The US-brokered trilateral negotiations between Ukraine, Russia and the United States in Abu Dhabi represent a significant diplomatic effort to end Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War II. However, both rounds of talks held in late January and early February 2026 have yielded minimal concrete progress. Despite all parties describing the discussions as “constructive,” fundamental disagreements over territorial concessions, security guarantees, and Russia’s continued military aggression have prevented any breakthrough.
The first round of trilateral talks occurred on January 23-24, 2026, marking the first direct public negotiations between Ukrainian and Russian representatives on the Trump administration’s peace framework since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022. The second round commenced on February 4-5, 2026, following a postponement from February 1 due to scheduling issues and the escalating US-Iran crisis.
Key participants
Ukraine’s delegation: Led by Rustem Umerov, Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council, described by colleagues as a shrewd negotiator capable of diplomatic achievements.
Russia’s delegation: Headed by Admiral Igor Kostyukov, Director of the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), a career naval officer sanctioned by Western countries for his role in the Ukraine invasion. Putin’s envoy Kirill Dmitriev also participated in separate economic discussions.
United States delegation: Led by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, with participation from Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, and NATO’s top general in Europe, Gen. Alexus Grynkewich.
Primary reasons for negotiation failure
Irreconcilable Territorial Demands
The single most significant obstacle to progress remains the fate of Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region, comprising the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.
Russia’s Position:
Moscow demands that Ukraine withdraw all forces from the entirety of the Donbas region, including territory Ukraine currently controls
Russia insists on international recognition of its annexation of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions
The Kremlin has made complete control of Donbas a non-negotiable precondition for any peace agreement
Russia references an alleged “Anchorage formula” from a purported Trump-Putin summit in Alaska in August 2025, which supposedly established these territorial arrangements
President Putin has repeatedly threatened to seize the remaining Donbas territory by military force if diplomatic efforts fail
Ukraine’s Position:
Kyiv controls approximately 20-22% of Donetsk oblast (roughly 2,250 square miles or 5,000-6,600 square kilometers)
President Zelensky refuses to surrender territory that Ukrainian forces have successfully defended for nearly four years at enormous human cost
Ukraine proposes freezing the conflict along current front lines rather than unilateral withdrawal
The Ukrainian Constitution requires any territorial changes to be approved through a nationwide referendum
Opinion polls consistently show little public appetite among Ukrainians for territorial concessions
Zelensky has stated Ukraine has “no legal or moral right” to cede territory
The Strategic Significance of Disputed Territory:
The contested portion of Donetsk contains heavily fortified urban centers including parts of Pokrovsk and other population centers that form Ukraine’s defensive “fortress belt.” This 50-kilometer fortified zone through western Donetsk has been strengthened over more than a decade of fighting. The region also sits atop vast natural resources and contains critical infrastructure, railways, and roads that supply the front line. Losing this territory would leave the rest of eastern Ukraine exposed to Russian advances.
In fact, even at current rates of Russian advance and with massive resource commitments, it would take Moscow until August 2027 to capture the remaining Ukrainian-controlled portions of Donetsk.
Asymmetric Pressure and Leverage
US Pressure on Ukraine:
The Trump administration has applied significant pressure on Kyiv to accept territorial concessions, with reports indicating Washington has tied security guarantees to Ukraine’s willingness to cede unoccupied areas of Donbas. This approach has been criticized for placing the burden of compromise primarily on the victim of aggression rather than the aggressor.
The US has informed Ukraine that security guarantees would only be provided after Ukraine reaches a peace deal with Russia a deal likely involving territorial losses. This sequencing puts Ukraine in a vulnerable position, as it would need to surrender territory before receiving any protective assurances against future Russian attacks.
Minimal Russian Concessions:
President Trump stated that Russia’s “big concession is they stop fighting, and they don’t take any more land.” This framing suggests Russia merely needs to halt ongoing aggression, while Ukraine must surrender sovereign territory a fundamentally unequal exchange that rewards Russian military conquest.
The Kremlin has shown no willingness to compromise on its core demands and continues to escalate its territorial claims, with references to seizing all of “Novorossia”—a tsarist-era term encompassing much of southern and eastern Ukraine beyond even the Donbas.
Russia’s Exploitation of Diplomatic Process for Military Advantage
Energy Infrastructure Attacks:
Russia has repeatedly used the diplomatic process as cover for military preparation and strategic strikes, most notably through its violation of the energy ceasefire agreement.
On January 29, 2026, President Trump announced that Putin had agreed to pause strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure during a week of severe cold weather. However, the terms and duration of this agreement were immediately unclear and contradictory:
Trump indicated a week-long pause to provide relief during “extraordinary cold”
The Kremlin claimed the agreement only covered strikes on Kyiv until February 1
Ukraine learned of the supposed ceasefire only through public statements, not direct communication
Russia launched its largest aerial attack of the winter on February 2-3, 2026, immediately after the purported ceasefire expired
February 2-3 Attack:
Just hours before the second round of Abu Dhabi talks, Russia launched a massive barrage comprising:
71 missiles (including a record number of ballistic missiles)
450 attack drones
Strikes across at least six regions targeting civilian energy infrastructure
More than 1,100 apartment buildings in Kyiv left without heat in -20°C temperatures
Over 50,000 people in Odesa without power
820 residential buildings in Kharkiv without heating
At least 12 coal miners killed in attacks on mining facilities
President Zelensky accused Moscow of exploiting the brief ceasefire “not to support diplomacy, but to stockpile missiles and wait until the coldest days of the year.” This pattern demonstrates Russia’s strategy of using negotiation periods to prepare for more devastating attacks rather than to build confidence and trust.
Strategic Timing:
The timing of major Russian attacks consistently coincides with diplomatic initiatives:
On the eve of the first round of talks (January 23-24), Russia launched drone and missile barrages cutting millions from electricity in subzero temperatures
The largest attack of 2026 occurred just before the second round, maximizing psychological and physical pressure on Ukrainian negotiators
Continued strikes on logistics and transport infrastructure throughout supposed “ceasefire” periods
This pattern reveals Russia’s negotiating approach: maintain maximum military pressure while engaging in talks, undermining diplomatic good faith while positioning any agreement as Ukrainian capitulation under duress.
Divergent Interpretations of Preliminary Agreements
The “Anchorage Formula” Dispute:
Russia repeatedly references an alleged agreement between Putin and Trump at a purported summit in Alaska in August 2025, which Moscow claims established parameters for territorial settlement. According to Russian officials, this formula would:
Grant Russia control of all of Donbas
Freeze current front lines elsewhere in eastern and southern Ukraine
Provide international recognition of Russian territorial gains
However, the specifics of any such agreement remain unclear, and Ukraine was not party to these discussions. The Trump administration has not publicly confirmed all details Russia claims were agreed upon, creating confusion about whether there is an actual framework or merely Russian assertions about one.
Initial US Proposal Controversy:
Early drafts of the US peace framework reportedly drew heavy criticism from Kyiv and Western European allies for “hewing too closely to Moscow’s demands.” While the US subsequently revised its proposals, the initial approach damaged Ukrainian confidence in American mediation and suggested Washington might prioritize a quick agreement over Ukrainian sovereignty and security.
Security Guarantees Stalemate
Ukraine’s Requirements:
Kyiv has consistently demanded robust security guarantees as a prerequisite for any territorial compromises, specifically:
Legally binding security commitments activated before any territorial concessions
Protection against future Russian invasion
Guarantees comparable to Article 5 collective defense provisions
President Zelensky stated that a document outlining US security guarantees is “100% ready” but awaits formal signing. However, the sequencing and enforceability of these guarantees remain contested.
Russia’s Objections:
Moscow opposes European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine, which had been proposed in later US draft frameworks. The Kremlin insists on additional conditions beyond territorial concessions:
Ukraine must formally abandon NATO membership aspirations
Demilitarization of Ukrainian forces
Legal protections for Russian cultural and linguistic influence in Ukraine
Recognition of annexed territories as Russian
The Trust Deficit:
Ukraine’s experience with previous security arrangements undermines confidence in new guarantees. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine surrendered nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the US, and UK, proved worthless when Russia invaded in 2014 and 2022. This history makes Ukraine skeptical of any agreement not backed by immediate, concrete enforcement mechanisms.
Fundamental Disagreement Over War Aims and Legitimacy
Incompatible Narratives:
Russia and Ukraine operate from entirely different premises about the war’s nature and legitimate outcomes:
Russia’s position frames the conflict as:
Protecting Russian-speaking populations in eastern Ukraine
Preventing NATO expansion and Western “encirclement”
Correcting historical injustices from the Soviet collapse
Defending against Ukrainian “terrorism” and “neo-Nazism”
Ukraine’s position holds that:
Russia committed unprovoked aggression against a sovereign state
Moscow seeks to destroy Ukrainian statehood and national identity
Any territorial concessions would legitimize conquest and encourage future attacks
The conflict is an existential struggle for Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation
These fundamentally incompatible interpretations make it nearly impossible to find a mutually acceptable narrative framework for peace, much less specific terms.
