Geneva, Switzerland – As preparations for a new round of peace talks in Geneva gather pace, Moscow has proposed a potentially transformative, yet contentious, plan for Ukraine: a temporary, UN-administered governance structure following the conclusion of the ongoing conflict. The proposal, floated on , represents a revived effort to find a path towards a lasting settlement, though its prospects remain uncertain amid continued fighting and deep-seated mistrust.
The idea of placing Ukraine under international oversight, initially suggested by Russian President Vladimir Putin last year, was reiterated by Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin in an interview with TASS. “This proves one of the possible options,” Galuzin stated, referencing similar precedents in UN peacekeeping operations. According to Moscow, such a framework would facilitate democratic elections, leading to the establishment of a legitimately elected government capable of negotiating a comprehensive peace treaty and future cooperative agreements.
This proposal directly challenges the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian leadership, a position consistently held by the Kremlin. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, however, continues to prioritize long-term and clearly defined security guarantees from Washington as a prerequisite for any ceasefire or discussion of territorial adjustments. Zelenskyy discussed the matter with U.S. Senator Marco Rubio on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference and with U.S. Envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner via telephone, underscoring the critical role of American support in Ukraine’s calculations.
The suggestion of a UN-led administration comes at a delicate juncture. While Zelenskyy has indicated a willingness to consider elections, he insists they can only occur after a minimum two-month ceasefire. Russia, conversely, argues that any cessation of hostilities would allow Ukraine to reconstitute its military strength. This fundamental disagreement highlights the significant obstacles to progress in negotiations.
Galuzin expressed Russia’s readiness to discuss the UN administration proposal with the United States and European nations. He also criticized the European Union for what he described as self-exclusion from the negotiation process, citing a refusal to engage in direct dialogue with Russia. This accusation reflects the ongoing tensions between Moscow and Brussels, with EU High Representative for Foreign Policy Kaja Kallas asserting that “Russia is not a superpower, its economy is in pieces; the only threat is that it gets from negotiations more than it has obtained on the battlefield.”
The atmosphere surrounding the upcoming Geneva talks, scheduled to begin next week, remains fraught with skepticism. Reports from the Munich Security Conference suggest the Kremlin may be attempting to buy time while continuing its military advance. Zelenskyy himself has voiced concerns about pressure from figures like Donald Trump, who he believes are exerting more influence on Kyiv than on Moscow.
Ukraine is focusing its efforts on securing concrete progress on security guarantees and economic recovery at the Geneva talks. Discussions are centered on the duration of U.S. Support – Kyiv is seeking a 20-year commitment compared to the 15 years currently offered by the United States – and a proposed “Plan of Prosperity” that would grant the U.S. Access to Ukrainian mineral resources, the details of which are still under negotiation.
On the battlefield, Russian Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov claimed the “liberation” of 12 localities in the first two weeks of . According to Gerasimov, Russian forces are advancing towards the industrial hub of Sloviansk and expanding the security zone around Sumy and Kharkiv. However, these claims have not been independently verified. Meanwhile, Ukrainian drones reportedly struck a petroleum terminal in Krasnodar, causing fires and launching further attacks towards the Moscow region, indicating a continued Ukrainian capacity for asymmetric warfare.
The proposal for UN administration echoes past international interventions in territories emerging from conflict, such as East Timor, Cambodia, Iraq, and Kosovo. However, the situation in Ukraine is unique, as Ukrainian state institutions remain functional despite the ongoing war. This raises fundamental questions about sovereignty, the legitimacy of governing institutions, and the potential implications of international intervention.
The core issue remains the rights of Ukrainians to free and fair elections and to maintain control over their country’s future. While the Russian proposal may be presented as a pathway to peace, its acceptance would require a significant concession of sovereignty and a level of trust that currently appears unattainable given the ongoing hostilities and deeply entrenched political positions. The Geneva talks will be a crucial test of whether a diplomatic solution remains viable, or whether the conflict is destined to continue indefinitely.
