U.S. and Ukrainian officials met in Geneva on Thursday, February 26, 2026, as Russia launched another large overnight wave of drones and missiles across Ukraine, according to Ukrainian officials.
The Geneva session sits inside a wider U.S.-brokered push to move negotiations toward a format that includes Moscow, Kyiv, and Washington, while also mapping out how Ukraine could rebuild after years of war damage. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. President Donald Trump spoke by phone ahead of the meeting, and U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and adviser Jared Kushner joined that call, according to Reuters and the AP.
In practice, the Geneva agenda combined two tracks that often collide: high-level diplomacy about ending the war, and practical planning about financing and organizing reconstruction at a scale that runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Who met in Geneva and why Geneva mattered
Reuters and the AP reported that U.S. representatives Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner planned to meet Rustem Umerov, the head of Ukraine’s negotiating team and secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, in Geneva.
Umerov has led Ukraine’s negotiating efforts in recent U.S.-mediated rounds, and his government profile lists him as NSDC secretary as of July 2025.
Diplomats often choose Geneva because it offers a dense ecosystem of international organizations, neutral-host logistics, and established security protocols for sensitive talks. That practical reality matters more than symbolism when multiple delegations run parallel meetings in the same city on the same day.
That also happened this week: Reuters said Witkoff and Kushner also planned to hold a third round of indirect talks on Iran’s nuclear program in Geneva, mediated by Oman, before turning to the Ukraine file.
What officials discussed: reconstruction, next negotiations, and humanitarian steps
1) A reconstruction “package” and the scale problem
Reuters said Kyiv hopes to attract about $800 billion in public and private funds over the next 10 years to rebuild.
At nearly the same time, the World Bank, the Government of Ukraine, the European Commission, and the United Nations released an updated Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA5) that estimated reconstruction and recovery costs at almost $588 billion over the next decade, measured as of December 31, 2025.
Those numbers do not automatically conflict. They can reflect different scopes:
- The World Bank-led estimate focuses on assessed recovery and reconstruction needs using a defined methodology and a fixed data window.
- Ukraine’s higher “attract” target can include financing buffers, private-sector modernization, risk premiums, and broader investment ambitions tied to future growth and EU integration.
Reuters also reported that Ukrainian officials have pitched Ukraine as a future European Union member and an investment destination, while also acknowledging that large-scale funding depends on a ceasefire and a peace deal that reduces risk for lenders and builders.
2) Preparing for the next round with Russia
Both Reuters and the AP described the Geneva meeting as preparation for further U.S.-brokered talks that also involve Russia, after earlier rounds in Abu Dhabi and Geneva this year produced no breakthrough on core disputes.
Reuters said Ukrainian and Russian negotiators met in Geneva last week for their third U.S.-mediated meeting so far this year and still failed to reach a breakthrough on key sticking points, including territory.
Zelenskyy said the next trilateral session in March should lead to a leaders’ meeting to address the most sensitive issues, according to Reuters.
3) Prisoners and other humanitarian issues
The AP reported that Zelenskyy tasked Umerov with discussing a possible prisoner exchange.
The AP also reported that Vladimir Medinsky, who has led Russia’s delegation at earlier talks, said Russia returned 1,000 bodies of fallen Ukrainian soldiers and received 35 bodies of Russian troops in return, without specifying the timing.
Humanitarian steps like prisoner exchanges and returns of remains can move faster than political agreements because they rely on narrower operational coordination. They also shape public expectations: progress on humanitarian files can signal functional communication, while stalemates on territory and security can still persist.
The battlefield backdrop: why the timing raised stakes
Zelenskyy said Russia launched 420 drones and 39 missiles overnight, with strikes reported across eight regions and injuries reported by officials.
Reuters noted that Russia has focused many recent strikes on Ukraine’s energy sector, damaging power plants and substations and causing prolonged blackouts in some areas.
Russia has repeatedly denied deliberately targeting civilians, while Western governments and Ukrainian officials have accused Russia of striking civilian infrastructure; Reuters reported Russia’s denial in its coverage of the latest attacks.
This wartime context shapes Geneva in two ways:
- It increases urgency for Ukraine to secure air-defense support, financing commitments, and political backing.
- It increases leverage calculations for all sides, because events on the ground can change negotiating positions faster than diplomats can draft frameworks.
The hardest issues: territory, security guarantees, and sequencing
Territory remains the central blockage
Reuters reported that Russia says Ukraine must cede the final 20% of the eastern Donetsk region that Ukraine still controls, while Ukraine says it will not relinquish territory.
That dispute sits at the intersection of law, politics, and battlefield reality:
- Ukraine frames territorial integrity as non-negotiable and ties any major territorial concession to democratic legitimacy at home.
- Russia frames territorial claims as a prerequisite for ending the war, and Russian officials have signaled they want formal recognition of those claims.
