Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
A few months' pause, numerous trips by U.S. representatives, and promises from Donald Trump on Truth Social — and now another round of talks between delegations from Ukraine, Russia, and the United States has been announced.
The new meeting will take place on 10–11 November in Abu Dhabi, but this time the Americans decided not to limit themselves to just dialogue with Kyiv and Moscow and will preliminarily hold separate consultations with European partners.
24 Channel looked into the situation around Washington's diplomatic efforts to find out what to expect from the upcoming meeting in Abu Dhabi, how the parties' positions have changed, and how Europe managed to win the right to influence the negotiation process. Political scientist and vice-rector of the Ukrainian Catholic University Dmytro Sherengovsky shared his expectations for the new trilateral meeting.
Who will represent the U.S., Ukrainian, and Russian delegations at the talks in Abu Dhabi
First of all, it is important to understand that the upcoming meeting in the United Arab Emirates will take place between delegations — that is, without the personal participation of Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky, or Vladimir Putin.
According to Washington’s plan, participants are supposed to prepare a basis for possible agreements that could later be approved directly by the leaders of the states.
As for the composition of these delegations, there have been no major changes. The American side will be represented by the president's envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner.
Both have repeatedly taken part in talks with the Kremlin and are effectively Trump’s main intermediaries in communication with the Russians. In particular, it was after their October contacts with Putin in St. Petersburg that Moscow agreed to return to the trilateral format of negotiations.
At the meeting in Abu Dhabi 23 January 2026, the Russian delegation was headed by the head of the GRU, Igor Kostyukov / Photo – wam.ae
The Russian delegation, as the Kremlin has already confirmed, will again be headed after the break by Putin's aide Vladimir Medinsky. For Ukraine this not very fortunate native of the Cherkasy region is by no means a new figure: he represented Moscow at the talks in Istanbul in 2022, and later Medinsky returned to the diplomatic process after Donald Trump came to power.
Medinsky himself is traditionally perceived in this situation as a typical figurehead, since he does not have real powers (aside from distorting the image of pechenegs and misrepresenting events of the Northern War). Overall, his reputation has long been such that Medinsky's mere presence at negotiations indicates that the Russians are not taking the talks seriously.
Vladimir Medinsky / Photo – Getty Images
By contrast, the final composition of the Ukrainian delegation for the new trilateral meeting has not yet been announced. However, there are suspicions that it will not undergo major changes.
At previous talks the key roles were played by National Security and Defense Council Secretary Rustem Umerov, Head of the Presidential Office Kyrylo Budanov, his deputy Serhiy Kyslytsya, and representatives of the military command.
As for the agenda, it currently looks fairly broad. According to Witkoff, the parties will discuss postwar security guarantees, de-escalation of hostilities, humanitarian issues, and next steps toward concluding a peace agreement. Kyiv, in particular, allows for both a full ceasefire and separate agreements regarding strikes on energy infrastructure and security in the Black Sea.
However, if you strip away the official rhetorical layers from all participants, a real breakthrough is unlikely. It is very likely that the parties will discuss technical issues and, to maintain dialogue, agree on another prisoner exchange, which is often the only positive development at such meetings.
Moreover, the toughest questions remain unresolved:
Ukraine insists on reliable security guarantees and refuses to agree to coerced territorial concessions.
Moscow, on the contrary, continues to lay claim to Ukrainian lands.
Zelensky himself previously emphasized that territorial issues should be discussed directly by the leaders of the states, not by technical delegations.
However, the problem is not only the Kremlin’s position. As political scientist Dmytro Sherengovsky explained to 24 Channel, both the military and political circumstances have significantly changed since the previous round of talks. Far from all of these changes make progress in diplomacy more likely.
Dmytro Sherengovsky
political scientist
If we talk about changes since the last round of talks, the time factor should be mentioned first, because the idea of ending the war before the U.S. midterms failed. The situation on the battlefield and at the rear has also changed, in particular the use of loitering munitions, against which Ukraine does not yet have an equally effective countermeasure. Added to this are internal turbulence in Europe, cuts in war spending, and the consequences of the conflict in Iran. All this affects the prospects for security guarantees, which require military capabilities, funding, and political will. The U.S. is not currently ready to provide all this, and Europe still does not have a common position. Therefore, I think the talks in Abu Dhabi will focus primarily on assessing the parties’ readiness for concrete agreements.
However, one important event occurred on the eve of this meeting — Europe has effectively stepped out of the shadows and made itself heard. While the Americans prepare a new meeting with the Russians, Ukraine’s European allies are trying to prevent a repeat of a situation where the fate of European security is decided without Europe itself. And this time their efforts, it seems, are beginning to bear some fruit.
