Talks between Ukraine, the U.S., and Russia in Abu Dhabi have concluded, and U.S. representatives have traveled to Moscow to discuss possible agreements with Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, Ukrainian strikes on Russian infrastructure continue: there have been reports of damage to a Baltic Fleet ship, a fire in Ust-Luga, and an attack on an oil refinery in Omsk.
In an analysis published by 24 Channel, journalist Roman Tsymbalyuk examined how these events are affecting the Kremlin’s negotiating position and why Russian propaganda is forced to acknowledge Ukraine’s role in European security. He also broke down the four points of a likely U.S. plan, possible security guarantees, and Russia’s territorial demands, which remain one of the main obstacles to ending the war.
popular videos
Ukraine has reached the Russian fleet in the Baltic Sea
After two days of talks in Abu Dhabi, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner set off to meet with Vladimir Putin. The prospects for a ceasefire may depend on the outcome of these talks, but Tsymbalyuk emphasized that a temporary halt to hostilities should not be confused with a full-fledged peace agreement. Despite the intensity of diplomatic efforts, the war continues, and Ukrainian weapons are increasingly striking targets deep within Russian territory.
During a large-scale attack on the Leningrad region, the port of Ust-Luga caught fire. At the same time, Russian sources reported damage to the small missile ship “Naro-Fominsk,” which carries cruise missiles. According to information from Z-Channel’s “Zloy Moryachok,” the Project 22800 ship "Karakurt" was hit near Gogland Island in the Gulf of Finland, approximately 180 kilometers west of St. Petersburg and 85 kilometers from Ust-Luga.
Reports also mentioned fatalities and injuries among the crew. According to this information, the ship itself remained afloat and was to proceed to Kronstadt. Ukrainian monitoring sources also reported the damage to the Baltic Fleet vessel. At the same time, the full extent of the damage remained unclear.
For Tsymbalyuk, the significance of this attack lies not only in the possible loss of a specific missile carrier. Following a series of successful Ukrainian strikes against the Black Sea Fleet, Russia now faces a similar threat in the Baltic Sea. At the same time, Ukraine has no direct access to the Baltic Sea, while the Kremlin continues to threaten European states with possible restrictions on Russian shipping.
We have no access to the Baltic Sea, but our drones and other weapons do. We decided to show Europeans how it’s done and that it’s not really that difficult
For a long time, Moscow has used the Baltic Fleet as one of its tools for exerting military pressure on European nations. Now its ships are under threat even near Russian shores. The damage to the missile carrier was yet another blow to the Kremlin’s perception of the security of its own military infrastructure, especially at a time when Putin is trying to extract new political concessions from the U.S.
Ust-Luga, Omsk, and Russian Air Force Losses
The strike on Ust-Luga had repercussions: reports of a fire in the port continued to come in even after the main attack had ended. Russian propagandist Vladimir Solovyov was outraged that local authorities were openly discussing the strikes and fires, and suggested restricting such reports. At the same time, he himself described the events as a kind of naval battle, although previously Russian propaganda had focused primarily on threats to other countries posed by its own navy.
Almost simultaneously with the conclusion of the talks in Abu Dhabi, reports emerged of a drone attack on Omsk. The city is located approximately 2,500 kilometers from the Ukrainian border, and one of its most important industrial facilities is a large oil refinery. An air raid alert was in effect in the Omsk region for several hours; entertainment events were canceled, and local residents reported loud noises and an unusual glow in the sky. At the time these reports emerged, there was no official confirmation of the extent of damage to the facility.
Tsymbalyuk noted that Russian authorities are increasingly forced to explain to their own population the consequences of the war that the Kremlin launched against Ukraine. Moreover, this is no longer limited to border regions but also affects major industrial centers thousands of kilometers from the front lines. Such strikes place additional pressure on the Russian economy while simultaneously exposing the limitations of its air defense capabilities.
Those who start wars ultimately end up without oil refining and oil transshipment capabilities. All of this is happening right in the midst of negotiations. And strikes of this scale have never been seen before
Reports of Russian aviation losses during the repulsion of the attack on the Leningrad region were particularly telling. According to information circulated by Russian military sources, two helicopters – an Mi-8 and a Ka-52 – as well as a MiG-31 fighter jet may have come under fire from their own air defense systems. Tsymbalyuk believes that the massive air raid could have caused serious disruption to the operation of Russian systems for detecting and intercepting aerial targets.
