Peace in Ukraine remains elusive despite renewed direct negotiations involving Washington, Moscow and Kyiv.
The two-day talks in Abu Dhabi on November 10–11, 2026, concluded without a breakthrough on the two most contentious issues: the future of Ukrainian territory claimed by Russia and the security guarantees Kyiv considers essential to prevent another invasion.
The principal tangible outcome was an agreement in principle on a large-scale prisoner exchange.
Yet behind public statements about diplomatic progress lies a far broader geopolitical struggle.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is seeking more than territorial concessions in Ukraine.
Moscow wants negotiations to address the future of European security, including NATO’s military presence along its eastern flank and Ukraine’s freedom to determine its own international alliances.
That ambition is generating concern in European capitals, where officials fear that Washington and Moscow could discuss arrangements affecting the continent’s security without sufficient participation by the countries most directly involved.
Washington Takes the Negotiations to Moscow
On Thursday, November 12, US envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff traveled to Moscow for talks with Putin following the Abu Dhabi negotiations.
Their mission is to determine whether the Russian leadership is prepared to modify its positions on the central issues dividing the parties.
Kushner had previewed the visit by saying:
“Steve and I will travel to Moscow tomorrow to meet President Putin, review what was discussed today and try to make further progress on some issues, because we see some openings and opportunities.”
Following their Moscow meetings, the American envoys are expected to travel to Dublin for discussions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
The sequence reflects Washington’s attempt to maintain diplomatic momentum through successive consultations with both sides.
However, no new agreement resolving the fundamental disputes had been confirmed at the time of this update.
A Prisoner Exchange Provides Limited Progress
The Abu Dhabi negotiations produced an agreement in principle on a substantial exchange of prisoners of war.
Kushner presented the development as an encouraging result.
“One of the positives is that we agreed to carry out the largest humanitarian release of prisoners. We will finalize the numbers tomorrow,” he said.
Ukraine’s chief negotiator, Rustem Umerov, and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Medinsky, confirmed progress on the exchange.
Zelenskyy had previously referred to discussions involving 1,000 prisoners from each side, with the possibility of increasing the figure to 1,500.
The final numbers and implementation timetable had not been formally established when the negotiations concluded.
Although the agreement represents a meaningful humanitarian development, it does not indicate that Moscow and Kyiv have reached common ground on a comprehensive peace settlement.
Donbas Remains the Central Territorial Dispute
The territorial question continues to be the most difficult obstacle.
Russia insists that Ukraine withdraw from the remaining areas of Donbas under Ukrainian control.
That demand includes territory Russian forces have failed to capture despite years of fighting.
For Kyiv, surrendering these areas would raise fundamental questions about sovereignty, territorial integrity and future military security.
Medinsky reiterated Moscow’s uncompromising position:
“Every inch of our land will be returned to Russia.”
The statement reflects Russia’s territorial claims; it does not establish international recognition of Russian sovereignty over occupied Ukrainian territory.
Kushner acknowledged that territorial questions remain among the most difficult issues under discussion.
Ukraine continues to insist that decisions about its territory cannot be imposed by outside powers.
Zelenskyy’s Ceasefire Proposal Meets Russian Resistance
Zelenskyy has repeatedly advocated an immediate ceasefire along the existing front line.
Under Kyiv’s approach, the fighting could stop before the parties undertake longer negotiations over territory and the terms of a permanent peace.
Moscow has not accepted that sequence.
Instead, Russian officials insist that the issues they describe as the conflict’s underlying causes must be addressed before a durable ceasefire can take effect.
In practical terms, Russia is linking an end to hostilities with broader political and strategic concessions.
The disagreement therefore concerns not only the eventual terms of a peace agreement but also the order in which those terms should be negotiated.
Putin’s Wider Objective: Reshaping European Security
The most consequential geopolitical dimension of the talks is Russia’s effort to move the discussion beyond Ukraine.
For years, the Kremlin has sought greater influence over the rules governing NATO’s military presence in Eastern Europe.
The questions include NATO enlargement, the deployment of allied forces and the future size and capabilities of Ukraine’s armed forces.
These demands echo elements of Russia’s December 2021 proposals, which called for legally binding restrictions on NATO expansion and changes to the alliance’s military posture.
Germany’s business newspaper Handelsblatt argues that Putin’s objectives extend well beyond Donbas.
According to its analysis, the Kremlin seeks not only territorial gains but also the ability to influence Ukraine’s strategic decisions and NATO’s position in Eastern Europe.
The newspaper warns that accepting such demands would have consequences for the security of European states.
Medinsky Describes Europe’s Security System as a “Sick Organism”
Russia’s chief negotiator used striking language to describe Moscow’s interpretation of the conflict.
Medinsky acknowledged that the talks had produced some areas of understanding but that significant disagreements remained.
He then described Europe’s wider security structure as fundamentally dysfunctional.
“The entire organism is essentially sick,” he said.
Using another metaphor, he suggested that in Ukraine “an abscess simply burst” and that “a bandage cannot fix it.”
The remarks reflect Moscow’s argument that the war is connected to wider problems in European security arrangements.
Ukraine and its Western partners reject the interpretation that Russia’s invasion was an inevitable response to NATO policy.
They maintain that Russia violated Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity through its military aggression.
Europe Is Present in Abu Dhabi — But Not at the Main Table
European participation became a separate source of diplomatic tension.
Officials representing France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, the European Union and NATO held coordination meetings with American and Ukrainian representatives in Abu Dhabi.
They did not, however, participate directly in the trilateral negotiations with Russia.
Medinsky openly questioned their presence.
“We did not communicate with them. We do not really understand in what capacity they are here,” he said.
The comment illustrates a central contradiction in Moscow’s negotiating position.
