Four Years of War, No End in Sight. The Big Five 22 February edition.
“I’m ready not to kill you – give us everything”. What does it mean? It’s not a compromise. This is an ultimatum. That’s why I said: We are ready for compromises that respect Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, our army, our people, and our children. But we are not ready for ultimatums. President Zelenskyy, 20 February 2026.
Another week in the Ukraine war has passed, and it is almost four years since the start of the full-scale Russian invasion in February 2022. Russian forces continue their methodical operations on the ground in Ukraine, in the skies over the frontline and Ukraine’s cities, and in the minds of western politicians and civilians.
Meanwhile, in Geneva, discussion about the war’s political and military dimensions and the achievement of a viable and enduring peace continue to show little progress.
But as many ponder the meaning and lessons of four years of large-scale war in Ukraine, another war is possible in the Middle East in the coming days. President Trump has directed a large-scale build up of American forces in the region. Whether these forces will be used or not, and what the political and strategic objectives of their operations might be, remains to be seen.
Welcome to this week’s edition of The Big Five.
The Geneva Diplomatic Theatre. As the war approaches the fourth year since Russia’s full-scale invasion, another round of trilateral talks in Geneva on 17-18 February produced a now familiar combination of modest procedural progress and substantive deadlock. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy described the outcome as mixed: “progress has been made, but for now, positions differ because the negotiations were difficult.” This diplomatic and increasingly common description of talks barely masks the reality that Russia still demonstrates zero willingness to moderate its maximalist demands for this war.
There was more progress with the military track of talks however. As President Zelenskyy stated:
All three sides acknowledged that a ceasefire, if there is to be an end to the war, and thus the monitoring of the ceasefire will be led primarily by the Americans. They will chair this track.
The military subgroup “basically agreed on pretty much everything” regarding ceasefire monitoring mechanics. This represents procedural advancement—agreement on how a ceasefire would be monitored if one were agreed—but says nothing about whether the political will exists to reach agreement on what would
...This excerpt is provided for preview purposes. Full article content is available on the original publication.