The talks in Abu Dhabi may be yet another attempt to find a way to end the war, but the mere fact that high-ranking officials are participating does not necessarily mean that Russia is ready to compromise. Moscow continues to insist on territorial concessions from Ukraine, while the U.S. peace formula, which includes security guarantees, raises questions about the true intentions of the Donald Trump administration. At the same time, Europe’s insufficient involvement in the negotiation process could create additional opportunities to put pressure on Kyiv.
Scott Lucas, a professor of international politics at the Clinton Institute at University College Dublin, explained in an interview to 24 Channel why the elevation of the Russian delegation does not indicate the Kremlin’s readiness for peace, what dangerous signals the U.S. peace plan contains, and why Ukraine should not agree to discuss concessions regarding NATO. The professor also assessed Europe’s role in the negotiations, explained how Stephen Miller influences Trump’s policies, and what the consequences might be if Miller’s influence in the White House grows.
popular videos
The Abu Dhabi Negotiations, the U.S. Peace Formula, and the Risk of Pressure on Ukraine
Does the presence of higher-level negotiators in the Russian delegation mean that Moscow is truly ready for serious agreements? Or, on the contrary, is this merely an attempt to impose unacceptable conditions on Ukraine?
I’d start with the main point: if Russia does not agree to a ceasefire along the current front line, there will be no breakthrough. There can be no political breakthrough if Moscow insists that the rest of the Donetsk region – in effect, the entire Donbas – be handed over to it, and that this be legally recognized. This is unacceptable.
If the Russians are coming just to repeat this condition, then it doesn’t matter who exactly is there – whether it’s the deputy foreign minister, the minister himself, or even Putin.
We know that the Ukrainian delegation at the talks in Abu Dhabi will be led by Rustem Umerov as the de facto head of national security. Senior members of President Zelenskyy’s team will also be present, including Kirill Budanov.
Professor Scott Lucas on the risks of negotiations with Russia: video
On the Russian side, there is talk that Moscow is sending two deputy foreign ministers, one of whom – Sergey Ryabkov – has not previously attended such meetings. So everyone is asking: Does this mean the Kremlin is taking the talks more seriously, and is there a chance for a breakthrough?
But the answer is this: even if Ryabkov is there, there will be no breakthrough without Russia’s fundamental agreement to a ceasefire along the current front lines. Everything else is secondary.
Important! Kirill Budanov summarized theOutcomes of the trilateral consultations in Abu Dhabi involving Ukraine, Russia, and the U.S. Despite the difficult dialogue, the parties managed to make significant progress in the release of Ukrainian prisoners of war. Kyiv also continues to demand effective security guarantees to achieve a lasting peace.
We’ve received another important signal regarding the U.S. position – through a lengthy post by Jared Kushner, in which he outlined five elements of a settlement. But the key point there is the formula for mutual security guarantees.
At first glance, this sounds good. But the problem is that this is exactly how the Kremlin framed its demands before the invasion in February 2022: “Our security is under threat,” they said, “so NATO must provide guarantees.” In reality, this meant that the North Atlantic Alliance would have to back down and alter its military posture, particularly in Eastern Europe, the Baltic states, and parts of Central Europe. This was not a reciprocal process, but a demand from the Kremlin.
If there is no proper European Representative Office during the talks on Tuesday and Wednesday, then Ukraine and Russia, together with the U.S., will effectively be speaking over Europe’s head. I understand that there may be a French representative present, but what matters is his exact status: a full participant or merely an observer on the sidelines. And is that enough? Shouldn’t there be more than one European representative?
There is a third, and perhaps the most important, point. Kushner’s post states that security guarantees must be based on the recognition of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. But what does this mean in practice? Are you, Mr. Kushner, effectively asking Russia to end its occupation of Ukraine? Because how can Ukraine be sovereign if Russian troops remain there indefinitely?
Kushner does not address the issue of the Russian occupation and does not speak of a ceasefire along the current front line. Therefore, the first question in these negotiations should not be about Russia’s territorial claims or its security guarantees. The first question is this: Are you prepared to end the invasion and respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity?
If Ryabkov comes just to declare, “You must hand over the Donbas,” then these are not negotiations. Ukraine must take a very firm stance in such a situation, especially if European representation is limited. So, the key issue here is not the level of the Russian delegation, but whether Russia will agree to start with a ceasefire along the current lines. If not – these talks are doomed.
