What have the talks with Russia and the US in Abu Dhabi achieved for Ukraine?

Delegations from Russia and Ukraine held US-mediated talks in Abu DhabiImage: Altaf Qadri/AP Photo/picture allianceAdvertisementThe two-day talks between delegations from Ukraine, the US and Russia in Abu Dhabi on November 10 and 11 ended without a ceasefire agreement.

The main outcome was an agreement on a prisoner exchange.

"We have agreed on the largest humanitarian release of prisoners, and tomorrow we will finalize the numbers," Jared Kushner announced after the talks. US envoys Kushner and Steve Witkoff arrived in Moscow on Thursday, where they are due to meet President Vladimir Putin.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had earlier suggested an exchange of "1,000 for 1,000" prisoners, or "1,500 for 1,500." Russia said a large-scale prisoner exchange with Ukraine could take place within the next two to three weeks.

Following the meetings, Zelenskyy wrote on Telegram that the parties had discussed security guarantees and that "the first step should be ending this war and ensuring Ukraine's security." He also stressed that Europe should be involved "at every stage of genuine diplomacy."

Experts interviewed by DW agree that the main outcome of the talks is humanitarian.

"The agreement on a prisoner exchange is already a major step forward," says Artjom Bronzhukov of the Ukrainian think tank Polityka.

Pavlo Lakiychuk of the Ukrainian Center for Global Studies Strategy XXI also viewed it as a "very tangible result." He told DW that "getting our people back is already a major success. That is why it is worth continuing." 

A real breakthrough, he added, would be the release of civilian detainees from territories occupied since 2014, particularly people from Crimea, who have been held in Russian prisons for years.

Davyd Arakhamia, head of the ruling Servant of the People parliamentary faction and Ukraine's representative at the talks in Abu Dhabi, gave a positive assessment of the trilateral talks with the US and Russia, expressing hope that an agreement could be reached by the end of the year.

"I think the Russians came with extremely strict instructions, and it was difficult to ease the tone of the discussion. But the way the US representatives structured the talks with a view to the postwar situation in both countries opened up a dialogue, in my opinion, and allowed us to work together more productively," Arakhamia said at a joint press conference with US and Ukrainian representatives following the talks.

Iuliia Osmolovska of the Kyiv office of the international think tank GLOBSEC cautions against reading too much into the positive assessments of the talks from Washington and Kyiv.

"Diplomats taking part in negotiations will never say that everything went badly and that they have no expectations. Even when no results are achieved, they will still emphasize that the talks were constructive," she said. "For anyone familiar with diplomatic language, these are simply standard phrases."

Osmolovska points to a joint assessment by 71 Ukrainian security and defense experts published by GLOBSEC in the summer. According to the assessment, the chances of a peace agreement or at least a ceasefire being reached this year or next stand at just 19%.

She blames this on the fact that neither side is "ready" for genuine negotiations. Russia, in particular, has yet to accept that its objectives cannot be achieved by military means. "What we are seeing now is more of a farce, an attempt by all sides to put a brave face on things and create the impression that something is moving forward," Osmolovska said.

Artjom Bronzhukov sees the talks as a way for Moscow to buy time.

"The visits by the Russian delegation, particularly under the leadership of Vladimir Medinsky, are nothing more than an attempt to stall and sell empty promises to the US administration in the form of grand agreements, in order to continue receiving so-called gestures of goodwill from Washington, such as the lifting of sanctions on Russian diesel," the political scientist says.

Ahead of the talks, several Western media outlets reported on new US proposals concerning disputed territories. The Economist, for example, reported on a proposal to redraw the administrative boundaries of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. However, a member of the Ukrainian delegation stressed that there had "never been any discussion of concessions on territories occupied by Russia."

Washington made no official comment on the reports.

Kyrylo Budanov, a member of the negotiating delegation and head of the Ukrainian president's office, declined to say whether Russia had used the talks to demand that Ukrainian troops withdraw from the Donbas. Asked by journalists whether Moscow was still insisting that Ukraine pull out of the region, Budanov said the content of the negotiations would remain confidential until an agreement was reached.

"The issues discussed in the talks are matters for negotiation. The only thing that matters is the outcome. Once we achieve it, it will be made public," Budanov said.

The head of the Russian delegation, Vladimir Medinsky, took a different tone, declaring that "every inch of our land will be returned to Russia one way or another." He was responding to reports in European media that Ukraine was rejecting territorial concessions.

In addition to the Crimean Peninsula, annexed in 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin claims the four Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in their entirety as Russian territory, even though Russia does not have full military control over them.

"Putin is not fighting over villages and ruined cowsheds in the Donbas. He is fighting for geopolitical influence and trying to exploit the collapse of the old world order," says Artjom Bronzhukov.

The expert from the Polityka think tank recalls that Ukraine was already asked in early 2026 to withdraw its troops from the part of the Donbas it controls and turn the area into a free economic zone. Such a zone "would very quickly become a Russian-controlled area," he warns.

Pavlo Lakiychuk questions the idea of changing administrative boundaries.

"Why would Putin stop there?" asks the expert from the Strategy XXI center. In his view, US negotiators are seeking to extract unilateral concessions from Ukraine "step by step" without demanding anything in return from Russia.

Iuliia Osmolovska describes the proposal as "very original," but says it would pose risks for Ukraine's leadership. Even if the Ukrainian delegation agreed to it, which Osmolovska doubts, the decision would have to be explained to the public, which, she says, is not ready to accept it.

The GLOBSEC expert points out that, following the last harsh winter, marked by shortages of electricity and heating, only 5% of Ukrainians were willing to make concessions to Russia in exchange for an end to attacks on the energy sector.

Following the meeting between Jared Kushner, US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he wants to "coordinate positions with the Americans once again." No further trilateral meetings have been announced so far.

Iuliia Osmolovska believes the parties will sooner or later have to admit that the negotiations have reached a dead end. She expects each side to return to military action.

Pavlo Lakiychuk, by contrast, believes the talks should continue, if only to secure the return of prisoners. He is also convinced that Europeans "will always be there," because the issue is not just the Russian-Ukrainian war but the security of the entire continent.

This article was originally published in Ukrainian.