Ponies Running in Circles: What to Expect from the Meeting Between Delegations from Ukraine, the US, and Russia in Abu Dhabi

After a few months’ hiatus, numerous trips by U.S. officials, and promises from Donald Trump on Truth Social – another round of talks between the delegations from Ukraine, Russia, and the U.S. has been announced.

The new meeting will take place on November 10–11 in Abu Dhabi, but this time the Americans have decided not to limit themselves to dialogue with Kyiv and Moscow alone and will first hold separate consultations with their European partners.

24 Channel analyzed the situation surrounding Washington’s diplomatic efforts to determine what to expect from the upcoming meeting in Abu Dhabi, how the parties’ positions have shifted, and how Europe ultimately secured the right to influence the negotiation process. Dmytro Sherengovsky, a political scientist and vice rector of the Ukrainian Catholic University, 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 and foremost, it is important to understand that the upcoming meeting in the United Arab Emirates will take place between delegations. In other words, it will not involve the personal participation of Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, or Vladimir Putin.

According to Washington’s plan, the participants are to lay the groundwork for potential agreements, which the heads of state could then finalize directly.

As for the composition of these delegations, there have been no significant changes. The U.S. side will be represented by U.S. Presidential Envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Both have repeatedly participated in negotiations with the Kremlin and are, in fact, Trump’s main intermediaries in communications with the Russians. In particular, it was following their October meetings with Putin in St. Petersburg that Moscow agreed to return to the trilateral format of negotiations.

As the Kremlin has already confirmed, Putin’s aide Vladimir Medinskywill once again lead the Russian delegation following the hiatus. For Ukraine, this native of Cherkasy – who is not exactly a favorable figure – is far from a new face; he represented Moscow during the negotiations in Istanbul in 2022, and Medinsky later returned to the diplomatic process following Donald Trump’s rise to power.

In fact, Medinsky himself is traditionally viewed in this situation as a mere figurehead, since he has no real authority (other than distorting the image of the Pechenegs and misrepresenting events of the Northern War). Overall, his reputation has long been such that Medinsky’s mere presence at the negotiations indicates that the Russians are not serious.

Meanwhile, 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.

In previous negotiations, key roles were played by National Security and Defense Council Secretary Rustem Umerov, Head of the President’s Office Kirill Budanov, his deputy Serhiy Kyslytsia, and representatives of the military command.

As for the agenda, it currently appears quite broad. According to Witkoff, the parties will discuss post-war security guarantees, de-escalation of hostilities, humanitarian issues, and further steps toward concluding a peace agreement. Kyiv, in particular, is open to both a full-scale ceasefire and separate agreements regarding attacks on energy infrastructure and security in the Black Sea.

However, if we strip away the official rhetorical layers from all participants, there is little reason to expect a real breakthrough. It is very likely that the parties will discuss technical issues and, to solidify the dialogue, agree to another prisoner exchange – which is often the only positive development at such meetings.

Moreover, the most complex issues remain unresolved:

• Ukraine insists on reliable security guarantees and refuses to agree to imposed territorial concessions
• Moscow, on the other hand, continues to make claims on Ukrainian territories.

Moreover, Zelenskyy himself has previously emphasized that territorial issues should be discussed directly by the heads of state, not by technical delegations.

However, the problem lies not only in the Kremlin’s position. As political analyst Dmytro Sherengovsky explains in a comment to 24 Channel, both the military and political circumstances have changed significantly since the previous round of negotiations. Moreover, not all of these changes are conducive to diplomatic progress.

Dmytro Sherengovsky

political analyst

When discussing changes since the last round of negotiations, the first factor to mention is time, since the plan to end the war before the U.S. midterm elections has failed. The situation on the battlefield and in the rear has also changed, particularly with the use of rocket-powered drones, against which Ukraine does not yet have an effective countermeasure. Added to this are internal turmoil in Europe, cuts in war spending, and the fallout from the conflict in Iran. All of this affects the prospects for security guarantees, which require military capabilities, funding, and political will. The U.S. is not currently prepared to provide all of this, and Europe still lacks a unified position. Therefore, I believe the talks in Abu Dhabi will focus primarily on determining the parties’ readiness to reach specific agreements.

However, on the eve of this meeting, one important event took place – Europe has effectively stepped out of the shadows and made its presence known. While the Americans are preparing for a new meeting with the Russians, Ukraine’s European allies are trying to prevent a repeat of the situation where the fate of European security is decided without Europe’s own participation. And this time, it seems their efforts are already beginning to bear some fruit.