NATO, Troop Redeployment, and a “Gift” to Putin
But when it comes to NATO, Putin would like to see a return to the borders of 1997 or 1998. Even if we were to discuss a change in military posture – for example, redeploying U.S. troops from Latvia or Estonia to Germany – wouldn’t that be yet another major concession? That would be a gift to Putin, which he could present as a major diplomatic victory over NATO.
Of course, if NATO were to effectively say, “We’re completely changing our military posture in exchange for you stopping the invasion,” that would be a massive concession. But I wanted to emphasize something else: before getting to such questions, the Russians must answer whether they are even willing to stop the war. If they say, “Let’s first discuss where NATO will stand,” I’ll reply: fine, but first stop the invasion.
Following Kushner’s post, reports emerged from U.S. officials about a possible “ Reinstatement of the Russia–NATO Council format.” Theoretically, this could be a mechanism within which the parties discuss issues of mutual concern, thereby enabling the development of security guarantees.
But the Americans haven’t explained exactly what they mean. Will Russia say, “We’ll agree to resume this format only after NATO makes concessions”? If this is presented as a unilateral demand on the Alliance, then that’s an entirely different matter. There’s a lot of spin coming from the American side on this.
To be frank, I don’t trust the Americans in this context. At the very least, I don’t trust Witkoff, Kushner, and Donald Trump. And here’s why: Kirill Dmitriev visited Washington and met with Trump. Why was he there? What exactly was he trying to put into Trump’s head?
After that, Trump gave an interview on American television, and it appears to have been recorded after his meeting with Dmitriev. And in it, he said: Ukraine must accept changes; Ukraine will look different; Ukraine will have different borders. That’s no longer respect for territorial integrity.
Trump also said that he blames Zelenskyy because Zelenskyy behaved poorly toward the Russians when he spoke with them. But Zelenskyy spoke with Vladimir Putin only in 2019. So, did someone convince Trump that in 2019, Zelenskyy was “unpleasant” toward Putin because he didn’t agree with Russia’s interpretation of the Minsk format? Who exactly told him that?
Trump doesn’t know the history of Ukrainian-Russian negotiations. So was it Witkoff? Kushner? Or Dmitriev during that meeting on Wednesday? Where did this come from?
We need to speak with caution, but until we figure out whether the Russians are truly serious about the negotiations, we need to keep our eyes wide open. There’s a risk that this is simply Trump and his inner circle trying to impose conditions on Ukraine, rather than working toward a genuine ceasefire and respect for Ukraine as a sovereign state.
Trump’s CBS Interview and the Repetition of Dangerous Claims
Donald Trump told CBS that Russia’s war against Ukraine will end soon and hinted that Ukraine might emerge from this agreement with “different borders.” What does this mean?
This was on *60 Minutes* – a very important Sunday night show in the U.S. And this is likely a repetition of what Witkoff has been pushing for over a year now. Remember that back in October 2025, after the failed summit in Alaska, Zelenskyy, along with European leaders, said: we need a real ceasefire and real sanctions against Russia. In late October, Zelenskyy traveled to Washington and tried to secure Tomahawk missiles, but he didn’t get them.
It was there that Witkoff asked: What’s wrong with handing over the rest of Donbas to Russia? After all, he argued, there’s a Russian-speaking population there. But that’s an absurd argument. People speak Spanish in Florida, Texas, and Arizona – so does that mean we should hand those states over to Spain?
In fact, this resembles an earlier version of the agreements. In late October 2025, Witkoff and Kushner met with Kirill Dmitriev and drafted A 28-point ultimatum to Ukraine, which included legal recognition of Crimea as Russian territory and de facto – though not legal – recognition of the Russian occupation of Donbas.
And if this is what the Americans mean when they talk about Ukraine’s “borders,” then these are not serious negotiations. The issue of Crimea must be resolved through a genuine, independent process, and no one has the right to legally force the Donbas to become part of Russia. That is unacceptable.
Will Europe be a full-fledged participant in the negotiations?
There is also the question of European participation. Judging by political discussions, Europe may be represented in Abu Dhabi. Will it have a proper seat at the table there?
