Russia, Ukraine and the United States are preparing to resume trilateral negotiations in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday, November 10, in a renewed diplomatic effort to end a war that has continued for nearly five years, with territorial disputes, security guarantees and the future of Ukraine’s relationship with NATO expected to dominate the discussions.
The two-day meeting, mediated by Washington, will bring together senior representatives from the three countries for the first round of trilateral negotiations since February. European officials are also expected to participate in parallel diplomatic consultations, highlighting growing efforts by Western governments to influence the shape of any potential settlement.
The negotiations come amid continued fighting along the front line, intensified Russian and Ukrainian drone and missile attacks, and mounting international pressure to establish a diplomatic framework before another winter of war deepens the humanitarian and economic consequences of the conflict.
US President Donald Trump has intensified his efforts to broker an agreement between Moscow and Kyiv, seeking to build on recent diplomatic contacts with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Washington hopes that renewed negotiations could produce progress on an immediate reduction in hostilities, humanitarian arrangements and a framework for addressing the broader political and security questions that have prevented a settlement.
US special envoy Steve Witkoff announced the latest round earlier this month, saying the administration wanted to build on discussions previously held in Kyiv, Oslo and St. Petersburg. According to Witkoff, the negotiations would concentrate on post-war security arrangements, de-escalation, humanitarian measures and additional steps toward ending the conflict.
Putin agreed to the new round following a meeting with Witkoff in St. Petersburg in late October, signalling Moscow’s willingness to continue direct engagement with the Trump administration.
The American delegation is expected to be led by Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who have played central roles in the administration’s diplomatic initiative. Russia’s delegation will be headed by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky and include Deputy Foreign Ministers Sergey Ryabkov and Mikhail Galuzin.
Ukraine will be represented by a delegation led by Rustem Umerov, head of the Foreign Intelligence Service. Presidential aides Kyrylo Budanov and Sergiy Kyslytsya, along with parliamentary faction leader Davyd Arakhamia, are also expected to participate.
The involvement of senior political, diplomatic and intelligence officials from all three countries reflects the complexity of the negotiations and the importance each government attaches to the potential outcome.
European involvement remains a sensitive issue
The European Union is also seeking a role in the diplomatic process. The European Commission and European Council have confirmed that they will send a joint team of senior officials to Abu Dhabi, accompanied by representatives from France, Germany and the United Kingdom.
The EU delegation will be led by Bjoern Seibert, chief of staff to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and Anna-Maria Boura, chief foreign policy adviser to European Council President Antonio Costa.
European participation is politically significant because any agreement concerning Ukraine’s future security arrangements would have direct implications for the wider European security architecture.
Kyiv has consistently argued that European governments must have a meaningful voice in negotiations that could determine the continent’s future security environment. Ukraine’s position is that a settlement negotiated exclusively between Washington and Moscow cannot adequately address the security concerns of countries bordering Russia or those directly affected by the war.
Moscow, however, has maintained that the Abu Dhabi meeting is fundamentally a trilateral format involving Russia, Ukraine and the United States. The Kremlin has nevertheless acknowledged that consultations with European countries will eventually be necessary.
It remains unclear whether European representatives will hold direct discussions with the Russian delegation in Abu Dhabi or participate primarily through separate consultations with the Ukrainian and American sides.
Territorial disputes remain the biggest obstacle
At the centre of the negotiations is the unresolved question of territory, which remains one of the most difficult obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement.
Russia insists that Ukraine withdraw its military forces from the remaining areas of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions still under Kyiv’s control. Moscow maintains that these four regions became part of Russia following referendums held in 2022, although the votes were conducted under Russian occupation and have been widely rejected internationally.
Ukraine refuses to recognise Russian sovereignty over the territories and considers any formal concession an unacceptable violation of its territorial integrity.
For Kyiv, accepting Moscow’s territorial claims would establish a dangerous precedent by allowing military force to change internationally recognised borders. Ukrainian officials have repeatedly argued that a peace agreement must not reward territorial expansion through invasion.
One possible starting point for negotiations could be an agreement to halt hostilities along the existing line of contact. Such an arrangement would stop short of recognising new borders or resolving competing territorial claims, leaving the final status of occupied areas for future negotiations.
However, even this approach would require substantial political agreement over the terms, duration and enforcement of a ceasefire.
Ukraine has argued that fighting should be stopped first to create conditions for negotiations on more complicated political questions. Kyiv believes that an immediate halt in hostilities would reduce civilian casualties, protect critical infrastructure and provide an opportunity to negotiate without continued military pressure.
Russia has expressed reservations about an unconditional ceasefire, arguing that a temporary suspension of fighting without a comprehensive political settlement could allow Ukraine to reorganise its forces, replenish weapons and strengthen its defensive positions.
The disagreement raises another fundamental question: how would either side verify compliance, investigate alleged violations and respond if the ceasefire collapsed?
Without an effective monitoring mechanism and clearly defined enforcement arrangements, even a temporary ceasefire could prove difficult to sustain.
Security guarantees, NATO and foreign troops complicate settlement
Security guarantees for Ukraine are expected to constitute another major part of the Abu Dhabi discussions.
Kyiv wants binding commitments from Western partners to ensure that Russia cannot launch another military operation after a peace agreement is concluded. Ukrainian officials have repeatedly called for guarantees comparable to NATO’s Article 5 collective-defence provision, under which an armed attack against one member is treated as an attack against all.
Ukraine considers credible security guarantees essential to preventing a future invasion and ensuring that a peace agreement does not simply create an interval before another round of fighting.
For Moscow, however, security arrangements cannot focus exclusively on protecting Ukraine. The Kremlin argues that Russia’s own security concerns must also be addressed and that a lasting settlement must take account of the broader European security environment.