Europe Is Gaining Influence: Why European Leaders Have Stepped Up Their Efforts on the Peace Track

While Donald Trump is trying to negotiate an end to the war with Putin, Ukraine’s European allies are waging their own diplomatic battle. And they are fighting for something that would seem quite obvious – the right to participate in security negotiations on their own continent. After all, from the very beginning of Trump’s second term, Washington has effectively relegated Europeans to the role of observers, leaving the main levers of negotiation in American hands.

The situation has been particularly exacerbated by the fact that the White House has increasingly begun to view the resolution 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, the lifting of sanctions against Russia’s Direct Investment Fund, and so on.

Meanwhile, European countries continue to spend billions on supporting Ukraine and rearming their own forces. And the prospect that Trump might strike a deal with the Kremlin on new economic projects – leaving Europeans to deal with the consequences of such an agreement – is unlikely to please anyone.

But in recent weeks, the situation has begun to change. Back in October, U.S. representatives held consultations with Ukraine and European allies in Miami, and later The talks continued in Oslo. There, Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gar Stere, and U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff.

Jared Kushner also joined the discussions – albeit remotely – along with representatives from the EU and NATO. The main topics were, in fact, the territorial issue, security guarantees, and Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction.

Moreover, on October 27, Stubb and Stere even spoke separately by phone with Putin, after which they contacted Zelenskyy. As the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs later explained, these contacts were coordinated in advance with Kyiv, and the President of Ukraine personally asked his European colleagues to convey certain messages to the Russian dictator.

In this way, the Europeans demonstrated that they are capable not only of supporting Ukraine financially but also of directly participating in diplomatic communication with Moscow.

And it appears that this engagement has finally yielded some results. According to Reuters, even before the talks in Abu Dhabi, the U.S. delegation will hold a separate meeting in Brussels with representatives from 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 emphasizes that the security issues of Ukraine and Europe are virtually inseparable today – the degree of integration between us is extremely deep, especially in terms of arms production and countering common threats.

Dmytro Sherengovsky

political scientist

Europeans hold the levers without which any guarantees or peace agreement would be highly problematic: sanctions policy, funding for Ukraine, military aid, and reconstruction. But for Europeans, the situation poses a dual challenge. On the one hand, they do not want to lose the American security umbrella, and on the other, they cannot allow the future to be determined without their participation. Therefore, European engagement is not only a matter of supporting Ukraine but also a desire to find its place and its voice in transatlantic relations.

Admittedly, it is still too early to call this a full-fledged return of Europe to the peace negotiations table. In Abu Dhabi itself, the Americans will meet with Ukrainians and Russians without European representatives.

However, this opportunity to influence Washington’s negotiating position is of considerable importance, since it is the European states that will most likely have to provide a significant portion of future security guarantees, finance Ukraine’s reconstruction , and live with the consequences of any possible agreement between Trump and Putin.

Therefore, it is of fundamental importance for Europe that the future peace agreement does not turn into a temporary lull before a new Russian aggression. Another question is to what extent the Kremlin itself is willing to take the Europeans’ position into account, given that even without their involvement, Moscow has so far shown little desire to compromise.

Why We Shouldn’t Expect a Breakthrough from the Abu Dhabi Meeting

However, despite all of Washington’s diplomatic efforts and Europe’s gradual involvement in the negotiation process, the main problem remains the same – Vladimir Putin has yet to show any willingness to make even the slightest compromise. Moreover, Moscow continues to insist on its territorial claims, as well as on addressing the “root causes of the conflict.” In fact, all the Kremlin is offering is Ukraine’s surrender on Russia’s terms, or the continuation of the war and attacks on civilians.

Just yesterday, it seemed that the humanitarian operation in Oleshky – so successfully organized by the Ukrainian and Russian sides – could be the first step toward a ceasefire. After all, if the parties in Oleshky managed to agree to a ceasefire to evacuate civilians, perhaps this practice could be extended to the rest of the front line. However, the Kremlin was quick to personally dash all such hopes.

Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, emphasized the very next day that Russia has no plans to conduct humanitarian missions similar to the one in Oleshky in the near future; consequently, all hopes for a potential ceasefire turned out to be nothing more than speculation by commentators.

In particular, it is important to understand that Moscow continues to demand full control over the four Ukrainian regions that it illegally incorporated into its constitution back in 2022. These are the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions.

