Ukraine Talks in Abu Dhabi: Why Nothing to Expect from the Trilateral Meeting

It is the kind of news that people like to hear in the White House. Russia, Ukraine, and the USA are supposed to sit at the same table again. After the meeting of Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff with Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, the Kremlin agreed to resume trilateral talks. This is supposed to happen in November. However, those who see the beginning of the end of the war in it are likely to be disappointed. The tone from Moscow is already strikingly cool. Putin's foreign policy advisor Yuri Ushakov explained after the meeting that Witkoff had "felt new nuances" in his talks with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the Europeans in Oslo. However, these would "not fully satisfy Russia." In any case, according to Ushakov, "the Europeans have begun to think more seriously about the Ukraine crisis." And then there is a sentence that caused headlines: In his assessment, "the matter is heading towards an end to the war." Ushakov did not say what he bases this prognosis on. Tactic instead of Breakthrough The Moscow political scientist Tatiana Stanowaja, founder of the R.Politik think tank, considers the Kremlin's agreement primarily a tactical maneuver. "Putin has agreed to resume the trilateral talks about an arrangement in Ukraine. This is the most important result of Steve Witkoff's trip to St. Petersburg so far," she wrote on X. Even at the last meeting in February, Moscow considered the process "less than a real attempt to resolve the conflict, but as a tactical exercise," although accompanied by "substantial technical discussions about the modalities of a ceasefire." Witkoff with Putin: Will the Ukraine deal pass over Zelenskyy's head now? Ukraine Aid: This is how the EU wants to raise the missing 70 billion euros The negotiations should actually have continued after Witkoff and Jared Kushner's visits to Moscow and Kyiv in September. However, Zelenskyy's decision to force Moscow into concessions with increased attacks during the Duma elections, according to Stanowaja, convinced Putin to harden his position instead. Moscow signaled that it now wants not only the entire Donbas and the remaining annexed territories but is also ready to fight for a buffer zone beyond them. This position was new. Russian representatives have adapted over a long time on how clearly they formulate their demands, depending on the situation. The resumption of talks has thus become "another card in the game." "All recent statements and signals indicate that Moscow currently does not see an acceptable or even nearly satisfactory offer on the table," writes Stanowaja. Nevertheless, the Kremlin is ready to engage in talks to gain tactical advantages. The calculation behind this: these gains, together with a further decline of the Ukrainian state, could eventually lead to a strategic turn in favor of Russia. The territorial question remains unresolved In fact, little suggests that anything has moved on the decisive issue. The Ukrainian leadership insists on freezing the war along the current front line, Moscow demands the handover of the entire territory of Donetsk. There are no signs of a concession from either side. This is likely behind Ushakov's wording, which would "not fully" satisfy Russia with the new approaches. Movement might exist in security issues. At least this is suggested by the fact that the new round of talks is supposed to revolve around this topic. However, the positions are also very far apart here. Ukraine demands security guarantees that exclude a renewed invasion. Moscow demands a neutral Ukraine and ultimately a new security architecture in Europe. Even if the sides were to approach each other here, the core of the conflict, the question of territory, would remain untouched. The fact that Putin still agrees to a trilateral meeting on a technical level has a simple reason. It costs him little. According to Stanowaja, shifts in economic issues, the prospect of a partial relaxation of sanctions, and the desire to satisfy Trump have given the Kremlin leader sufficient reasons to agree to the negotiations. The war on the front continues unabated meanwhile. A meeting at the negotiating table does not change Russia's strategy to create military facts and to wear Ukraine down. Trump needs pictures, not a solution The signal from St. Petersburg comes at the right time for Donald Trump. In early November, the Americans will elect some of the Congress again in the midterm elections. A president who can refer to new peace talks is better off than one whose mediation efforts have failed. For the moment, the White House is likely to be satisfied. There will be little pressure on Moscow, for example, through new sanctions, so soon. How ambitious the plans of the American president are is shown by a report from the US magazine The Atlantic, which has been cited many times recently. Based on Trump's circle, it was said there, the president wanted to reach a peace agreement by December to announce it at the G20 summit in Miami. However, the text was clearly in tone, that Ukraine would be forced to capitulate. How much of this is actually true is open. For Ukraine, the situation has become even more uncomfortable. The attempt to force Russia into concessions through military pressure has proven to be a boomerang in the view of many observers. At the same time, Kyiv cannot afford to give up the talks without standing as a brake on a peace process in Washington. Trump's envoy in St. Petersburg: Putin confirms release of Stephen Hubbard Yalta meeting in China? Putin wants to decide on Ukraine with Trump and Xi without Zelenskyy and the EU This is exactly the dilemma of the current negotiations. Perhaps both sides are less concerned with compromises than with demonstrating good faith to Trump and shifting the blame for the continuation of the war onto the opponent. Putin has the better cards in this regard. The Kremlin can talk, continue to fight, negotiate if necessary, and wait for the time factor to favor Russia. Ukraine, on the other hand, is increasingly backed against the wall: under military pressure, politically dependent on a US president who wants quick successes above all. The trilateral meeting in Abu Dhabi in November may be a diplomatic sign of life. It is not more than a drop in the ocean. Your opinion is important to us. Send us your feedback on this article: briefe@berliner-zeitung.de