Russia wants to discuss the future of European security while questioning the role of European governments in the process.
Washington, meanwhile, recognizes that any comprehensive agreement affecting NATO and the continent’s security arrangements would ultimately require European involvement.
Europe Draws Its Red Lines
On November 10, European institutions issued a joint statement concerning consultations in Abu Dhabi.
The statement emphasized that any future settlement must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and right to make independent decisions.
It also underlined the importance of credible security guarantees.
The participating governments reaffirmed that a strong NATO would remain central to Euro-Atlantic collective defense.
That position directly contrasts with Russian proposals that could restrict the alliance’s military presence or Ukraine’s strategic choices.
For European governments, the objective is not simply to end the fighting.
It is to ensure that any peace agreement does not undermine the continent’s long-term security.
Handelsblatt: Putin Has Not Abandoned His War Objectives
The German newspaper Handelsblatt remains deeply skeptical of optimistic statements surrounding the negotiations.
Its commentary argues that, while the participants publicly emphasize their desire for peace, military operations continue and the positions of Russia and Ukraine remain far apart.
According to the newspaper, Moscow has not abandoned its ambition to secure control over all of Donbas.
It also seeks to connect the Ukrainian settlement with wider concessions from the West.
Handelsblatt argues that American negotiators and their European partners must establish clear limits on what can be negotiated.
Its central concern is that a settlement focused primarily on satisfying Russian security demands could leave Ukraine exposed to renewed coercion.
RND: A Peace Deal Could Leave Ukraine Without Genuine Sovereignty
Germany’s RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland (RND) focuses on the implications of restricting Ukraine’s military sovereignty.
Its analysis connects the negotiations with European preparations to provide security guarantees after a possible peace agreement.
The Coalition of the Willing, involving European and other partner countries, has been examining ways to support Ukraine in the event of a settlement.
Moscow has warned that foreign military forces deployed to Ukraine could be treated as legitimate military targets.
RND argues that accepting such restrictions could prevent Ukraine from independently deciding how to defend itself.
The issue therefore extends beyond how much territory Kyiv retains.
It concerns whether Ukraine would remain free to choose its security partnerships and invite foreign forces onto its territory.
Der Standard: Moscow Wants a New Balance of Power in Europe
Austria’s Der Standard offers a similarly skeptical assessment.
The newspaper argues that Russia’s objectives include recognition of occupied Ukrainian territories as Russian and restrictions on NATO’s military presence in Eastern Europe.
Its analysis warns that negotiations over a new security architecture could strengthen Moscow’s position if they fail to protect the sovereignty of European states.
The central concern is that Russia could gain a privileged role in determining the strategic choices of neighboring countries.
Such an outcome would be strongly opposed by Poland and the Baltic states, which regard Russian military pressure as a direct threat to their national security.
Winter Warfare Increases Pressure on Kyiv
Diplomatic activity has not halted military operations.
Russia continues missile and drone attacks against Ukraine, while Ukrainian forces carry out operations against Russian targets.
The condition of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure is a major concern as winter approaches.
Repeated strikes against electricity generation and transmission facilities have placed additional pressure on the Ukrainian energy system.
The resulting damage increases demand for air-defense systems and emergency energy assistance.
Kyiv has proposed specific measures to reduce attacks against energy infrastructure and improve security in the Black Sea.
According to Ukrainian sources, the Russian delegation showed limited willingness to engage substantively with those proposals during the second day of talks.
Those accounts have not been independently confirmed by all negotiating parties.
Trump’s Peace Initiative and Europe’s Fear of Being Sidelined
The Trump administration is attempting to broaden the diplomatic framework by linking an end to the war with new arrangements for European security.
According to reporting by The Washington Post, discussions have included the possibility of using the former NATO–Russia Council as a model for future dialogue.
Such a mechanism could, in principle, provide a channel for discussing strategic stability and reducing military escalation.
However, European governments remain concerned about the conditions under which such a framework would operate.
Any arrangement granting Moscow an effective veto over NATO decisions or the security choices of neighboring countries would be highly contentious.
The issue is especially sensitive for Poland and the Baltic states, which have invested heavily in strengthening their defenses against potential Russian aggression.
The central question is whether a future security mechanism would reinforce stability or institutionalize new constraints on European sovereignty.
The Next Test: Moscow, Dublin and the Search for Compromise
The meetings involving Kushner, Witkoff, Putin and Zelenskyy represent the next phase of Washington’s diplomatic initiative.
The United States is seeking areas of convergence, but the differences between Russia and Ukraine remain substantial.
The prisoner exchange agreement demonstrates that limited humanitarian arrangements are possible.
It does not establish a common basis for territorial compromise or a ceasefire.
The key question is whether Moscow will accept an agreement that preserves Ukraine’s independence and defensive capabilities, or continue insisting on broader strategic concessions.
Washington must also clarify how European governments will participate in decisions directly affecting their security.
The Larger Geopolitical Equation
The Ukraine negotiations now operate on two interconnected levels.
The first concerns ending the fighting, resolving territorial disputes and protecting Ukraine’s sovereignty.
The second concerns the balance of power across Europe, NATO’s future role and the West’s long-term relationship with Russia.
Moscow wants these issues addressed together.
Ukraine and its European partners insist that a peace settlement must not restrict the right of sovereign states to determine their own security arrangements.
Abu Dhabi reopened a difficult diplomatic dialogue without resolving the fundamental disagreements.
The next meetings in Moscow and Dublin may clarify whether substantive compromise is possible.
For now, the contrast remains stark: diplomats discuss peace while military operations continue.
And behind the immediate dispute over Donbas lies a question with implications far beyond Ukraine:
Who will determine the rules of European security after the war?
Source: pagenews.gr