“Just imagine the chaos in the sky, how disoriented they were. The very fact that three of their own aircraft could have been hit by friendly fire over St. Petersburg speaks volumes,”
Another high-profile incident was the explosion of a car in St. Petersburg. Russian military Telegram channels reported that the chief navigator of the 6th Army of the Russian Air Force and Air Defense Forces was inside the vehicle and was killed in the blast. Initially, his name was not disclosed, and the circumstances of the incident remained unclear. The journalist did not rule out various theories, including internal conflicts within Russian military structures, but did not claim to know who orchestrated the bombing.
Against the backdrop of these events, the Russian leadership continues to portray itself as a party that can allegedly dictate the terms of future European security. However, the strikes near St. Petersburg and the alerts in Omsk show that the war is having an increasingly tangible impact on Russia itself, particularly on its military, transportation, and oil infrastructure.
The Kremlin Wants to Decide Europe’s Fate Without the Europeans
One of the main themes of Russian propaganda following the Abu Dhabi talks was the absence of representatives from European states at the main negotiating table. Kremlin commentators attempted to present this as proof that Moscow and Washington can independently determine the future of European security. Russian media even went so far as to suggest that Europeans should not be participants in the agreements, but rather their subjects.
To justify these claims, propagandists cited the division of Europe into spheres of influence following World War II. They criticized Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin for the loss of Soviet control over the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and repeated the claim that NATO was supposedly supposed to cease to exist after the end of the Cold War.
Tsymbalyuk pointed out that the collapse of the Soviet Union was linked to deep-seated internal problems, not merely to the decisions of individual leaders. Despite the economic crisis and loss of influence, current Russian propaganda continues to speak as if Moscow can still dictate the policies of other states. At the same time, it ignores the independence of European countries and shifts in the international balance of power.
The Soviet Union collapsed primarily because it was ideologically bankrupt. And not just ideologically. Back then, there was nothing to eat in Russia, yet you were laying claim to Berlin. That’s what’s called a disconnect between capabilities and desires
Russia continues to demand a return to a system in which a few major powers would decide the fate of other countries without their consent. However, European security issues directly concern the member states of the EU and NATO, so it will be extremely difficult to implement such agreements without their participation. Even if Moscow formally refuses to acknowledge this reality, it will not be able to force European governments to comply with decisions in which they were not involved.
All this talk about Europe being excluded from the negotiations is nonsense. Without Europe’s involvement, it’s simply impossible to reach an agreement – there will be no result
According to Western media reports, one of the topics of discussion between Witkoff and Kushner with Putin may have been precisely the participation of Europeans in future negotiations. Russian propagandists tried to portray this as a need to obtain the Kremlin’s consent, although without the support of European states, it is impossible to implement a significant portion of potential agreements regarding Ukraine.
Russian propaganda acknowledged Ukraine’s role in Europe
Despite the Kremlin’s attempts to exclude Europeans from the negotiation process, a telling statement was made during one of the Russian propaganda broadcasts. Konstantin Simonov, an expert on the fuel and energy sector, effectively acknowledged that Europe is already represented at the negotiating table through Ukraine. He explained this by noting that the Ukrainian government receives significant support from the European Union and the United Kingdom and, therefore, cannot ignore the position of its partners.
For Tsymbalyuk, what was significant was not only the wording itself, but also the fact that it was aired on Russian television. For years, Kremlin propaganda has been convincing its audience that Ukraine has no independent political role and that its future will be determined by Moscow and Washington. Now Russian commentators are forced to acknowledge that the positions of Kyiv and European capitals are directly linked.
Checkmate. This is a real revelation – I’m simply amazed. It literally took reaching the Omsk oil refinery for this to finally reach the masses
At the same time, Russian propagandists continue to insist that Moscow must receive new security guarantees from Europe. Among the demands, ideas are resurfacing to limit NATO’s military presence and force European states to revise their own defense plans. However, the European position, as discussed on Russian media, calls first and foremost for a ceasefire along the front lines, rather than compliance with the Kremlin’s old ultimatums.
The journalist also noted a shift in topics within the Russian information space. During the lengthy discussion of the negotiations, propagandists made almost no mention of Donbas, even though the Kremlin had previously consistently portrayed its complete capture as one of the war’s key objectives. For Tsymbalyuk, this is particularly telling, since Russian troops have still not managed to establish control over the entire Donetsk region.
“I watched 60 minutes of anti-Ukraine rhetoric, which has now stretched to 120 minutes. They didn’t mention Donbas even once. Do you think that’s a coincidence?”
At the same time, according to Tsymbalyuk, Russian representatives brought maps of the Donetsk region to the talks in Abu Dhabi, on which they marked as Russian-controlled even those territories that its army had failed to capture. Such maps do not change the actual situation on the front lines, where the Ukrainian Defense Forces continue to hold Ukrainian positions. Russia may try to create its own version of territorial gains for diplomatic negotiations, but the actual line of control is determined by military actions, not marks on paper.
Four Points of the New U.S. Plan
Following the talks in Abu Dhabi, Western media began reporting on a possible document regarding a new European security framework. According to their reports, U.S. representatives may have brought a four-point plan to Moscow. However, the full text of the document was not made public, and information about its content was based on journalists’ reports citing unnamed sources.
Tsymbalyuk emphasized that without access to the document, it is impossible to determine which provisions the parties actually agreed to discuss. At the same time, the content of the published proposals deserves attention, as some of them differ significantly from the demands Russia made prior to the full-scale invasion.
The first likely point calls for the resumption of a dialogue format between Russia, the U.S., and Europe. The Russia–NATO Council, established in 2002, is being considered as a possible model. This mechanism effectively ceased to function after Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in 2014, when Moscow occupied Crimea and launched military operations in the Donbas.
Russian propagandists have portrayed the possible resumption of the negotiating platform as a diplomatic success for the Kremlin. However, the creation of such a format does not mean that the Alliance will agree to comply with Russian demands to reduce its military presence or revise the defense policies of European states. According to Tsymbalyuk, NATO may agree to consultations without taking on any obligations that would limit its capabilities.
“Let’s set up a discussion club. Okay, no problem. But if anyone thinks that NATO will downsize or that Russia will be able to dictate to European countries how to organize their own security – no. These demands will simply be ignored,”
The second point concerns possible security guarantees for Ukraine. According to U.S. media reports, mechanisms similar to Articles 4 and 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty may be discussed. Article IV provides for consultations among allies in the event of a threat to their security, while Article V concerns collective defense. At the same time, the proposed mechanism reportedly does not provide for Ukraine’s formal accession to NATO.
For the Kremlin, the very fact of such a discussion is awkward, since Russia justified its full-scale invasion, in particular, by its desire to prevent NATO expansion and the strengthening of Ukraine’s military ties with the West. Now, the reported guarantees for Kyiv are being compared to the Alliance’s key security principles.
“This is a fiasco for Russian foreign policy. It shows that they won’t be able to conquer Ukraine. And was a full-scale invasion really necessary for that?”
At the same time, even such international guarantees cannot fully replace Ukraine’s own defense capabilities. Tsymbalyuk recalled the Budapest Memorandum and the risks of agreements that depend on the political will of foreign governments. Presidents and heads of state come and go, but Russia may still intend to resume its aggression, so Ukraine must have its own means of deterrence.
We will not rely on some “Article 5.” For us, the key factor is the Armed Forces of Ukraine: combat-ready, equipped with weapons, bombs, and missiles – including those aimed at Moscow. Then there is a chance that the ceasefire will hold for some time
The journalist also disagreed with the arguments of Russian commentators that Ukraine allegedly lacks the funds for NATO membership. He pointed out that membership fees cannot be compared to the state’s actual defense expenditures. Ukraine is already allocating enormous resources to its own military, and its ability to stand up to Russia on its own remains far more important than formal participation in international organizations.
Europe Is Bolstering Its Defense Rather Than Making Concessions to Russia
The third point of the likely U.S. plan concerns NATO funding and the future role of the U.S. in European defense. According to reports, Washington seeks to reduce part of its own spending, while European countries are expected to increase their defense budgets, potentially to 5% of GDP. At the same time, the Alliance’s military presence in Europe is to be maintained.
Russian propaganda has attempted to portray this proposal as a possible diplomatic outcome of negotiations with the Kremlin. However, Tsymbalyuk pointed out the opposite effect: European countries will increase funding for their own armies and defense industries. Instead of a reduction in NATO’s military capabilities, as demanded by Moscow, Europe gains an additional incentive to develop them.
The fourth point calls for the participation of European states in the negotiation process. The Kremlin continues to resist Europe’s full involvement, but its financial, military, and political support for Ukraine directly influences the prospects for any agreements. Moreover, the issues surrounding the new security framework concern not only Ukraine and Russia but also all the states to which the relevant proposals apply.