Because territory drives everything else—security guarantees, sanctions relief, reconstruction risk, and NATO/EU politics—talks often circle back to territorial maps even when delegations start with “technical” subjects.
Security guarantees and “who gives what first”
The AP reported that Witkoff said earlier talks have “largely resolved” the question of security guarantees, while the broader process remains stuck on key differences.
Even if negotiators agree on broad principles, they still need answers to practical questions:
- Who monitors a ceasefire, and with what enforcement powers?
- What triggers snapback sanctions or renewed military support?
- How do parties verify troop movements, heavy weapons positions, and air-defense restrictions?
These details matter because they determine whether reconstruction money flows. Builders, insurers, and lenders price risk. A vague ceasefire without enforcement can still keep borrowing costs high and private investment low.
Why reconstruction planning sits inside peace talks
Reconstruction planning does not wait for perfect peace. Governments and donors plan early because rebuilding infrastructure, housing, and energy systems can take years even after fighting drops.
The World Bank-led assessment highlighted not only the scale of costs—nearly $588 billion over a decade—but also the expanding footprint of destruction and the complexity of restoring systems essential for economic recovery and social well-being.
That framing pushes negotiators to treat reconstruction as more than a “postwar” topic:
- Ukraine uses reconstruction plans to signal long-term viability and investment opportunity.
- The U.S. and partners use reconstruction planning to create incentives for compliance with any ceasefire framework, since funding often comes in tranches tied to governance and security conditions.
- Russia may view reconstruction financing as leverage, since sanctions policy and frozen assets debates can connect to rebuilding funds.
At the same time, reconstruction talks can create political friction. Taxpayers in donor countries often demand accountability and anti-corruption safeguards. Ukrainian leaders often push for faster commitments and clearer timelines. Both dynamics can influence what negotiators prioritize in meetings like Geneva.
What to watch next after the Geneva Ukraine–US meeting
1) Whether talks shift to a leaders’ format
Zelenskyy said a March trilateral session should lead to a leaders’ meeting, which suggests Kyiv wants top-level political decisions instead of incremental technical sessions.
A leaders’ meeting can accelerate decisions, but it can also harden positions if leaders arrive without sufficient groundwork.
2) Signals about Russian participation and parallel contacts
Reuters reported that Russia’s TASS cited a diplomatic source who said Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev would fly to Geneva to meet U.S. negotiators, while no official Russian comment followed at the time.
If parallel U.S.-Russia contacts expand, they could either help bridge gaps or trigger concerns in Kyiv and among European partners about side deals.
3) Concrete commitments on financing and energy resilience
Reuters and the World Bank materials point to two big reference numbers—$800 billion as a Ukrainian fundraising ambition and almost $588 billion as an assessed needs estimate.
In the near term, look for:
- New donor pledges tied to energy infrastructure protection and repairs
- Expanded insurance or guarantee mechanisms that reduce private-sector risk
- Anti-corruption and procurement reforms that unlock larger tranches of funding
4) Humanitarian actions that can move quickly
The AP’s reporting on a possible prisoner exchange and the return of remains suggests diplomats may pursue practical humanitarian outcomes even while political talks stall.
Key takeaways
The Geneva Ukraine–US meeting on February 26, 2026, focused on two connected goals: pushing the diplomacy toward another trilateral round with Russia, and building a workable plan for long-term reconstruction financing.
Russia’s latest large aerial attack created a stark backdrop that reinforced Ukraine’s calls for more air defense, more sanctions pressure, and a faster path to decisions at the leaders’ level.
Reconstruction estimates now cluster in the high hundreds of billions over a decade, with Ukraine publicly aiming to attract about $800 billion and the World Bank-led assessment estimating almost $588 billion in recovery and reconstruction costs as of end-2025.
Territory remains the main obstacle, with Reuters reporting Russia’s demand that Ukraine cede the remaining areas of Donetsk that Ukraine still controls and Ukraine’s refusal to do so.
FAQ: Geneva Ukraine–US meeting
What did the U.S. and Ukraine discuss in Geneva?
Reporting from Reuters and the AP indicates officials discussed postwar recovery and reconstruction planning, preparations for upcoming trilateral talks with Russia, and humanitarian topics like prisoner exchanges.
Who represented Ukraine?
Rustem Umerov represented Ukraine; he serves as secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council and leads Ukraine’s negotiating team, according to Reuters, the AP, and Ukraine’s NSDC profile.
Did the meeting produce a peace breakthrough?
Public reporting did not describe a breakthrough. Reuters and the AP stressed that the broader process remains deadlocked, especially on territorial issues.
What comes next?
Zelenskyy said the next trilateral session in March should lead to a leaders’ meeting to address the toughest issues, and the AP reported Ukraine expects another U.S.-brokered round with Russia as soon as next week.
