okay, let's negotiate’”. They do not withdraw their demands, but agree to a discussion. And then full-fledged negotiations begin with the participation of delegations from Ukraine, Russia, and the United States,” Fesenko models the situation. However, the expert warns: if such is the case, hostilities will not stop. “Because Putin will continue to put pressure on the negotiation process by military force.”
Scenario No. 3: Trilateral/multilateral pressure.
Ihor Reiterovych assumes that after the plan is finalized, a game of nerves will begin between Kyiv and Washington. “Moscow will definitely declare that something is not right with it, and will start demanding changes. Then the situation may turn into a format of trilateral discussions or negotiations. Not improbably, the Americans will simultaneously pass this plan to the Russians, and when Zelensky meets with Trump, there will already be a certain understanding of the Russian position,” the political scientist notes.
But, most likely, the Russian position will be like “this does not suit us.”
“Putin, by rejecting any chances of agreements, is actually signing a death sentence for himself. In such a scenario, Trump has an alibi: “I did everything I could.” Let’s also not forget that American arms manufacturers are unlikely to be delighted if they are deprived of the opportunity to earn billions on EU contracts,” says Volodymyr Ohryzko. Add to this the position of American senators and congressmen from both parties. They are explicitly saying: “We are enough of it. We are tired of Putin, we have to put an end to this story”. Trump has a huge arsenal of levers to bring Russia to its knees – and to do it quickly”.
The experts are unanimous on one thing: Ukraine has won time and room for maneuver. The worst-case scenario – the imposition of a surrender plan without the right to vote – has been averted. Now the ball is in the Kremlin’s court, and any move it makes carries risks for Russia itself: either agree to a compromise that does not meet the goals of the Special Military Operation (“SVO”), or go into confrontation with Trump, losing hope for maintaining Washington’s loyalty.
CONCLUSION
November 23, 2025 will definitely not go down in history books as the day when peace came. But it will certainly become an example of how professional diplomacy is able to turn the chessboard in a seemingly losing game.
Ukraine has walked between the Scylla of Russian ultimatums and the Charybdis of Trump’s demands, emerging from this round with a more acceptable framework agreement. The Kremlin’s wish list, disguised as a “peace plan,” has hopefully been sent to the archive. Instead, on the table there is a document that takes into account Ukrainian red lines and relies on the support of European allies.
The most difficult part of the way is still ahead: a personal meeting between Zelensky and Trump, the reaction of an enraged Moscow, and a difficult winter ahead. However, the main conclusion that follows from the Geneva consultations is that Ukraine has ceased to be an object whose fate is being decided without its participation. The peace process has transformed from a dictate to a dialogue. And although there is still a long way to go to a “just and lasting peace,” the first step – rejection of surrender under pressure – has already been taken. As Fesenko aptly summed it up: “We have neutralized another attack, which was actually initiated by Moscow. The problem has not yet been completely resolved, but we have passed the most dangerous initial stage.”
Myroslav Liskovych. Kyiv