Meanwhile, Russian media discussed the possibility of limiting the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the presence of NATO forces in Ukraine after hostilities cease. In particular, they mentioned a scenario in which the Ukrainian army might be allowed to retain approximately 800,000 service members. But the very framing of the question – about how many people should serve in the Ukrainian military and what weapons it can use – prompted a sharp reaction from Tsymbalyuk.
“We will not discuss the size of the Ukrainian army or its armaments with the Russians. I am absolutely convinced of this. We don’t need Article 5; it’s not enough for us,”
He recalled that during the negotiations in Istanbul in 2022, Russia demanded a much larger reduction in the Ukrainian military – down to 60,000 personnel. Such restrictions would now seem particularly dangerous, as Moscow has not renounced its own territorial claims. Without a sufficient number of troops and modern weaponry, even formally advantageous international agreements will not be able to guarantee Ukraine’s security.
In addition, the issue of a possible NATO military presence on Ukrainian territory remains on the negotiating table. The Russian side is using this issue to level new accusations against Europe, even though it is the Kremlin itself that continues to demand restrictions that would weaken Ukraine’s defense capabilities. Tsymbalyuk does not believe that such ultimatums can serve as the basis for a reliable ceasefire.
The Kremlin’s territorial demands are meeting resistance from the Ukrainian Armed Forces
During discussions of the negotiations, Russian propagandists raised the issue of a possible territorial exchange. The discussion centered on occupied areas in the Kharkiv region and other regions, as well as areas where Moscow had attempted to establish a so-called “sanitary zone.” Russian media outlets also highlighted the Ukrainian operation in the Kursk region, after which the issue of border security became a key element of the military confrontation.
At the same time, Russian propaganda representatives continued to repeat the claim that all territories where Russian troops had set foot must remain under Moscow’s control. They cited the raising of Russian flags on the captured lands as evidence. However, Tsymbalyuk pointed out that the presence of occupying forces and Russian symbols does not mean that territorial changes are irreversible.
An occupation is an occupation. But there’s one nuance regarding that Russian flag. It was hoisted at the highest point of the Kherson TV tower. Where is that Russian rag in Kherson now? It’s gone. Only Russian bombs are falling
After the liberation of Kherson, Russia lost the ability to control the city, even though it had previously portrayed it as part of its own territory. At the same time, the Russian army continues to shell the right-bank part of the Kherson region, demonstrating that its territorial claims have not disappeared. According to the journalist, similar threats will persist regarding other Ukrainian regions unless the Kremlin abandons its aggressive policy.
Separately, Tsymbalyuk drew attention to the situation in the Donetsk region. Despite prolonged offensive operations, Russian troops have been unable to capture the entire region, and the Ukrainian Defense Forces continue to hold the enemy at bay. This is of direct significance for the negotiations, as Moscow cannot present its maximum territorial demands as military gains that have already been achieved.
Strategically, the front line has stabilized in the Donetsk region. We did this. The Ukrainian Defense Forces did this. This is a fundamentally important point for the negotiations
At the same time, he does not venture to predict the rapid conclusion of a comprehensive peace agreement. Despite positive statements by some participants in the Abu Dhabi talks, the full content of any potential agreements remains unknown. Nor are there any convincing signs that the Kremlin is ready to abandon its territorial claims and intentions to limit Ukraine’s defense capabilities.
One tangible outcome of the diplomatic talks could be a large-scale prisoner exchange, the preparations for which were discussed following the negotiations. Tsymbalyuk considers the humanitarian aspect to be extremely important, even if it does not lead to a broader political agreement. However, when it comes to the prospects for ending hostilities, the situation on the front lines and the capabilities of the Ukrainian army remain decisive.
There is hope, but the key factor – and the key negotiator – is the Armed Forces of Ukraine. They set the stage for these negotiations
If the meeting between U.S. representatives and Putin does not yield practical results, the war will continue. According to the journalist’s assessment, Ukraine will continue to expand its capabilities to strike Russian territory, although the continuation of hostilities remains a heavy burden for Ukrainian society. As long as the Kremlin does not back down from its demands, Ukraine’s military resilience will determine its position in future negotiations.
Tsymbalyuk on Russia’s Baltic Fleet and peace talks: watch the video
If you find an error on this page, select it and press Ctrl + Enter