Negotiations in Abu Dhabi: what Ukraine, the US and Russia are agreeing on and where the red line is
24.01.2026When representatives of Ukraine, the United States, and Russia gather in the same room, what is at stake is not only the "end of the war," but also who and how will determine the future security architecture for all of Europe.
Another round of trilateral talks between Ukraine, the US and Russia has concluded in the United Arab Emirates, which Kyiv officially describes as a conversation about "parameters for ending the war", rather than a ready-made peace agreement.1 2 Behind closed doors in Abu Dhabi, at least three logics intersected – the Ukrainian one, which rests on sovereignty and security; the American one, which is looking for a way to curb the escalation without Ukraine's capitulation; and the Russian one, which is trying to legally consolidate territorial gains and relieve the pressure of sanctions.1 3 The key topic, according to Volodymyr Zelensky, was Donbas, but the shadow of these negotiations falls much wider - on the rules of the game between the West and the Kremlin in the next decade.
What exactly happened in Abu Dhabi: from the first reports to Zelensky's statements
Ukrainian sources first publicly reported on the trilateral talks in the UAE: according to Suspilny, the meeting in Abu Dhabi lasted two days – January 23 and 24 – and ended with a session lasting more than three hours.1 2 Radio Liberty clarifies the composition of the Ukrainian delegation: Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, head of the State Duma Kyrylo Budanov, head of the Servant of the People faction Davyd Arakhamia, and Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the UN Serhiy Kyslytsia1 The President announced that the Chief of the General Staff, General Hnatov, and the Deputy Chief of the Military Development Directorate, Vadym Skibitsky, should also join the negotiations, which automatically raises the discussion to the level of real military-political decisions.
In his evening address, Zelensky stressed that the issue is about "parameters for ending the war," but it is too early to draw conclusions about the content of the negotiations.1 He emphasized that Ukrainian positions are “clear,” and the framework for dialogue for the delegation was defined by him personally, recalling that any territorial decisions can only be made by the people of Ukraine – through elections or a referendum.1 6 This remark is a direct signal to both the Kremlin and its partners: Kyiv is not ready to sign “territorial agreements” in the format of backroom bargaining.
Who is sitting at the table and why the Emirates?
The trilateral format is not a coincidence, but the result of several parallel processes. On the US side, regional diplomacy involved not only professional diplomats, but also figures close to the Donald Trump administration: a few days before the talks in Moscow, Putin met with the US President's special envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Federal Procurement Service Commissioner Josh Gruenbaum.1 3 This shot from the Kremlin is not just a protocol photo, but also a signal: the White House is trying to build separate channels of communication with Russia, parallel to traditional diplomatic lines.
Abu Dhabi as a staging ground is another piece of the puzzle. The UAE has already mediated a number of sensitive negotiations, from prisoner swaps to discussions about the Russian oil “shadow fleet.”1 5 For Washington and Moscow, this is a convenient "neutral" territory where they can talk about sensitive topics without the symbolic baggage of Geneva or Istanbul. For Kyiv, participation in such negotiations is important as a way to prevent partners from discussing its future without the Ukrainian subject at the table.
What was officially discussed: "parameters for the end of the war"
Zelensky and Defense Minister Umerov spoke most specifically about the content of the negotiations publicly. The president outlined the framework: "they are talking about the parameters of ending the war," and the main test is whether Russia is ready "to end this war, which it itself started."1 Umerov, in a comment to Radio Liberty, clarified that the issue is about security issues, future guarantees and “key nodes of the front,” among which Donbas occupies a special place.2 The phrase "I have defined the framework for dialogue for our delegation" means that Kyiv is not delegating the right to make political concessions to Abu Dhabi, but is only giving a mandate to explore possible configurations.
Separately, Zelensky emphasized that the results are not predetermined: "it is too early to draw conclusions from the content of the negotiations today - let's see how the conversation goes tomorrow and what the results will be."1 . This is important in the context of information attacks about "betrayal" or "secret surrender": The President's Office is taking precautions in advance against attempts to use the very fact of negotiations for domestic political destabilization. The focus is on the fact that the negotiations are not yet about signing a document, but about testing the positions of the parties.