In addition, the Russians insist that Ukraine renounce NATO membership, limit the size of its armed forces, and make a number of other political concessions. In other words, Putin is effectively proposing that Kyiv agree to terms that would leave Ukraine defenseless against a future invasion.

And this is precisely where another fundamental contradiction arises – namely, security guarantees. Ukraine insists on specific commitments from its Western partners that would help prevent new Russian aggression. Zelenskyy has repeatedly emphasized that these guarantees must be analogous to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Moscow, however, opposes the deployment of foreign troops on Ukrainian territory and continues to demand that Kyiv renounce NATO membership. And it is precisely Article 5 that triggers the Russians the most in this situation, since it would make a new invasion or full-scale occupation of Ukraine impossible. Therefore, it is unlikely that Moscow will agree to such guarantees for Ukraine, as this would render its demand for Kyiv’s non-aligned status meaningless.

Donald Trump’s own position plays an equally important role, as the U.S. president has recently stepped up pressure specifically on Ukraine in an effort to secure a peace agreement. In fact, by restricting Starlink operations or the exchange of intelligence, the U.S. president is opening up new opportunities for the Kremlin.

Moscow may drag out the negotiations, counting on Washington to eventually demand even greater concessions from Kyiv in order to demonstrate at least some result from these diplomatic efforts.

Dmytro Sherengovsky

political analyst

I view the format of the negotiations based on the understanding that the parties must come to the table with some common interest. At the moment, we see that there are very significant problems with this. The United States was interested in ending the war as quickly as possible, in whatever format. The idea of wrapping this all up before the midterms fell through, so now there’s no rush. Russia, on the other hand, is interested in dragging out the process to buy time and secure better terms.

Moreover, it appears that even within the Trump administration itself, there is little confidence in the success of the negotiations. In particular, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio openly admitted as early as October 31 that he did not know whether it was even possible to achieve peace in Ukraine through 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 at all before the spring of 2027.

And while the U.S. Secretary of State remains quite skeptical about the prospects for peace, Alexander Lukashenko is already predicting an end to the war within the coming months. According to the Belarusian dictator, the parties have allegedly exhausted their resources and are simply tired of fighting. However, Lukashenko did not provide any specific arguments to support such optimism.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump has another potential diplomatic forum – the G20 summit, which will take place on December 14–15 in Miami. Washington has already officially invited Putin to attend and is also open to Zelenskyy’s participation. Theoretically, this could provide an opportunity for the leaders to meet, but so far there is no confirmation that the Russian dictator will agree to travel to the U.S.

Meanwhile, following his meeting with Recep Erdogan, Volodymyr Zelenskyy proposed Turkey as a potential venue for a trilateral meeting of the leaders.

Dmytro Sherengovsky

political analyst

In reality, this is more about the venue itself. Our position is clear: anything that legitimizes Russia is bad. That is why there is a proposal to hold talks in a separate format in Turkey, so that Russia simply does not appear at the G20 summit. We need to minimize any formats where Russia feels at ease, comfortable, and strengthens its legitimacy.

However, this does not mean that the upcoming meeting in Abu Dhabi will necessarily end in a stalemate. The parties may well reach agreements on prisoner exchanges, specific humanitarian measures, or even a partial cessation of attacks on energy infrastructure this winter. However, there remains a huge gap between such outcomes and a full-fledged peace agreement.

At the same time, as Dmytro Sherengovsky explains, the results of the negotiations should be assessed not by the optimistic statements of their participants, but by concrete agreements. He highlights four criteria to consider in order to understand whether the parties have truly moved closer to ending the war.

Dmytro Sherengovsky

political analyst

I would assess the results of the Abu Dhabi talks based on four criteria. Will the parties discuss specific steps toward 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, it will demonstrate the seriousness of their intentions. If not, it will be just another round of negotiations. Of course, even such meetings are important, as they can yield certain humanitarian results – at the very least, the release of prisoners. But it is not worth expecting anything more if the parties do not move closer to meeting these criteria

Ultimately, the main question isn’t even whether Witkoff, Kushner, and Medinsky will be able to agree on the next round of consultations. What is far more important is whether Putin himself is ready to abandon the demands for which Russia has been waging a full-scale war for nearly five years. And so far, there are no convincing signs of such a willingness, and all talk of an imminent peace remains more like political promises from Trump and, surprisingly, Lukashenko, than a realistic forecast.