That remains to be seen. From what I’ve heard, there will likely be a representative of the French government speaking on behalf of Europe. And that’s fine, as long as he has full status as a participant in the negotiations. I believe there should be more than one European representative at the table. But if this person isn’t just sitting on the sidelines as a passive observer but is actually participating, that’s already acceptable.
There’s a certain exaggeration in the claim that there’s supposedly a fundamental divide in Europe regarding Ukraine. Remember the conversations between Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and Finnish President Alexander Stubb with Putin? At the time, the Russians briefly said, “Oh, all of Europe should be involved in this process,” because they wanted to test whether they could separate Europe from Ukraine.
Støre and Stubb were testing Putin’s willingness to engage in real negotiations. But within 24 hours, the Kremlin declared that Europe should not be part of the process because, they claimed, it had contributed nothing. In other words, the Kremlin was also trying to see if Europe would accept their terms.
I don’t believe there is a fundamental rift in European support for Ukraine here. The problem is that the call from Støre and Stubb was organized rather hastily and without proper coordination with other partners in Europe – the Swedes and the Danes. Because of this, some governments – notably those of Sweden and Denmark – said they didn’t like it.
But this is not a matter of a strategic rift regarding Ukraine. It is a matter of protocol. Europe must clearly agree on who exactly represents it and what exactly that person says. The mistake lay in the lack of coordination, not in the political substance.
Who Is Behind the White House’s New Course?
Let’s talk some more about U.S. domestic policy. What kind of person is Stephen Miller?
He’s despicable. That’s my personal assessment, but I say this after many years of observation and work on a book about Trump. Stephen Miller emerged from relative obscurity: he wrote emails to people in Congress, asking to be heard, then joined the congressional staff, and his real rise to prominence came when he joined Trump’s 2016 campaign team and wrote many of his speeches.
I say he is a white nationalist, and while that is a very provocative term, it captures the essence. Essentially, it is a form of white supremacy. That is precisely why Miller is so hostile toward immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees. That is why he was among those who led Trump’s harsh campaigns, which resulted in deaths – including those of U.S. citizens – disappearances, indefinite detentions, and the imprisonment of people in other countries in defiance of court rulings.
His worldview is based on the idea that all immigrants, legal or illegal, as well as refugees, are supposedly trying to “take over” the United States. This is part of the “great replacement” theory. He has been promoting this for over a decade – in books, in letters, and on his social media platforms.
Second, he is a man with authoritarian tendencies. He does not trust the courts if they do not carry out the will of the executive branch. He does not trust Congress as a check on power. He does not believe in independent agencies. He does not believe that other countries can influence U.S. behavior. He does not believe in alliances. And he does not believe in defending Ukraine.
Moreover, he does not believe in defending Europe. He supports far-right parties in Europe because this entire logic is based on the notion that Europe is supposedly in a state of civilizational decline and is being “taken over.”
Trump is now retreating to his “bunker.” The 2026 version of this bunker is Mar-a-Lago in Florida, and he is surrounding himself with even closer associates. Miller ousted the previous White House chief of staff, Suzie Wiles, whose main role was to somehow keep this chaotic administration in check.
Now that she’s gone, there are almost no restraints left. After last week’s defeat, this is even more dangerous: a wounded animal is a dangerous animal. And the risk is that Miller will take us back to what we saw before, when Minnesota was effectively overrun by ICE’s paramilitary forces, when American citizens were killed, when the courts were ignored, and the structure of these forces resembled that of Nazi Germany.
Miller explicitly demanded that 3,000 people be deported from the U.S. every day. And if that number wasn’t met, he would throw a fit. Don’t underestimate how far he’s willing to go.
Instead of acknowledging after the last election that Americans want a more humane immigration policy – one that protects the borders but also respects people’s rights, without killing them – he wants to throw the law aside and press on. And this won’t be limited to immigration: he will continue to dismantle agencies if they don’t give him their full loyalty, and he will push the idea of “unified authority” for the executive branch.
But I hope that many people will reject this – in Congress, and not just Democrats, but also some Republicans, perhaps even the courts, and ordinary Americans. In other words, although a wounded animal is dangerous, it is not the kind of animal one should bow down to.
Please note! This interview has been condensed, corrected, and edited for better audience understanding.
If you find an error on this page, select it and press Ctrl + Enter