Unofficial track: FT on "energy barter"
The Financial Times, citing sources, reported that one of the issues in Abu Dhabi could be discussing mutual restrictions on strikes on critical infrastructure.1 4 . According to this version, Ukraine and the United States are allegedly ready to offer Russia a cessation of attacks on oil refineries and tankers of the “shadow fleet” in exchange for stopping Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy. There is no official confirmation of this offer, but the very appearance of such information is an important marker of sentiment in part of the Western establishment.
The context is obvious. On the one hand, Ukrainian drones systematically strike Russian refineries, oil depots, and tankers, causing significant damage to the Russian budget and military logistics.4 5 . On the other hand, the Russian Federation is repeatedly attacking Ukrainian energy, turning winter into a season of blackouts. For some Western partners, this looks like a spiral of escalation, which should be tried to be “muffled” by a separate technical agreement. For Ukraine, any such barter cannot be separated from a broader framework: security, sovereignty, responsibility of the aggressor.
Kremlin's position: "Anchorage formula" and the demand for the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from Donbas
Moscow is trying to throw its negotiating framework into the public space. Putin's aide Yuri Ushakov said that at a meeting between the Russian delegation and US special envoys, they "stated" that without "resolving the territorial issue in accordance with the formula agreed in Anchorage," there is no point in talking about a "long-term settlement."1 3 The Kremlin refused to explain what the “Anchorage formula” is, but at the same time Peskov voiced a specific demand: the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from the territory of Donbas.1 5 .
In fact, Russia is trying to consolidate its "red line": without legal recognition of its control over the entire Donbas (and de facto - over the territories within the "federal entities" that it has drawn for itself), it does not consider it possible to sign any "final agreement"5 . This is a direct challenge to the Ukrainian position, where the issue of territories is the prerogative of the people, not the result of bargaining between delegations. And it is here that it becomes clear why Zelensky calls Donbas “key” in these negotiations: the credibility of the entire format depends on whether the partners agree to at least consider Russian logic.
Ukrainian "frameworks": sovereignty, referendum and the Donbas red line
In December, Zelensky clearly formulated: issues of possible territorial decisions can only be submitted to a nationwide expression of will - elections or a referendum.6 . This is not only a political declaration, but also a vaccination against a scenario in which a few people at a table sign a paper legalizing the occupation, and society is confronted with the fact. Against the background of the Kremlin's demands for the "withdrawal of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from Donbas," this position sounds like a fundamental incompatibility with the Russian vision.
When Ushakov says that “all of Donbas is Russian,” he is not just voicing a propaganda formula, but rather signaling Moscow’s willingness to bargain based on the already announced “legal status” of the territories.5 . This is unacceptable for Ukraine. Any agreement to a “territorial compromise” without the will of the people would mean a political explosion within the country and the de facto end of trust in the authorities. Therefore, the Ukrainian delegation in Abu Dhabi is forced to strike a balance: on the one hand, listen to what Russia and the US are offering; on the other, not to go beyond the constitutional and political framework set in Kyiv.
Why Donbas is the center of negotiations, not just “one of the topics”
Zelenskyy said bluntly: the Donbas issue is key at the talks in Abu Dhabi1 . It's not just about territory, but also about the security model. It is here that the hottest areas of the front are concentrated, it is from here that the Kremlin wants to push out Ukrainian troops to show its own society and Trump in Washington: "we won what we started for."3 5 For Kyiv, Donbas is also a question of justice: giving up the region after years of defense would mean legalizing deportations, torture chambers, filtration camps, and repression against pro-Ukrainian residents.
A separate dimension is the international one. If the West agrees to de facto recognition of Russian control over Donbas in exchange for a “ceasefire” or “security guarantees,” it will set a dangerous precedent for the entire system of international law.4 7 Other authoritarian regimes will see: it is enough to endure a few years of war, impose world negotiations - and part of what was captured can be kept for themselves. This is what makes Donbas not only a Ukrainian, but also a global red line.
