US–Russia–Ukraine negotiations in Abu Dhabi: between the prospect of ending the war, the territorial dispute and the redefinition of the European security architecture
Intelligence Analysis 10 November 2026 – Maritime Security Forum
The negotiations between the United States, Russia and Ukraine, scheduled for 10–11 November 2026 in Abu Dhabi, represent a fresh attempt to find a diplomatic solution to the war triggered by Russia’s large-scale invasion in February 2022. The meeting is taking place at a time when military operations are continuing, Ukraine’s energy infrastructure is under repeated attack, and relations between Russia and Western states are marked by fundamental differences over European security.
The significance of the negotiations, however, goes beyond the prospect of a ceasefire. The discussions equally concern the future of the occupied Ukrainian territories, the nature of international security guarantees, the role of NATO, the European Union’s involvement, and the conditions under which a sustainable mechanism to prevent the resumption of hostilities might be established.
On 9 November, US President Donald Trump stated that Washington had observed a greater willingness on the part of both sides to end the war. A US official claimed that, in private discussions, Moscow and Kyiv were showing a degree of flexibility on the territorial issue. However, this assessment has not been confirmed by the parties involved publicly accepting any concessions, and the Ukrainian authorities have rejected the idea that they have agreed to any territorial concessions.
reuters.com+1
From this perspective, the Abu Dhabi meeting should be viewed not as a peace agreement already in the making, but as a stage in the negotiations aimed at identifying the minimum conditions for bridging positions that remain deeply divergent.
The return to trilateral negotiations: Washington’s objectives and the positions of Moscow and Kyiv
The resumption of direct negotiations between representatives of Russia and Ukraine, with US mediation, comes after a period of stagnation in the dialogue. According to Reuters, the Abu Dhabi meeting is the first direct meeting between the delegations of the two states since the negotiations in February 2026.
reuters.com
The diplomatic process was prepared through successive contacts between Washington, Kyiv and Moscow. On 23 October, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that representatives of the three countries had agreed to organise a technical meeting in the first half of November. Ukraine has expressed its willingness to discuss both a general ceasefire and partial agreements, in the hope that the technical negotiations will subsequently pave the way for a meeting at leader level.
reuters.com
The Russian delegation is led by Vladimir Medinsky, an adviser to President Vladimir Putin and a participant in previous rounds of negotiations. According to Reuters, the delegation also includes the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergei Ryabkov, as well as a high-ranking military representative. The Ukrainian delegation is led by Rustem Umerov, whilst US mediation is being provided by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
investing.com
The presence of political, diplomatic and military representatives indicates an intention to discuss not only the general principles of an agreement, but also its practical implementation: the cessation of hostilities, monitoring mechanisms, security guarantees and possible measures to reduce military risks.
For Washington, the stated objective is to end the war through an agreement that can be supported by both sides and that contributes to European stability. Trump has suggested that the negotiations could lead to a broader agreement, including elements of continental security.
For Russia, the negotiations represent an opportunity to secure political and territorial conditions that Moscow considers essential for ending the conflict. For Ukraine, the central objective remains halting the aggression without establishing conditions that would allow it to resume in the future.
The fundamental difference, however, concerns the order in which measures should be adopted. Kyiv maintains that a ceasefire must be the starting point for a broader political process. Moscow insists on a comprehensive agreement that first establishes the political and security conditions for ending the war. The Associated Press has documented this divergence, which has also affected previous rounds of negotiations.
ABC News
The territorial issue: the main obstacle to an agreement
The status of the occupied Ukrainian territories is the most difficult issue in the negotiations.
Russia continues to claim control over the entire Donbas region and to demand the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from territories over which it has no military control. In its broader positions, Moscow has also made claims over the other Ukrainian regions it has declared annexed, although these annexations are not recognised under international law.
Ukraine rejects the voluntary cession of territories that its forces continue to defend and considers that any territorial settlement must respect the sovereignty and independence of the state.
ABC News
On 9 November, a US official told Reuters that both sides were showing, in private discussions, a certain willingness to make territorial compromises. According to the same source, a possible agreement on territories could be discussed towards the end of the negotiations, once the other components – including security guarantees – have been finalised.
