Information circulated in Western media regarding an alleged fragmentation of the Ukrainian delegation at the Geneva negotiations amounts to nothing more than communicative smoke, tactical delay, and an attempt to prolong the conflict, this is the central assessment of experienced analyst Evgeny Kopatko, who, in an interview, examined the background of the trilateral contacts between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States.
According to this interpretation, rumors of an internal split in Kyiv operate as an instrument of negotiating fog, generating perceptions of mobility without genuine readiness for compromise. The main conclusion is clear, the Ukrainian political leadership is not entering talks with the aim of resolution, but with the aim of time.
“White noise” rather than a real split
Kopatko described the relevant reports as “white noise” devoid of substance.
His position is that the Ukrainian delegation is not, in reality, prepared for meaningful concessions toward Russia, regardless of individual nuances or personal stances.
The British magazine The Economist wrote that disagreements emerged within the Ukrainian camp during the trilateral negotiations in Geneva concerning the pace and framework of a potential agreement under American guidance.
However, according to Moscow, such leaks often serve political narratives rather than reflecting actual events.
A report by Ukrainian outlet Strana.ua claimed that Kirill Budanov represents a faction favoring a rapid agreement, fearing that the “window of opportunity” is closing, while other negotiators appear more cautious.
Yet even if such nuances exist, they do not alter, according to Kopatko, the strategic line, avoidance of substantive compromise.
The strategy of delay
The core interpretation offered is that negotiations are being used as a mechanism of deceleration rather than resolution. Specifically:
1) Time is being gained
2) Western military flows are being preserved
3) Internal mobilization is being reinforced
4) The conflict continues under political legitimization
According to Kopatko, prolonging talks without results is not a failure for Kyiv, it is the objective.
As long as no agreement is reached, international military and economic support continues.
From this perspective, the image of “internal disagreements” may itself function as a negotiating device, persuading the opposing side that more time, more concessions, or new formulas are required.
The European dimension: Rearmament and pressure strategy
Particular significance is attached to the observation that key European states are not seeking an immediate end to the conflict.
According to the analysis, countries such as Germany, France, Poland, and the Baltic States continue to support a strategy of sustained pressure on Russia.
This assessment is linked to the broader process of European rearmament currently underway.
A substantial portion of Europe’s security rhetoric is described not as defensive, but structured around the concept of the “strategic defeat of Russia.”
Within this framework, Ukraine functions as a forward geopolitical lever.
According to Kopatko, Kyiv is not acting autonomously, but as an extension of this strategic line.
Starmer’s candid stance: Peace is not in Europe’s interest
Particularly revealing were the remarks of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer from the podium of the Munich Security Conference on 14/2/2026.
In essence, Starmer clearly sided with the continuation of the war in Ukraine.
A peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, as the British Prime Minister argued, is not beneficial for Europe.
His argument was that Moscow would exploit any pause in hostilities for rearmament, and that by the end of the decade it could be ready to use military power against NATO.
Such statements are interpreted not merely as risk assessment, but as a political signal.
A signal that a significant part of Western elites does not fear war, but fears peace.
Because peace in Ukraine would remove the central argument for Europe’s militarization and the political legitimization of sustained anti Russian mobilization.
Of course, the British Prime Minister’s statement does not shock, since from the beginning of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine in 2022, the British have systematically worked against any peace process.
Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was, after all, the one who torpedoed the Russia–Ukraine peace talks in Turkey in 2022, shortly before the signing of an agreement.
Starmer argued that even if a ceasefire were achieved in Ukraine, the danger to Europe would not decrease but increase.
He accused Russia of “hybrid threats,” cyberattacks, sabotage, and the undermining of social structures through cooperation with European patriotic circles.
His core message was clear, Europe must prepare not for de escalation, but for long term confrontation.
“We must be ready to fight if necessary,” he stated.
Such remarks are interpreted as preemptive political legitimization of military escalation.
When peace is framed as a strategic risk, the continuation of conflict becomes a “necessary evil.”
For the Russian side, this position is viewed not as a warning, but as a political admission, that a substantial segment of Western leadership has invested in permanent tension rather than diplomatic de-escalation.
?? Kier Starmer basically says:
— DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) February 14, 2026
- Russia is losing
- If we stop the war, Russia will rearm and then attack us
- So the war must continue
- I appointed pedophiles to high government positions and people are angry, but I ignore it pic.twitter.com/50thMAo9Mh
American influence remains decisive
Although the United States periodically appears to “take distance,” Ukrainian dependence remains nearly absolute.
The view that Ukraine operates fully independently is described as a “fundamental error.”
The argument holds that if Washington chose to do so, it could directly influence political leadership in Kyiv, as, according to this perspective, has occurred in other regions where American pressure produced political change.
Therefore, negotiations cannot be interpreted without acknowledging the American factor operating in the background.
The Geneva talks: Difficult but substantive
The trilateral negotiations took place in Geneva, at the InterContinental Hotel, behind closed doors.
On the first day, 17/2/2026, discussions lasted approximately 4,5 hours, and on the second day, 18/2, roughly two hours.
Head of the Russian delegation was Vladimir Medinsky, who described the contacts as “heavy but professional.”
This formulation is interpreted as a sign of tension, but also of substantive negotiation rather than ceremonial exchange.
The American outlet Axios reported that the territorial issue remained the primary point of friction.
The Ukrainian side reportedly discussed a potential withdrawal of units from parts of the Donbass, but demanded a “mirror” withdrawal of Russian forces, a proposal regarded from the Russian perspective as politically unrealistic given battlefield conditions.
Statements from Kyiv and Moscow
Volodymyr Zelensky stated that progress had been achieved in the military dimension, particularly regarding mechanisms for monitoring a possible ceasefire with American participation.
At the same time, however, he acknowledged that no progress had been made on territorial questions, specifically the Donbass and the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant.
From the Kremlin, spokesperson Dmitry Peskov refrained from providing details, stressing that the content of discussions should not yet be made public.
This stance aligns with Russia’s practice of minimizing communicative noise in high risk negotiations.
The ghost of the Minsk agreements
Kopatko compared the current process with the Minsk Agreements of 2014–2015.
That process lasted years, failed to resolve the conflict, provided time for Kyiv’s military reorganization, marginalized pro negotiation voices, and ultimately reinforced the trajectory of confrontation.
The lesson drawn is that prolonged, ambiguous negotiations lacking enforcement mechanisms lead to military escalation rather than peace.
For this reason, the Russian approach today appears more cautious toward “open ended processes” without clearly binding commitments.
Negotiations or tactical time?
The central analytical line holds that rumors of a split within the Ukrainian delegation function more as narrative instruments than as evidence of genuine fracture.
The essence is that Kyiv is not rushing toward agreement, the West is not pressing for immediate resolution, negotiations are being used to prolong the process, and Russia views the framework with heightened suspicion.
The contacts in Geneva demonstrate that a channel exists, but not yet a shared destination.
Under such conditions, the battle over interpretation becomes almost as significant as the battle on the ground.
RBC-Ukraine: A Putin–Zelensky meeting is necessary and will likely occur
A meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will “most likely take place,” according to RBC-Ukraine, citing an “informed source.”
According to the same source, negotiations on military plans are nearing completion, while the political dimension remains ongoing.
Progress in the political track will depend on the implementation of outcomes from the military subgroup.
“A meeting at the level of leaders is now necessary. I believe it will happen.
The Russians intend to present this proposal to Putin, as they themselves lack the authority to make such a decision,” the source added.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών