"We Have To Take Advantage Of This Opportunity"

• 10.11.2026, 14:51

What do Ukrainians expect from the talks in Abu Dhabi?

Trilateral talks between the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia are taking place in Abu Dhabi. Will these meetings bring peace closer? What leverage can the U.S. administration use against Russia?

The website Charter97.org discussed this and other topics with renowned Ukrainian political scientist and head of the “Penta” Center for Applied Political Studies Vladimir Fesenko:

— It’s unlikely they’ll bring us closer to peace, but if the talks continue, both the schedule for future meetings and their agenda will be determined. Perhaps not immediately, but it will be possible to steer these talks toward a substantive focus—a ceasefire. Not just talks about Russia’s wishes and demands, but specifically talks about what matters most: a ceasefire and an end to hostilities.

Then there will be light at the end of the war’s tunnel, and there will be some hope for a way out of it. For now, unfortunately—especially against the backdrop of daily Russian strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure—expectations in Kyiv are, shall we say, skeptical. This applies not only to government leaders but also to ordinary people: according to sociological surveys, they have no particular expectations. This is precisely because they see that Russia is not ending the war but, on the contrary, is intensifying its attacks on Ukraine. However, this does not mean that negotiations are unnecessary. We must seize this opportunity.

Therefore, the current negotiations represent, first and foremost, a resumption of the negotiation process after a long hiatus (more than half a year). An important positive trend in these talks is that, while not yet directly, Europeans are participating.

In fact, the talks began with a meeting between the Ukrainian and American delegations and the Europeans. And Steve Whitcoff even hinted yesterday in a post—I believe on social media platform X—that there is a chance for a meeting between the Russian and European delegations. If that happens, it could also be a significant step forward. But for now, today’s discussions will focus on security issues and the post-war period. There are a great many contradictions and sticking points here. Therefore, this will be more of a preliminary assessment, a fact-finding mission. It will determine which topics are open to negotiation and on which issues the parties’ positions are directly opposed. And, accordingly, they’ll determine how to proceed with these topics in the negotiation process and on which issues more constructive talks can continue. Tomorrow, according to some media reports, they’re supposedly going to discuss territorial issues. I’m completely skeptical about that.

As far as I understand, Ukraine will not agree to any initiatives involving border changes, no matter how compromising they may seem. Ukraine’s position remains unchanged: we are ready for a ceasefire along the front line. In that case, part of Ukraine’s territory will indeed remain under Russian control for an indefinite period. But Ukraine will not recognize any of the annexed territories as Russian, as is the case with Crimea. The peninsula has been under Russian control for 12 years now, but we do not recognize it as Russian. The same applies to the four other Ukrainian regions that Russia has annexed. In this regard, as far as the territorial issue is concerned, the situation is, in my view, at an impasse.

Some compromises may be discussed, but I do not expect any agreements here if the discussion specifically involves changing the state border.

— What leverage can the U.S. administration use against Russia if negotiations reach an impasse?

— I don’t see any pressure being exerted on Russia yet. But there is leverage—namely, sanctions. Furthermore, from a purely political standpoint, we can see that Putin and the Kremlin want to reach an agreement with the Americans. Not all of Putin’s team, but part of his inner circle is ready to strike a deal with the Americans. They clearly want to reach an agreement with Trump, because there may never again be a U.S. president whom the Kremlin understands so well. This is a unique situation.

Therefore, the very fact that they are seeking to reach an agreement specifically with Trump could serve as a lever of pressure for the U.S. They can set conditions: Do you want to negotiate with us? Do you want to do business? Let’s end the war first.

It’s very important to frame the issue on principle. First, a cessation of hostilities; then, agreements on business and the economy. If the Americans apply this logic, then there will be a chance.

Active political pressure: a ceasefire must come first, followed by all other agreements. Sanctions are an additional tool for exerting pressure; they are not the most important one. They create problems for Russia but do not lead to concrete political decisions.

However, this logic from the U.S.—where they demand an end to the war first, followed by all other agreements—could be effective.