However, a senior Ukrainian official rejected the interpretation that Kyiv was already considering territorial concessions, stating that such issues could only be addressed at the leadership level and in the context of adequate security guarantees.
investing.com+1
This contradiction between the US assessment and the Ukrainian public stance is significant. It shows that the existence of exploratory discussions does not equate to acceptance of a solution.
From a legal perspective, a distinction must be made between effective military control over a territory, recognition of sovereignty, and any temporary arrangements regarding administration or the cessation of hostilities.
Contemporary international law enshrines the prohibition on the acquisition of territory through the use of force. The UN Charter, the principle of territorial integrity and the rules on the non-recognition of situations created by serious violations of international law constitute fundamental cornerstones of any settlement.
A ceasefire line or a provisional mechanism for the separation of forces does not automatically entail a transfer of sovereignty. At the same time, the political or legal recognition of territorial changes imposed by force would raise distinct issues, with implications for the entire international system.
Consequently, any potential compromise must be assessed not only in terms of the possibility of an immediate cessation of hostilities, but also in terms of its effects on the legal principles governing relations between states.
Security guarantees: the decisive issue for Ukraine’s future
Beyond the territorial disputes, one of the fundamental issues in the negotiations concerns the nature of the security guarantees that would protect Ukraine following the cessation of hostilities.
The experience of recent decades has demonstrated the limitations of political commitments that are not accompanied by effective enforcement mechanisms. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine received security assurances in the context of renouncing the nuclear arsenal inherited from the Soviet Union, constitutes an important milestone in this discussion. However, the document did not establish an obligation of collective defence comparable to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
In the current negotiations, the Ukrainian side is seeking guarantees that specify not only a political commitment to support, but also a concrete response from international partners in the event of a new act of aggression.
The Associated Press reported that Zelenskyy raised the possibility of guarantees modelled on the mechanism of NATO’s Article 5. The key issue concerns the identification of guarantor states, the means of intervention and the conditions under which these would become applicable.
ABC News
A security guarantee may include military assistance, the supply of weapons, intelligence-sharing, industrial cooperation, financial support, sanctions against the aggressor and emergency consultation mechanisms. However, these instruments do not carry the same legal weight and do not automatically produce the same deterrent effects.
For Kyiv, the main concern is to avoid a situation in which a ceasefire would allow Russia to rebuild its forces and subsequently resume its offensive. For Moscow, Western guarantees that would involve the presence of foreign troops in Ukraine are presented as incompatible with its own security requirements.
According to the Associated Press, Russia rejects the possibility of deploying European contingents in Ukraine and has warned that it might regard them as military targets. At the same time, the Kremlin is demanding that any agreement also include guarantees regarding Russia’s security.
ABC News
This position raises a particularly sensitive issue: the distinction between guarantees intended to protect a state against further aggression and claims seeking to restrict the freedom of other states to establish their own security arrangements.
From the perspective of international law, the sovereignty and equality of states entail respect for their political independence. An agreement on regional security cannot be assessed solely through the prism of the interests of the major powers, whilst ignoring the rights and obligations of the states directly affected.
Europe and NATO: the issue of participation in negotiations and the legitimacy of a regional agreement
One of the distinctive features of the Abu Dhabi meeting is the absence of European representatives from the main negotiating forum.
Russia has opposed the direct participation of European states in the trilateral talks, whilst Ukraine has insisted on the need to involve its partners. According to Reuters, representatives from France, Germany and European institutions are expected in Abu Dhabi, but their consultations with the Ukrainian delegation will take place separately from the negotiations with Russia.
reuters.com
The French Foreign Minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, confirmed on 8 November that France would be represented in Abu Dhabi. At the same time, US representatives held consultations in Brussels with officials from NATO, the European Union and the main European states regarding security guarantees for Ukraine.
reuters.com
This arrangement reflects a structural tension within the diplomatic process. The United States is attempting to broker an agreement between Russia and Ukraine, but any provisions relating to European security could have direct consequences for states not participating in the main negotiations.
