Nobody knows what to make of the informal, five-party meeting in Geneva that was called by the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres who will also be running the proceedings. It is very difficult to understand the point of the gathering, considering that both sides have barricaded themselves behind their respective red lines which they have adamantly declared they will not cross.

The UNSG’s personal envoy, Maria Angela Holguin, spent several months last year unsuccessfully trying to find common ground between the sides and break the deadlock. Before leaving she published an open letter remarking that “Cyprus is frozen in time,” urging Cypriots “to encourage and pressure their leaders to work for a better and secure future”, and concluding that “the leaders must show will and decisiveness for real progress.”

We have still to see a hint of this will and decisiveness Holguin wrote about last July. Nor have Cypriots put any pressure on their leaders to work for a better and secure future, which few seem to believe a settlement would bring. Nikos Christodoulides and Ersin Tatar could not even agree to the opening of a new crossing point at Mia Milia, which Guterres had proposed at a dinner he had with them in New York last October. This could have worked as a confidence-building measure ahead of a broad meeting that would include the guarantor powers, he had told them.

The refusal of the leaders to agree on straightforward confidence-building measure, which they turned into the familiar zero-sum game, did not prevent the UNSG calling the five-party meeting. According to the UN programme the proceedings will start with a dinner on Monday evening attended by the head of each delegation plus an advisor. Next morning, Guterres will meet each delegation separately, before bringing them together at 11.30 for a meeting scheduled to last until 2.30, so long as nobody walks out before then.

Expectations, understandably, are very low not only because all initiatives, processes and conferences over the years have ended in spectacular failure, but also because of the way the two leaders have been talking about the Geneva meeting. Neither has said anything to create the slightest hint of optimism, instead going on about their respective red lines and their resolve not to cross them. In fact, Christodoulides and Tatar, if left on their own, would be more than happy to return to Cyprus having agreed nothing, the former blaming Turkish intransigence and the latter blaming Greek Cypriot maximalism.

What Christodoulides fears, even though he does not mention it, is that Turkey might spring a surprise in Geneva, putting aside the demand for a two-state solution and Tatar’s condition for separate sovereignty for the resumption of talks. Christodoulides indirectly referred to this possibility, admittedly in a different context, during Wednesday’s televised news conference.

He had been asked to comment about Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ remark that his government would support the Greek Cypriot side’s efforts on the Cyprus problem “to the extent to which it is responsible”. The implication was that he did not have Greece’s full support, but his response was that “we are not under anyone’s supervision, like Tatar is with Turkey.” This was a subtle admission that Turkey’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan could take a different line from Tatar’s in Geneva. The Turkish government has done this before and put the Cyprus president, relying on his intransigence, under pressure – it happened with the Annan plan in 2004 and again in Crans-Montana in 2017 when it indicated it was prepared to scrap guarantees and the unilateral right of intervention.

It does not mean it will happen in Geneva, although it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Ankara may have indicated to the UN that it would be prepared to show more flexibility. This may go some way in explaining Guterres’ decision to call the five-party conference at a time when the two leaders could not even agree to open a crossing. Turkey is currently discussing the strengthening of ties with the EU – President Erdogan is even talking about membership, which maybe over-optimistic – and is aware that the Cyprus Republic could place obstacles in its path. A show of a little goodwill in Geneva and the adoption of some flexibility on resuming the talks would strengthen Turkey’s position in its dealings with the EU, and neutralise the objections being raised by Christodoulides in relation to Ankara’s stance on the Cyprus problem.

How Christodoulides, whose positive-sounding rhetoric about the talks and need for a settlement are without substance, would handle such a turnaround nobody can say. We suspect the two leaders are both banking on Turkey sticking to its two-state-position as this will preserve the status quo that both of them are very happy with, in spite of what they say.