The Deterrence Question:
Ukraine repeatedly emphasizes that any agreement must deter future Russian aggression. Given Russia’s history of:
2014 annexation of Crimea following the Euromaidan revolution
Support for separatists in Donbas since 2014
2022 full-scale invasion after years of “frozen conflict”
Continued territorial demands beyond areas currently occupied
Kyiv argues that surrendering additional territory would only encourage Moscow to pursue further conquests after a ceasefire. Zelenskyy has stated Ukraine will not sign a deal “that fails to deter Russia from invading again.”
Domestic Political Constraints
Ukraine’s Constitutional and Political Limitations:
President Zelensky faces severe domestic constraints on territorial concessions:
The Ukrainian Constitution requires referendums for territorial changes
Public opinion polls show majority opposition to ceding land for peace
Political opposition would likely challenge any agreement seen as capitulation
The Ukrainian military and security establishment has invested years defending these territories
Elections will eventually be held, and any leader seen as surrendering Ukrainian territory would face electoral consequences
Russia’s Political Imperatives:
Putin has staked significant political capital on the Ukraine operation:
Having committed enormous resources and sustained massive casualties (Western estimates suggest hundreds of thousands of Russian dead and wounded)
Domestic propaganda has portrayed the conflict as an existential struggle against Western aggression
Retreat from maximalist goals would be seen as defeat and could threaten regime stability
Putin needs to demonstrate concrete “wins” to justify the war’s costs to the Russian population
Incomplete control of Donbas after 12 years of fighting would represent failure of a core objective
US Domestic Pressures:
The Trump administration faces its own constraints:
Desire to achieve a quick foreign policy “win” and fulfill campaign promises
Pressure from some Republicans to reduce US involvement in foreign conflicts
Opposition from Democrats and foreign policy establishment to any deal seen as abandoning Ukraine
Need to maintain credibility with European NATO allies
Concerns about setting precedents for future conflicts (Taiwan, etc.)
European Skepticism and Division
Zelensky’s Criticism of Europe:
The Ukrainian president has been sharply critical of European hesitation and division, particularly in his January 2026 Davos speech where he:
Accused Europe of being “too slow to act on key decisions”
Criticized spending too little on defense
Condemned failure to stop Russia’s “shadow fleet” of sanction-evading oil tankers
Urged Europe to use frozen Russian assets to finance Ukraine
Compared Europe unfavorably to Washington’s bold actions on other issues
Referenced the film “Groundhog Day,” noting he must repeat the same appeals year after year with little European response
European Concerns About US Framework:
Western European allies have expressed reservations about the US-proposed peace framework, particularly:
Initial proposals seen as too favorable to Moscow
Concerns about setting precedent for territorial conquest being rewarded
Questions about enforcement mechanisms and long-term European security
Division over whether to contribute peacekeeping forces
Disagreement over use of frozen Russian assets and reconstruction funding
This European hesitation has complicated negotiations, as any sustainable peace likely requires European participation in implementation and enforcement.
Military Realities on the Ground
Ongoing Russian Advances:
Despite diplomatic efforts, fighting has continued with Russia making incremental gains:
Moscow controls approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory overall
Russian forces control essentially all of Luhansk oblast
About 78% of Donetsk is under Russian occupation
At current pace, Russia gains approximately 175 square miles monthly
Russian forces have recently claimed capture of villages including Krasnyi Yar in the Pokrovsk direction
Ukraine’s Military Challenges:
Stretched and exhausted Ukrainian forces after nearly four years of intensive combat
Ammunition and equipment shortages despite Western aid
Difficulty mobilizing additional troops
Damage to military-industrial capacity from Russian strikes
Vulnerability of energy infrastructure affecting military logistics
Russia’s Resource Commitment:
Moscow continues massive military investment despite enormous casualties:
Willingness to sustain casualties that would be politically unacceptable in Western democracies
Belief that Russia can outlast and outgun Ukraine over time
Continued mobilization and equipment production
Support from North Korean troops and Iranian drones
This military dynamic means Russia sees little incentive to compromise when it believes it can achieve objectives through continued fighting.
Humanitarian Weaponization
Russia’s “Weaponization of Winter” Strategy:
Moscow has systematically targeted Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, particularly during winter months:
Repeated strikes on power generation and distribution
Attacks on heating infrastructure during -20°C temperatures
Targeting of water supply systems
Strikes on coal mines and energy workers
Strategy explicitly designed to freeze Ukrainian population into submission
Since October 2025, Russia has conducted nine large-scale attacks on Ukraine’s energy sector, with the February 2-3, 2026 attack being the largest. The cumulative damage means Ukraine faces its hardest winter since the war began, with:
Two-thirds of electrical infrastructure damaged or destroyed
Hundreds of thousands regularly without heat and power
Widespread use of metro stations as bomb shelters and warming centers
Mass displacement as people flee uninhabitable areas
Civilian Toll as Pressure Tactic:
Russia’s willingness to inflict maximum civilian suffering as a negotiating tactic demonstrates:
Disregard for humanitarian law and norms
Calculation that Ukrainian leadership will crack under pressure of civilian casualties
Use of deliberate suffering as leverage in negotiations
Proof that Moscow does not approach talks in good faith
This strategy backfires diplomatically, making it harder for Ukraine to compromise while Russian attacks continue, as it would appear to be capitulation under duress.
The “Energy Ceasefire” Debacle: A Case Study in Bad Faith
The confusion and ultimate violation of the Trump-brokered energy ceasefire illustrates many of the broader negotiation failures:
Contradictory Terms:
Trump announced the agreement publicly before confirming details with all parties
Ukraine learned of the ceasefire through media reports, not direct communication
Russia and the US disagreed on duration (one week vs. until February 1)
No formal written agreement existed
Confusion over whether it covered all of Ukraine or just Kyiv
Exploitation by Russia:
Moscow used the pause to stockpile missiles for larger attack
Timed the end of the ceasefire to maximize impact during coldest weather
Launched attack immediately before second round of talks to pressure negotiators
Demonstrated that Russia views diplomatic agreements as tactical tools, not good-faith commitments
Divergent US-Ukrainian Understanding:
Trump praised Putin for “keeping his word” after the February 2-3 attacks, saying the pause “was for Sunday to Sunday” and that Putin “hit them hard” when it ended. This created public tension with Ukraine, which viewed the attacks as bad faith and expected stronger US condemnation of the violation.
The episode encapsulates the broader problem: Russia, the US, and Ukraine are not operating from shared understandings or good-faith frameworks, making substantive agreement nearly impossible.
Consequences and Outlook
Immediate Impact
The failure of the first two rounds of talks has several immediate consequences:
Continued Suffering:
Ukrainian civilians face ongoing attacks on infrastructure during harsh winter, with no relief in sight. The human cost continues to mount with each day of failed diplomacy.
Erosion of Trust:
Each round of unproductive talks and violated agreements further erodes whatever minimal trust existed between parties, making future negotiations even more difficult.
Military Escalation:
Russia continues advancing militarily while talking diplomatically, gaining territory that it will then demand to keep in any settlement, creating perverse incentives against negotiated solutions.
Domestic Political Damage:
Both Zelenskyy and Putin face domestic pressure: Zelenskyy from those opposing any concessions, Putin from those demanding complete victory. Failed talks strengthen hardliners on both sides.
Ukrainian Public Skepticism
Public opinion in Ukraine reflects deep pessimism about the talks. Following the first round in Abu Dhabi, Kyiv residents expressed views like: “I think it’s all just a show for the public. We must prepare for the worst and hope for the best.” This skepticism undermines any negotiated settlement’s domestic legitimacy.
The Fundamental Problem
At their core, the Abu Dhabi negotiations have failed because they attempt to bridge positions that may be unbridgeable:
Russia wants Ukraine to surrender territory and sovereignty in exchange for Moscow’s agreement to stop attacking. Ukraine wants Russia to withdraw from occupied territory and provide guarantees against future attack. The US wants a quick deal that ends the fighting without the appearance of rewarding aggression or abandoning allies.
These three objectives cannot be simultaneously satisfied. Any agreement that meets Russian demands will be unacceptable to Ukraine. Any agreement Ukraine can accept will be rejected by Russia. The US cannot craft a framework that satisfies both without fundamentally altering the positions of at least one party.
Systemic Failures in the Negotiation Process
Premature Trilateral Format
The decision to hold trilateral talks before establishing bilateral understandings between Ukraine and Russia created problems:
No direct Ukraine-Russia agreement on basic premises
US acting as simultaneous mediator and party with interests
Confusion over whether US proposals represented mediation or demands
Lack of preparatory groundwork on key issues
Insufficient Preparation and Sequencing
The talks appear to have been initiated without adequate preparation:
No pre-negotiation agreement on agenda or parameters
Fundamental issues like territorial disposition left unresolved
Sequencing problems (security guarantees before or after territorial settlement?)
