Trilateral negotiations between Russia, Ukraine, and the US, set to kick off on November 10 in Abu Dhabi, are becoming the center of diplomatic attention. These are the first such meetings since February and will last for two days. The Ukrainian delegation has already begun work in the emirate with a meeting featuring US and European partners—according to Rustem Umerov, Head of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine, representatives of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, NATO, and the European Commission have joined the talks. However, according to individuals familiar with the preparation of the contacts, the American side has put forward a series of controversial concessions designed to persuade Vladimir Putin to reach an agreement—and one of them concerns redrawing the administrative borders of Ukrainian oblasts.
Redrawing Borders as a Dealmaking Tool
According to sources familiar with the discussions, one of Washington’s key ideas is to alter the administrative borders of the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, which Russia seeks to completely capture. The logic of the proposal is simple: if the oblast borders are revised in favor of the frontline, Moscow will be able to formally claim full control over both regions, while Kyiv will not be obligated to give up the cities still held by the Ukrainian side. Thus, the territorial issue is removed from the agenda without a direct recognition of annexation, but with a de facto fixation of current positions on the map. Ukrainian officials familiar with the content of the proposals are not publicly commenting on the idea, yet sources in Kyiv confirm it has been discussed in a closed format.
Energy Map and European Veto
The second concession being considered by American negotiators, according to the same reports, is returning Russia to European energy markets. This proposal directly contradicts the European Union's new law banning the import of Russian energy resources and faces categorical resistance from Kyiv and its European partners. "There is no chance we will agree to this while the war is ongoing," a Ukrainian official stated, commenting on the initiative. In Brussels and Berlin, such steps are not on the table: Moscow’s energy isolation remains a key element of sanctions pressure, and lifting it before the cessation of hostilities is seen as a precedent that undermines the entire architecture of restrictions.
Moscow’s Unusual Flexibility and Its Critics
People aware of the talks note that Russia is showing unusual flexibility—specifically regarding the cessation of hostilities along current frontlines. According to them, this readiness emerged after American negotiators proposed expanding the agenda beyond the Ukrainian conflict to include the broader European security architecture. However, critics within Western capitals point out that Moscow has been given the opportunity to put forward new demands that cannot be met in the foreseeable future, and that the Kremlin's actual goal is to simulate a negotiating process while continuing the military operation. American officials, in turn, argue that the proposals put forward are supported by European partners and NATO, and that Moscow's flexibility is a real signal that the diplomatic window is open.
Trump’s Deadline: The Midterm Effect
Few in diplomatic circles believe that Abu Dhabi will open a window for a serious breakthrough. Nevertheless, urgency has been added to the process by the results of the US midterm elections: a severe Republican defeat in the midterm vote means that Democrats will gain a majority in both houses of Congress in January. For Trump’s chief negotiators—Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner—this is a hard deadline: already under the new Congress composition, they could face investigations due to potential conflicts of interest. Ukrainian negotiators, according to sources in Kyiv, are privately skeptical about the chances of a breakthrough, yet they have been ordered to approach the talks without preconceptions so as not to anger the US president. Kyiv does not believe Putin is ready to sign a full peace agreement before the conclusion of the Russian winter military campaign. "Perhaps this is their Plan B while they execute Plan A," a Ukrainian official summarized, commenting on the parallel conduct of diplomacy and hostilities.
Security Guarantees: The Main Knot
The most difficult issue remains security guarantees. Without them, Ukraine states it cannot pause the fighting. According to American negotiators, Putin could agree to a US guarantee similar to Article 4 or Article 5 of the NATO Washington Treaty—meaning a promise of consultations in case of a threat or military protection in case of an attack. The Ukrainian side doubts that Trump will fulfill such commitments, especially amid political turbulence in Washington. Russia, in turn, has not indicated readiness to accept multinational support forces on Ukrainian territory and does not drop demands for Kyiv to declare neutrality and reduce its army. These positions make compromise extremely difficult: for Kyiv, neutrality means de facto capitulation; for Moscow, the achievement of a strategic goal; and for Washington, taking on commitments that Congress might not ratify.
Europe in the Negotiation Process
Washington aims to make the Abu Dhabi meeting the last one without full European participation. Trump’s envoys, according to RBC-Ukraine, are pressuring Moscow for Europe to join the next round of negotiations. Formally, European representatives are already present in the emirate—the UK, France, Germany, Italy, NATO, and the European Commission have delegated staff—yet their role remains limited to a consultative one. For Kyiv, the presence of European partners at the table is a matter of principle: without their guarantees and without a tie-in to European security, any agreement with the US is seen as fragile and dependent on a single president. Thus, Abu Dhabi is becoming not so much a platform for a deal as a testing ground to see how far each side is willing to go—and exactly where the boundary lies between a diplomatic concession and the loss of sovereignty.