President Trump has suggested that the future agreement could concern the security of the whole of Europe. Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained that the discussions include the post-conflict security architecture and that some conceptual progress has been made, although no definitive mechanism has yet been agreed.
reuters.com
The issue is not only diplomatic, but also legal. An agreement between three states cannot, in and of itself, alter the legal obligations of other states or of an international organisation without their consent, according to the applicable rules.
Furthermore, decisions regarding NATO’s military posture, collective defence or the deployment of allied forces cannot be taken by Russia and the United States in place of the other members of the Alliance.
Consequently, European participation is not merely a matter of diplomatic prestige. It is necessary to ensure the legitimacy, feasibility and enforceability of any measures that would entail obligations for European states.
Romania and the Eastern Flank: the implications of a possible reorganisation of European security
For Romania, the Abu Dhabi talks have direct strategic significance, even though Bucharest is not participating in the trilateral format.
Prior to the invasion in February 2022, Russia had called on NATO to withdraw certain military deployments and to limit the Allied presence in states that joined after 1997. These demands were rejected by the Alliance. The Associated Press and Reuters note that Russian demands regarding the European security architecture continue to form part of the context of the current negotiations.
ABC News+1
For Romania, any agreement that might reopen the discussion on NATO’s military posture in Central and Eastern Europe would have implications for national defence, allied cooperation and Black Sea security.
However, the information verified for this analysis provides no confirmation that the delegations have agreed to negotiate the withdrawal of NATO forces from Romania or other Eastern Flank states.
This distinction is essential: the existence of historical Russian claims does not prove their acceptance by Washington or their inclusion in a draft agreement.
From the perspective of Romania’s interests, Black Sea security must remain a distinct component of any discussion concerning European stability.
The war has demonstrated the importance of port infrastructure, freedom of navigation, the protection of commercial shipping, air defence and maritime surveillance capabilities. A potential cessation of land-based hostilities would not automatically eliminate the risks posed by sea mines, unmanned systems, coastal military infrastructure or restrictions on commercial transport.
In this context, a peace agreement that addressed only the land contact line would remain incomplete from a regional security perspective.
The Black Sea: the under-discussed maritime component of the negotiations
Although diplomatic attention is focused on the occupied territories and security guarantees, the maritime dimension of the conflict is an indispensable element of any potential settlement.
The Black Sea has become an arena of confrontation where conventional naval operations, attacks using unmanned systems, the use of missiles, mine-laying, aerial surveillance and pressure on port infrastructure all overlap.
The Ukrainian ports of Odessa, Chornomorsk and those on the Danube are of major economic and strategic importance. The continuity of commercial transport depends on the security conditions of maritime routes and the capacity to protect port infrastructure.
With a view to a sustainable settlement, negotiations should also clarify the conditions for post-conflict maritime security. These include the cessation of attacks on commercial shipping, addressing the threats posed by sea mines, the protection of ports, and the establishment of mechanisms to prevent incidents.
Such an approach does not necessarily entail including all maritime details in the main political agreement. These could be developed through technical instruments and specialised enforcement mechanisms.
However, the absence of such measures could allow maritime insecurity to persist even after a possible cessation of land-based military operations.
The ceasefire and the issue of verification: from political commitments to operational mechanisms
A major difficulty with any ceasefire agreement concerns the verification of compliance.
Recent experience shows that limited agreements can produce concrete humanitarian results without automatically leading to an end to the war.
The Associated Press reported that the temporary ceasefire in the town of Oleshky, which took place between 27 October and 1 November, allowed for the distribution of humanitarian aid and the evacuation of nearly 800 people, according to information provided by Melania Trump. This helped to facilitate an understanding between the parties.
but not visiting Ukrainian officials
This episode demonstrates the possibility of ad hoc measures to reduce violence. However, a local ceasefire, limited in time and geography, cannot be considered the equivalent of a general agreement to cease hostilities.
