The first official trilateral talks between the United States, Russia and Ukraine since the outbreak of the war in February 2022 briefly raised hopes that diplomacy might finally gain traction. Instead, the meeting ended on Saturday (Jan 24) without a breakthrough, underlining how entrenched the conflict remains nearly four years into the fighting. While all sides agreed to keep talking, there is no certainty that follow-up discussions will take place before the end of the week, let alone that they will yield tangible results.
The lack of progress did not come as a surprise to seasoned observers of the conflict. Fundamental disagreements that have blocked earlier diplomatic initiatives remain unresolved, chief among them the question of territory and the nature of any post-war security guarantees for Ukraine. Despite carefully choreographed statements and the symbolism of all three parties sitting at the same table, the talks exposed how far apart Moscow and Kyiv still are.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had struck a cautiously optimistic tone only days earlier while addressing the World Economic Forum in Davos. He described the current phase of diplomacy as “the last mile,” suggesting that the outlines of a settlement were within reach. Central to his message was the claim that Ukraine had already finalised an agreement on post-war security guarantees with US President Donald Trump, a deal Kyiv sees as essential to preventing renewed Russian aggression.
Yet optimism quickly faded once negotiations began. At the heart of the impasse lies Russia’s insistence on formal recognition of its territorial gains. Moscow annexed four Ukrainian regions — Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia — in September 2022 following widely condemned referendums. Nearly four years later, Russian forces still do not fully control these territories, but the Kremlin continues to treat their annexation as irreversible.
Neither side appears willing to compromise. For Russia, conceding territory would undermine the central narrative of its war effort. For Ukraine, accepting Russian control over land seized by force would represent a dangerous precedent, one that could invite future aggression and hollow out the country’s sovereignty.
Russian President Vladimir Putin seems convinced that time remains on his side. If diplomacy fails to deliver what he wants, he appears prepared to pursue his objectives militarily. Russian forces are close to completing their capture of Luhansk and are steadily advancing in Donetsk, where roughly 5,000 square kilometres remain under Ukrainian control. At the current pace of operations, analysts estimate that securing the rest of Donetsk could take another year.
Even that may not mark the end of Russia’s ambitions. According to officials familiar with the discussions, Moscow has floated a proposal to freeze current frontlines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in exchange for full control of Donetsk. This proposal has been packaged under what the Kremlin calls the “Anchorage formula,” a term referring to what Russian officials describe as an understanding reached between Mr Putin and Mr Trump during their Alaska summit last August. Crucially, Russia reserves the right to withdraw this offer at any time.
Mr Zelenskyy has categorically rejected the idea of ceding territory that Russian forces have not managed to occupy. His stance enjoys broad public support within Ukraine, where concessions are widely seen as both unjust and strategically reckless. Beyond politics, there are legal barriers as well: the Ukrainian constitution requires any territorial changes to be approved through a national referendum, making unilateral concessions impossible.
Strategic considerations further reinforce Kyiv’s position. The remaining Ukrainian-held areas of the Donbas form part of the country’s most heavily fortified defensive network, including several so-called “fortress cities” that have absorbed repeated Russian assaults. Surrendering these positions would significantly weaken Ukraine’s defensive depth and provide Russia with a more advantageous staging ground for future offensives.
These realities are well known, raising questions about the effectiveness of the American mediation effort led by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. If Washington hoped that pressure alone could force one or both sides into compromise, the Abu Dhabi talks suggest that strategy has yet to bear fruit.
Under the Trump administration, US foreign policy has often been unpredictable, but one pattern has become increasingly clear: Washington shows little appetite for exerting serious pressure on Moscow. The Kremlin appears keenly aware of this dynamic. Ahead of the talks, Mr Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, reiterated that Russia’s demand for full control of the Donbas remained unchanged.
Those words were followed by action. Overnight, Russian forces launched another wave of strikes against Ukraine’s already fragile energy infrastructure, pushing parts of the country closer to prolonged blackouts during a brutal winter. For many in Kyiv, the timing of the attack underscored Moscow’s lack of interest in negotiating in good faith.
By branding its territorial demands as part of the “Anchorage formula,” Russia is also attempting to shape the political narrative. The label suggests a settled agreement endorsed by Mr Trump, flattering the US president’s self-image as a master dealmaker while portraying Mr Putin as a pragmatic negotiator. At the same time, it risks casting Mr Zelenskyy as an unreasonable obstacle should he refuse an arrangement in which Ukraine had no meaningful input.
After more than a year of faltering diplomatic efforts, it is increasingly clear that pressure on Kyiv alone will not deliver a settlement. While US military and financial support remains crucial for Ukraine, it is no longer the sole pillar of Kyiv’s survival. European backing has become both more substantial and more politically resilient.
Mr Zelenskyy’s European partners continue to demonstrate unity, gradually expanding military assistance and long-term security commitments. Europe’s recent standoff with Mr Trump over his controversial remarks about annexing Greenland — threats he only recently walked back — has also strengthened Kyiv’s confidence. By standing firm, European leaders avoided a deeper rupture in transatlantic relations while signalling that they are prepared to chart a more independent strategic course if necessary.
This relative stability in Europe allows Kyiv to calculate its options with greater confidence. A less distracted and more strategically focused Europe provides Ukraine with alternatives should American mediation falter or US guarantees prove unreliable.
Indeed, doubts persist about the substance of the security guarantees Mr Zelenskyy referenced in Davos. While political assurances may have been discussed, a binding agreement still requires formal signatures. Given Mr Trump’s recent treatment of long-standing US allies, questions linger over how durable and credible American guarantees would be in practice.
Reconstruction poses another formidable challenge. Even if a ceasefire were agreed, there is no consensus on how to rebuild a country devastated by years of war. Russia has rejected the idea of paying reparations and instead suggested that around US$5 billion in Russian assets frozen in the United States be used to rebuild Ukrainian territories currently under Russian occupation. For Kyiv and Brussels, this proposal is unacceptable, as it would legitimise illegal seizures and shift the burden away from the aggressor.
Still, the fact that all parties agreed to continue discussions offers a narrow glimmer of hope. Whether this signals the start of a genuine negotiation process or merely another round of inconclusive meetings remains unclear. The format, scope and timeline of any future talks are yet to be defined.
As winter tightens its grip and Ukrainian civilians endure power shortages, freezing temperatures and ongoing bombardment, the human cost of diplomatic failure continues to rise. For now, a ceasefire — let alone a comprehensive peace agreement — appears as distant as ever, underscoring the grim reality that the war’s end remains frustratingly out of reach.