No agreed framework for enforcement and verification
Mediator Credibility Issues
The US mediation has faced credibility challenges:
Initial draft frameworks seen as pro-Russian
Public pressure on Ukraine while minimizing Russian concessions
Inconsistent messaging (Trump praising Putin after attacks on Ukraine)
Apparent priority on speed over substance
European allies skeptical of American approach
Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms
Even if agreements were reached, implementation would face challenges:
No agreed peacekeeping or monitoring force
Disputes over who would verify compliance
Questions about consequences for violations
Russia’s history of violating agreements makes enforcement critical yet contentious
Alternative Explanations and Counterarguments
Russian Perspective on Talks
From Moscow’s viewpoint, the talks may not be “failures” but rather:
Opportunities to demonstrate reasonableness to international audiences
Platforms to present Russian positions and demands
Tactical pauses to consolidate military gains
Ways to drive wedges between Ukraine and Western supporters
Russia may be content with continued talks that produce no agreement if they serve these purposes.
Some argue that protracted negotiations, even without immediate breakthroughs, can:
Build relationships and understanding between negotiators
Identify areas of potential future compromise
Maintain diplomatic channels for crisis management
Demonstrate willingness to pursue peace even while fighting continues
The Korean armistice negotiations lasted over two years while fighting continued before reaching agreement in 1953.
Conflict resolution theory suggests negotiations succeed when conflicts are “ripe” for resolution when all parties conclude they cannot win militarily and that continuing costs outweigh potential gains. By this theory:
Russia believes it can still achieve military objectives
Ukraine believes it must continue fighting to prevent total defeat
Neither side has reached the “mutually hurting stalemate” that enables compromise
From this perspective, talks are premature and will only succeed after further military developments change calculations.
The Abu Dhabi negotiations between Ukraine and Russia have failed to produce meaningful progress toward ending the war because of fundamental, structural obstacles rather than mere tactical or procedural problems:
Irreconcilable core positions on territorial disposition make agreement on the central issue impossible without one side fundamentally changing its demands.
Asymmetric pressure dynamics place the burden of compromise on Ukraine while requiring minimal Russian concessions, creating an inherently unfair framework.
Bad faith Russian participation that uses diplomatic processes to enable military attacks rather than build peace undermines the entire negotiating enterprise.
Domestic political constraints on both Zelensky and Putin limit their room for compromise even if they were inclined to seek it.
Inadequate security guarantees mean Ukraine cannot accept territorial losses without risking future extinction as an independent state.
Humanitarian weaponization by Russia makes negotiating under current conditions appear to be capitulation under duress.
Until these fundamental problems are addressed ”likely requiring changed military realities, different political leadership, altered great power dynamics, or some combination” diplomatic efforts like the Abu Dhabi talks will continue to produce “constructive” conversations that lead nowhere.
The negotiations reveal a deeper truth: some conflicts may not be resolvable through diplomacy until the underlying power dynamics and political calculations change. In the Ukraine-Russia war, those changes have not yet occurred, which is why the Abu Dhabi talks, despite bringing parties to the same table, have ultimately failed to produce the peace all claim to desire.
The path forward remains unclear. Either military developments will eventually create conditions for meaningful compromise, or the conflict will continue as a “frozen” but active war for years, with periodic diplomatic initiatives that manage but do not resolve the underlying dispute. The Abu Dhabi talks suggest that, for now, the latter scenario appears more likely than the former.
Statistical Summary
Territorial Facts:
Russia controls approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory overall
Ukraine retains control of 20-22% of Donetsk oblast (roughly 2,250-6,600 square kilometers)
Russia controls 78% of Donetsk and essentially all of Lugansk
At current pace, Russia gains approximately 175 square miles monthly
It would take until August 2027 for Russia to capture remaining Donetsk at current pace
Humanitarian Impact:
February 2-3, 2026 attack: 71 missiles and 450 drones
More than 1,100 apartment buildings in Kyiv without heat
Over 50,000 people in Odesa without power
820 residential buildings in Kharkiv without heating
At least 12 coal miners killed in attacks on mining facilities
Temperatures as low as -20°C to -25°C during attacks
Two-thirds of Ukraine’s electrical infrastructure damaged or destroyed since war began
Nine large-scale attacks on energy sector since October 2025
Diplomatic Timeline:
February 2022: Russian full-scale invasion begins
August 2025: Alleged Trump-Putin summit in Alaska
Summer 2025: Last prior Ukraine-Russia face-to-face meeting (Istanbul, soldier exchanges only)
January 23-24, 2026: First round of trilateral Abu Dhabi talks
January 29, 2026: Trump announces energy ceasefire agreement
February 1, 2026: Russia claims ceasefire expires
February 2-3, 2026: Largest Russian attack of 2026 on energy infrastructure
February 4-5, 2026: Second round of trilateral Abu Dhabi talks