A credible ceasefire mechanism would require a precise definition of the parties’ obligations, the establishment of the date of entry into force, the delimitation of the area of application, procedures for reporting incidents and an accepted method of verification.
In the absence of independent or mutually agreed monitoring mechanisms, each party could interpret incidents differently and use alleged violations to justify the resumption of operations.
A sustainable agreement would also require rules on the protection of energy and civilian infrastructure, the exchange of prisoners, humanitarian access and measures to reduce the risk of escalation.
Negotiations and the military reality: pressure on the battlefield continues
The Abu Dhabi meeting is taking place as the war continues to cause significant casualties and destruction.
Reuters reported that Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure continued in the run-up to the talks, whilst Ukraine stepped up strikes on Russian refineries. A previously announced limited ceasefire on attacks against energy targets did not hold.
investing.com
Zelenskyy stated on 9 November that the recent successes of Ukrainian forces strengthen Kyiv’s position in the negotiations. He claimed that Russia is suffering very heavy losses, a claim disputed by Moscow. Reuters also reported that Ukrainian forces had recaptured territory in the Donetsk region.
reuters.com
These developments show that the relationship between the military situation and the negotiations remains fluid.
Neither side appears willing to unilaterally relinquish the means of military pressure before obtaining guarantees regarding the outcome of the diplomatic process.
Consequently, any potential convergence of positions should not be confused with an actual end to the war.
Three possible directions for the diplomatic process
From a strategic analysis perspective, the negotiations may yield different outcomes, though the available information does not allow for the prediction of any one of them.
The first direction is the conclusion of partial agreements on reducing attacks on energy infrastructure, the protection of the civilian population, prisoner exchanges and humanitarian measures. These could serve as confidence-building measures, without immediately resolving the territorial dispute.
The second direction is the development of a general framework on security guarantees, followed by high-level political negotiations on territorial issues. This approach is, in part, consistent with statements by US officials that the issue of the territories could be addressed towards the end of the process.
The third approach is to maintain dialogue without decisive results, whilst military operations continue and it remains impossible to bridge the gap between positions on the main claims.
These are analytical scenarios, not agreed outcomes or forecasts regarding the likelihood of the negotiations’ success.
Final assessment: peace negotiations and the issue of the European security order
The Abu Dhabi negotiations represent an important step in the resumption of direct contact between Russia and Ukraine under US mediation. Their significance, however, stems above all from the scale of the issues under discussion.
An agreement to end the war cannot be reduced to the establishment of a line of separation between the forces. It involves issues of sovereignty, territorial integrity, international responsibility, collective security, reconstruction and the prevention of a resumption of aggression.
At the same time, any attempt to redefine European security must take into account the rights and obligations of the states that would be affected by the new configuration.
For Ukraine, the fundamental issue is securing guarantees that will transform the cessation of hostilities into a sustainable security situation. For Russia, the negotiations also aim to secure terms regarding Ukraine’s status and its relations with Western institutions. For the United States, the stated objective is to reach an agreement that would end the war and reduce the risks of confrontation in Europe.
For European states, including Romania, the main concern relates to the long-term consequences of such an agreement on the continent’s security architecture.
From a maritime security perspective, any potential agreement cannot be considered complete unless it also provides the necessary conditions for safeguarding navigation, critical infrastructure and stability in the Black Sea.
Ultimately, the value of the negotiations will be determined not only by the possibility of achieving a ceasefire, but also by the ability of any agreement to prevent the resumption of the conflict and to respect the fundamental principles of international law.
At the time of writing, the Abu Dhabi meeting was scheduled to begin on 10 November, and neither a peace agreement, a territorial settlement nor a new, definitive mechanism for security guarantees had been confirmed.
Main sources
Russia, Ukraine to meet for US-backed talks after Trump says broad deal possible | Reuters
Trump says US seeing “strong inclination” to end Russia’s war in Ukraine | ReutersUS-led peace talks for Russia and Ukraine will look at security guarantees for both sides – ABC News
Europeans will join Ukraine talks in Abu Dhabi, French minister says | Reuters
Trump meets top Putin envoy at the White House, but not Ukrainian officials | AP News