Europe increases its influence: why European leaders have activated efforts on the peace track
While Donald Trump tries to reach an agreement with Putin to end the war, Ukraine’s European allies are conducting their own diplomatic fight — for a rather obvious thing: the right to participate in negotiations about security on their own continent. From the start of Trump’s second presidency, Washington effectively relegated Europeans to observers, leaving the main negotiating levers in American hands.
The situation was exacerbated by the fact that the White House increasingly began to view settlement of the war not only as a security issue but also as an economic one. Washington is discussing the possible return of American companies to the Russian oil market, lifting sanctions from the Russian Direct Investment Fund, and so on.
Meanwhile European states continue to spend billions supporting Ukraine and rearming themselves. The prospect that Trump might make deals with the Kremlin on new economic projects, leaving Europeans to deal with the consequences of such an agreement, is unlikely to please anyone.
Meeting in Oslo / Photo – President’s Office
But in recent weeks the situation has begun to change. As early as October, U.S. representatives held consultations with Ukraine and European allies in Miami, and the talks later continued in Oslo. There Zelensky met with Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, and U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff.
Jared Kushner also joined the discussions, albeit remotely, as did representatives of the EU and NATO. The main topics were the territorial question, security guarantees, and postwar reconstruction of Ukraine.
Moreover, 27 October Stubb and Støre even separately spoke by phone with Putin, after which they contacted Zelensky. As the Ukrainian MFA later explained, these contacts were coordinated with Kyiv in advance, and the Ukrainian president personally asked his European colleagues to pass certain signals to the Russian dictator.
Thus Europeans demonstrated that they are capable not only of supporting Ukraine with money but also of directly participating in diplomatic communication with Moscow.
And it seems that this activity has finally yielded some results. Reuters reports that before the Abu Dhabi talks the American delegation will hold a separate meeting in Brussels with representatives of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and NATO. The parties plan to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine, the future architecture of European security, and economic support for Ukraine’s reconstruction.
At the same time Dmytro Sherengovsky stresses that the security of Ukraine and Europe today cannot really be separated — the degree of integration between us is extremely deep, especially in weapons production and countering common threats.
Dmytro Sherengovsky
political scientist
Europeans have levers without which any guarantees or a peace agreement will be very problematic: sanctions policy, funding for Ukraine, military assistance, and reconstruction. But for Europeans the situation creates a double challenge. On the one hand, they do not want to give up the American security umbrella, and on the other hand they cannot allow the future to be determined without their participation. Therefore European activity is not only about supporting Ukraine, but also about finding their place and voice in transatlantic relations.
That said, it is too early to call this a full return of Europe to the peace-table. In Abu Dhabi the Americans will meet with Ukrainians and Russians without European representatives.
However, the ability to influence Washington’s negotiating position is of great importance, because European states will most likely have to provide a significant portion of any future security guarantees, fund Ukraine’s reconstruction, and live with the consequences of any agreement between Trump and Putin.
Therefore it is fundamentally important for Europe that any future peace agreement not become a temporary pause before a new Russian aggression. Another question is how ready the Kremlin is to take into account Europeans’ positions, if even without their participation Moscow still does not show much willingness to compromise.
Why you should not expect a breakthrough from the meeting in Abu Dhabi
Despite all of Washington’s diplomatic efforts and Europe’s gradual involvement in the negotiation process, the main problem remains unchanged — Vladimir Putin still has not shown willingness to make even minimal compromises. Moreover, Moscow continues to insist on its territorial demands and on resolving the “root causes of the conflict.” Effectively, everything the Kremlin proposes amounts to Ukraine’s capitulation on Russian terms, or the continuation of the war and strikes on civilians.
Humanitarian mission in Oleshky / Photo – Facebook
It appeared that the humanitarian operation in Oleshky, so successfully organized by Ukrainian and Russian sides, might become a first step toward a ceasefire. If in Oleshky they managed to agree not to shoot in order to evacuate civilians, perhaps that practice could be extended along the rest of the front. However, the Kremlin hastened to personally dash all such hopes.
Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov emphasized the next day that Russia does not intend to conduct humanitarian missions similar to Oleshky in the near future, so all hopes for a potential ceasefire proved to be mere speculation by commentators.
In particular, it should be understood that Moscow still demands full control over four Ukrainian regions that it illegally inserted into its constitution back in 2022. These are Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions.
