The two-day talks grew colder with each passing hour, the only shift coming from Washington.
On November 10 and 11, a two-day peace negotiation between Ukraine and Russia in Abu Dhabi yielded no substantive breakthrough. U.S. envoy Kushner acknowledged after the session that “there is currently no trust between the parties, and the talks have been extremely difficult.”
I. All issues laid bare, but atmosphere cooled daily
The negotiations covered core disputes, including the most contentious issue of territorial sovereignty, which all sides regard as highly sensitive. The process followed a downward trajectory: the first day lasted four and a half hours, described by Ukrainian officials as “constructive”; the second day concluded after just two hours, with the mildest characterization available being “neutral.”
On territorial matters, Zelenskyy reported a procedural advance—U.S. authorities had accepted Ukraine’s frontline control data, indicating that Russian-held territory falls short of Moscow’s claims. U.S. officials privately noted both sides showed some flexibility on the issue, though resolution remains distant. Zelenskyy, supported by the U.S. mediator, maintained that such questions can only be addressed at the leadership level—a meeting still far off. Kushner summarized the situation by stating there was “little trust and little warmth” between leaders.
II. Only tangible outcome so far: prisoner exchange, not yet finalized
The most closely watched development was a proposed large-scale prisoner swap, potentially surpassing any prior exchange since the full-scale war began in 2022. However, this remains provisional: first, the final number had not yet been confirmed, with Kushner stating it would be determined the following day; second, the agreement still requires approval from Putin, and Kushner plans to seek it during a visit to Moscow. Ukrainian negotiators also noted that their Russian counterparts operate under strict instructions from Moscow, leaving limited room for maneuver.
III. Next steps: Moscow–Dublin–next round
Kushner stated he and fellow envoy Whitaker would travel to Moscow to brief Putin on the talks and seek further progress, with a key objective being to persuade Putin to allow European representatives to join the next round. Following that, the U.S. intends to meet with Zelenskyy in Dublin. Ukraine seeks to set a date for the next negotiation promptly, citing hopes of reaching an agreement before year-end. A critical counterpoint remains: during the talks, Russian strikes against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure have intensified, and another winter looms.
IV. The real shift lies in U.S. posture
The report identifies the most significant change not as concessions from Kyiv or Moscow, but as a recalibration in Washington’s stance. Since Trump’s return to power nearly two years ago, Kyiv and Brussels have consistently sought greater U.S. engagement with their positions. European persistence has elicited partial responses. Kushner and Whitaker now aim to bring European officials into the next phase, arguing that topics such as NATO relations and future European security architecture are precisely among Moscow’s most sensitive concerns. Kushner said the U.S. has repeatedly conveyed directly to Putin and his team that “the only way to resolve this is for them to be part of our side,” and assessed that Moscow shows some receptiveness to the idea.
Ukrainian negotiators also observed a sequence: Russian posture only began softening once the U.S. started discussing postwar arrangements for both sides. On Ukraine itself, U.S. tone has shifted markedly: weeks earlier, Trump publicly expressed frustration over Zelenskyy’s criticism of U.S.-Russia diesel deals, even suggesting Russian actions toward Ukraine were “normal,” and demanded a change in Ukrainian leadership. This time, Kushner described the Ukrainian delegation as “resilient,” “constructive,” and “productive,” while Ukraine expressed gratitude to the U.S.
V. Europe’s weakness: lack of unified representation
Being invited to participate is distinct from exerting influence—an ability contingent on Europe first agreeing on who speaks for it. Zelenskyy called for clarity on who will represent “the voice of Europe,” emphasizing the need for a single figure, and urged European unity by month’s end. Currently, Europe’s presence remains fragmented: outside the Abu Dhabi negotiation venue, representatives from the European Commission, the European Council, NATO, and individual states—including Britain, France, Germany, and Italy—were present simultaneously. Kushner diplomatically described the setup as “powerful,” yet added that if Europe could designate one representative, that would constitute a greater achievement than convincing Russia to allow its participation.
VI. The decisive variable for Europe: sequencing of negotiations
After months of concern about exclusion, Europe has gained theoretical access to core issues, contingent on Putin’s approval. Yet the central question raised by the report is how deeply changes to the NATO-based European security architecture will be tied to the Ukraine peace process. For years, European capitals have advocated for the strongest possible security guarantees for Ukraine to prevent future aggression. Meanwhile, U.S. officials are exploring a model akin to NATO collective defense, in which NATO itself might serve as a guarantor. Officials across multiple European capitals believe the order of these discussions will be decisive: Europe is open to broader continental security arrangements to address Russian concerns, but insists they proceed concurrently with the Ukraine peace talks—and will not agree to sweeping reforms until peace is achieved.
Three key indicators to watch:
Whether Putin approves the prisoner exchange and agrees to European participation in the next round;
Whether Europe can designate a single negotiating representative by month’s end;
Who ultimately determines the sequencing of security architecture discussions relative to peace negotiations.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1881632104800259/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.