ISW and Trump's shadow: is the Kremlin trying to beat Ukraine "through Washington"
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has drawn attention to the fact that, in parallel with the negotiations in the UAE, the Kremlin is intensifying attempts to build a special relationship with the Trump administration, offering a "grand deal" without the participation of Ukraine and Europe.3 The visit of Witkoff and Kushner to Putin, Ushakov's statements about the "Anchorage formula", talks about the "territorial issue" - are elements of one strategy: to convince Washington that the future peace should look like a bilateral solution between two "great powers" with minimal consideration of Kyiv's position.
For Ukraine, this is a double risk. First, this format destroys the principle of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” which official Kyiv and its allies have been declaring since 2022.3 7 . Secondly, it reinforces the Kremlin’s own propaganda within the Russian Federation: they say that “real peace” will be achieved when Moscow comes to an agreement not with Kyiv, but with Washington or Berlin. In this context, the participation of the Ukrainian delegation in Abu Dhabi is a way to prevent the negotiations from turning into a backroom deal behind its back.
What the UAE gets: the role of a mediator and player in the energy scene
The Emirates, by hosting the trilateral talks, are playing their own game. They are enhancing their reputation as a venue for resolving global crises – from Iran to Ukraine – while at the same time demonstrating flexibility in relations with both the US and Russia.5 Against the backdrop of stories about the "shadow fleet" of Russian oil, part of which passes through international ports and companies, the UAE is interested in having control over communication channels regarding possible restrictions or changes in the sanctions regime.5 .
For Kyiv, the participation of the Emirates as a mediator has both advantages and risks. The advantage is that it is a country capable of talking to all nuclear players at the same time. The risk is that its own interests in energy and trade may not fully coincide with Ukrainian goals in weakening Russian military potential.4 5 That is why Kyiv is forced to maintain information transparency: to explain to Ukrainian society what exactly is being discussed and where the lines that cannot be crossed lie.
What to expect next: possible scenarios after Abu Dhabi
After the current round of talks in Abu Dhabi, several scenarios are likely. The first is a technical continuation of the discussions: working groups on security, energy, and humanitarian issues could meet in various formats without reaching the level of leaders.2 4 The second is the Kremlin's attempt to present the negotiations as "the West's readiness to take into account Russian interests," which will be used for domestic consumption and pressure on Ukraine.
The third, most dangerous scenario is an attempt to impose a framework on Kyiv in which a “ceasefire” and partial “alleviation” of strikes on infrastructure are offered in exchange for territorial or political concessions.4 6 The public position of the Ukrainian authorities is already working against this – from statements about a referendum on the territories to an open discussion of the risks of the “Anchorage formula”. How effective this countermeasure will be depends not only on Kyiv, but also on the willingness of partners not to perceive “quick peace” as an end in itself.
Sources
- Radio Liberty: "Media: Negotiations between representatives of Ukraine, the US and Russia in Abu Dhabi have ended" - basic information about the format, composition of the delegations, quotes from Zelensky and Ushakov.
- Public: announcement about the duration of the negotiations in the UAE, the two-day format (January 23–24), and the emphasis on the "parameters for ending the war."
- ISW and Western analytical reviews: assessment of the Kremlin's attempts to persuade the Trump administration to make agreements with Russia without the full participation of Ukraine and Europe.
- Financial Times: publication about possible discussions in Abu Dhabi on mutual restrictions on strikes on energy infrastructure and the Russian "shadow fleet".
- Radio Liberty materials on Peskov and Ushakov's statements regarding the "Anchorage formula", demands for the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from Donbas, and the claim that "all of Donbas is Russian."
- Radio Liberty: Zelensky's previous statements that the issue of territorial decisions can only be decided by the people of Ukraine through elections or a referendum.
- International media (BBC, The New York Times, etc.): context of Russia's previous attempts to impose a "freeze" of the war through negotiations with the West, not with Ukraine.
- Analytical materials on the role of the UAE as a mediator in Russia's war against Ukraine, in particular on issues of energy, prisoner exchange, and the "shadow fleet."