In addition, the Russians insist that Ukraine renounce NATO membership, limit the size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and make a number of other political concessions. In other words, Putin is effectively asking Kyiv to accept conditions that would leave Ukraine defenseless against a future invasion.
And here another fundamental contradiction arises — security guarantees. Ukraine insists on specific commitments from Western partners that would prevent new Russian aggression. Zelensky has repeatedly insisted that these should be guarantees analogous to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
Steve Witkoff at the meeting with Putin in Moscow / Photo – Kremlin
Moscow, in turn, opposes the placement of foreign troops on Ukrainian territory and continues to demand Ukraine’s renunciation of NATO membership. It is precisely 5 article that most triggers the Russians in this story, because in that way a new invasion or full occupation of Ukraine would cease to be possible. Hence Moscow is unlikely to agree to such guarantees for Ukraine, because then the demand for a nonaligned status for Kyiv would lose all meaning.
The position of Donald Trump himself also plays an important role, because recently the American president has increased pressure on Ukraine, trying to secure a peace agreement. By restricting Starlink or intelligence-sharing, the U.S. president effectively opens new opportunities for the Kremlin.
Moscow may delay negotiations, betting that Washington will eventually demand even greater concessions from Kyiv in order to show some result from this diplomacy.
Dmytro Sherengovsky
political scientist
I view the negotiation format from the understanding that the parties must meet each other with some common interest. Right now we see big problems with that. The United States was interested in ending the war faster in any form. The idea of finishing it before the midterms failed, so there is no rush now. Russia, on the other hand, is interested in dragging out the process and bargaining for time and better terms.
It seems that even within Trump’s own administration there is not much confidence in the success of the talks. In particular, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio openly admitted as early as 31 October that he did not know whether it is even possible to achieve peace in Ukraine by diplomatic means. Moreover, according to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, in private conversations with European diplomats he expressed doubts that Putin would agree to any peace deal before spring 2027.
And while the U.S. secretary of state is rather skeptical about the prospects for peace, Alexander Lukashenko is already predicting the end of the war within the next few months. According to the Belarusian dictator, the sides have supposedly exhausted their resources and are simply tired of fighting. However, he provided no concrete arguments in favor of such optimism.
Meanwhile Donald Trump has another potential diplomatic venue — the G20 summit, which will take place on 14–15 December in Miami. Washington has officially invited Putin and is also open to Zelensky's participation. Theoretically this could provide an occasion for leaders to meet, but there is currently no confirmation that the Russian dictator will agree to travel to the U.S.
Joint press conference of Zelensky and Erdogan / Photo – President’s Office
Meanwhile, after meeting with Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Volodymyr Zelensky suggested Turkey as a potential venue for a trilateral leaders’ meeting.
Dmytro Sherengovsky
political scientist
Actually, this is more about the question of the venue. Our position is clear: anything that legitimizes Russia is bad. Hence the proposal to hold leaders’ talks in a separate format in Turkey, so that Russia simply does not appear at the G20 summit. We need to minimize any formats in which Russia feels comfortable, confident, and legitimized.
That said, this does not mean the upcoming meeting in Abu Dhabi will necessarily end in nothing. The parties could well reach agreements on prisoner exchanges, specific humanitarian measures, or even a partial halt to strikes on energy infrastructure during the winter. But there remains a huge gap between such results and a full peace agreement.
At the same time, as Dmytro Sherengovsky explains, the results of the talks should be evaluated not by optimistic statements from participants but by concrete agreements. He highlights four criteria to watch to understand whether the parties have truly moved closer to ending the war.
Dmytro Sherengovsky
political scientist
I would evaluate the results of the Abu Dhabi talks by four criteria. Will the parties discuss concrete steps for de-escalation and mechanisms for implementing them? Will they discuss ways to verify these agreements? Will they identify those responsible for security guarantees? And will Europeans be involved in this process? If there is progress on these fronts, that will indicate seriousness of intent. If not — it will be just another stage of talks. Of course, such meetings are important because they can bring humanitarian results, at least the release of prisoners. But one should not expect anything more if the parties do not move toward these criteria.
Ultimately, the main question is not even whether Witkoff, Kushner, and Medinsky can agree to another round of consultations. Far more important is whether Putin himself is ready to give up the demands for which Russia has been waging a full-scale war for almost five years. And so far there are no convincing signs of such readiness, and all talk of an imminent peace remains more of a political promise from Trump and, unexpectedly, Lukashenko, than a realistic forecast.
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Поні бігають по колу: чого очікувати від зустрічі делегацій України, США та Росії в Аду-Дабі". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: Channel 24.