This brings the negotiations to one of their most contentious questions: Ukraine’s potential membership in NATO.
Russia has consistently opposed NATO’s eastward expansion and wants Ukraine to abandon its ambition of joining the military alliance as part of a settlement.
Moscow considers NATO’s potential presence in Ukraine a direct threat to its national security. Kyiv, by contrast, maintains that determining its foreign and security policy is a sovereign decision and cannot be dictated by another country.
The disagreement is particularly difficult because NATO membership has become central to Ukraine’s long-term security calculations, while Russia has repeatedly identified preventing Ukrainian membership as one of its principal objectives in the conflict.
Some European governments have also discussed deploying military personnel to Ukraine as part of a post-war security arrangement. Such a presence could potentially serve as a deterrent against renewed Russian military action and help monitor compliance with a peace agreement.
Russia has firmly rejected the possibility of Western military contingents being deployed in Ukraine, warning that foreign troops would be considered legitimate military targets.
For Kyiv, however, an international military presence could provide an additional layer of protection, particularly if Ukraine is not offered NATO membership or equivalent collective-defence guarantees.
Whether the parties can identify an alternative security arrangement acceptable to both Moscow and Kyiv will be a major test of the negotiations.
Sanctions and economic issues remain in the background
The economic dimension of a potential settlement could also emerge during the discussions, particularly the future of Western sanctions against Russia.
Moscow has a strong interest in securing the lifting or easing of restrictions imposed by the United States and its allies since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
The sanctions have targeted major sectors of the Russian economy, including finance, energy, trade, technology and defence-related industries. Their removal or modification would provide Moscow with an important economic incentive to pursue a settlement.
Washington and European capitals, however, regard sanctions as a significant instrument of diplomatic leverage. Easing restrictions without substantial Russian concessions could weaken Western pressure and create divisions among countries supporting Ukraine.
No comprehensive sanctions-relief arrangement has been publicly confirmed as an agreed outcome or a specific item on the Abu Dhabi agenda.
For Ukraine, any discussion of sanctions would also be closely linked to territorial arrangements, security guarantees and the question of compensation for war-related destruction.
Energy infrastructure and Black Sea security offer scope for practical agreements
Beyond the major political disagreements, Kyiv is expected to push for practical arrangements that could reduce the immediate consequences of the conflict.
Zelenskyy has identified the protection of energy infrastructure, safe navigation in the Black Sea and expanded prisoner exchanges as important priorities for the upcoming negotiations.
The energy issue has become particularly urgent as winter approaches. Russian attacks on power-generation facilities, electricity infrastructure and other critical installations have repeatedly disrupted essential services in Ukraine.
Kyiv wants an agreement that would prevent attacks on energy facilities and other critical civilian infrastructure, reducing the risk of widespread power shortages and further humanitarian difficulties during the winter months.
A temporary understanding on energy infrastructure could provide an opportunity for limited de-escalation even if the parties remain unable to resolve the wider political disputes.
The Black Sea is another area where practical negotiations could produce progress.
Ukraine wants uninterrupted access to maritime trade routes and the restoration of normal shipping through its ports, particularly for agricultural exports. The security of these routes is important not only for Ukraine’s economy but also for international food markets.
Both Ukraine and Russia are major suppliers of agricultural commodities. Disruptions to exports through the Black Sea can affect grain availability, prices and food security in countries across Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
An arrangement protecting commercial shipping and preventing attacks on maritime infrastructure could therefore have implications well beyond the immediate parties to the conflict.
Humanitarian issues are also expected to feature prominently. These include the exchange of prisoners of war, the return of detained civilians and other measures aimed at reducing the human cost of the conflict.
Prisoner exchanges have previously provided one of the few areas in which Moscow and Kyiv have been able to maintain direct communication despite their wider disagreements.
Prospects for a breakthrough remain uncertain
Despite renewed diplomatic engagement, expectations of an immediate comprehensive peace agreement remain limited.
Previous rounds of US-mediated negotiations earlier this year failed to produce visible progress, while the diplomatic process was subsequently interrupted as Washington’s attention shifted towards the war with Iran.
Meanwhile, fighting along the approximately 1,200-kilometre (745-mile) front line has continued, accompanied by increasingly intensive long-range drone and missile attacks.
The military situation remains an important factor in the diplomatic calculations of both Moscow and Kyiv. Neither side has publicly indicated a willingness to abandon its central strategic objectives, and both continue to view security arrangements and territorial control as essential elements of any final settlement.
Trump has recently expressed optimism about the possibility of an agreement, saying that Russia and Ukraine are very close to a deal. However, the positions of the two countries remain sharply divided over territory, NATO, Ukraine’s future military status and the nature of security guarantees.
The Abu Dhabi meeting will therefore test whether Washington can translate its renewed diplomatic engagement into concrete progress.
Rather than producing a comprehensive peace agreement immediately, the more realistic objective may be to establish common ground on limited issues, including a possible ceasefire framework, humanitarian arrangements, protection of energy infrastructure and mechanisms for continued negotiations.
The resumption of direct contacts among Russia, Ukraine and the United States is itself a significant diplomatic development. But restoring dialogue does not necessarily mean that the parties are ready to compromise on the issues that have sustained the war.
Ultimately, the prospects for a lasting settlement will depend on whether Moscow and Kyiv can reconcile fundamentally opposing positions on territory and security, while Washington and European governments find a framework capable of addressing both Ukraine’s security requirements and the wider European concerns.
For now, Abu Dhabi represents another opportunity to test the possibility of diplomacy. Whether it becomes the beginning of a meaningful peace process or another round of negotiations without a breakthrough will depend on the willingness of the three governments to move beyond their established positions.
