The second round of trilateral peace talks between the United States, Ukraine, and Russia concluded in Abu Dhabi on February 6, with no breakthrough in sight. As the fourth anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion approaches on February 24, the gap between the negotiating parties appears as wide as ever. More significantly, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has drawn a clear red line: "We clearly state that Ukraine will not support even potential agreements about us without us."
Chapter 1: What Happened in Abu Dhabi
The Talks That Almost Weren't
The second round of trilateral negotiations was originally scheduled for the first weekend of February but was postponed due to scheduling conflicts among the three parties. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed on February 3 that the talks would instead take place on Wednesday and Thursday (February 5-6) in the UAE capital.
The venue choice was deliberate. Abu Dhabi offers neutral ground—the UAE has maintained working relationships with all three parties throughout the conflict. The Emirati government has positioned itself as a potential mediator, having hosted previous diplomatic exchanges and prisoner swap negotiations.
The delegations arrived with fundamentally incompatible positions. Russia continues to demand recognition of its annexation of four Ukrainian regions—Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—despite not fully controlling any of them. Ukraine insists on the complete restoration of its 1991 borders, including Crimea.
The U.S. Position: Deal-Maker or Deal-Breaker?
The Trump administration's approach to these talks represents a significant departure from the Biden era. Where Biden provided unconditional support for Ukraine's war effort, Trump has openly expressed impatience with the conflict's duration and cost. The administration has signaled a desire for a quick resolution, even if it means pressuring Kyiv to make territorial concessions.
This shift has created visible tension between Washington and Kyiv. U.S. negotiators reportedly pushed for Ukraine to consider "realistic" outcomes, a diplomatic euphemism for accepting some degree of territorial loss. The Ukrainian delegation pushed back, insisting that any agreement must be made with Ukraine as a full participant, not merely a subject of great power bargaining.
On February 6, the U.S. State Department approved a potential $185 million Foreign Military Sale to Ukraine for spare parts and equipment to support U.S.-supplied vehicles and weapon systems. This dual-track approach—pressuring for negotiations while continuing military support—reflects the administration's attempt to maintain leverage over both parties.
Chapter 2: Zelensky's Red Line
"Nothing About Us Without Us"
President Zelensky's statement on February 7 was unequivocal: "We clearly state that Ukraine will not support even potential agreements about us without us." This phrase echoes a principle dating back to disability rights activism—"Nothing about us without us"—but in this context carries profound geopolitical weight.
Zelensky's concern is not hypothetical. There are growing signs that Washington and Moscow might attempt to reach a bilateral understanding that would then be presented to Ukraine as a fait accompli. The format of the Abu Dhabi talks—described as "trilateral" but with the U.S. playing the dominant role—has fueled these fears.
The Ukrainian president also addressed Russia's Oreshnik hypersonic missile, a weapon that struck Dnipro in November 2024 and has since become a symbol of Moscow's escalatory capabilities. "We will make sure that Oreshnik does not even start operating," Zelensky declared, signaling Ukraine's determination to develop countermeasures or preemptive strikes against the launch systems.
The Domestic Political Calculus
Zelensky faces a precarious domestic situation. While international attention focuses on the diplomatic process, Ukrainians are enduring a fourth winter of war. Russian drone and missile attacks continue daily—on February 7, attacks were reported across the country, including in western regions far from the front lines.
Any perception that Zelensky is capitulating to external pressure could be politically devastating. Ukrainian public opinion has consistently favored complete territorial restoration, though war-weariness is growing. A poll from January 2026 showed 67% of Ukrainians still opposed any territorial concessions, down from 82% in early 2024 but still a commanding majority.
Chapter 3: Russia's Position
The Kremlin's Maximalist Demands
Russia has shown no sign of moderating its demands. The Kremlin continues to insist on recognition of its 2022 annexations, demilitarization of Ukraine, and guarantees against NATO membership. These positions have remained essentially unchanged since the failed Istanbul negotiations of March 2022.
Peskov's confirmation of the Abu Dhabi talks was notably terse, offering no indication of flexibility. Russian state media has portrayed the negotiations as a victory in itself—evidence that the West is finally accepting the need to negotiate on Moscow's terms.
On the battlefield, Russia maintains its grinding offensive in eastern Ukraine. The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reported 730 Russian casualties in the 24 hours preceding February 7, continuing a pattern of heavy losses that has characterized the conflict since late 2024. Despite these losses, Russian forces continue to make incremental territorial gains, particularly in the Pokrovsk and Chasiv Yar sectors.
The Prisoner Exchange Dimension
One area of continued progress is prisoner exchanges. Moldovan President Maia Sandu, commenting on a recent exchange on February 6, said: "Today, I was watching Ukrainian prisoners of war who returned home from Russia, and these are the people who deserve the Peace Prize."
These exchanges, often mediated by the UAE and Turkey, represent the only consistent diplomatic achievement of the past four years. They also serve as confidence-building measures that could theoretically lay groundwork for broader agreements—though so far, they have not translated into progress on core issues.
Chapter 4: The Trump Factor
Impatience and Leverage
President Trump has made clear his desire to end the Ukraine conflict quickly. During his campaign, he claimed he could resolve the war "in 24 hours." While this boast has proven unrealistic, the underlying impatience is genuine and has shaped the administration's approach.
The Trump team views the conflict through a transactional lens. The billions of dollars in U.S. military aid are seen as leverage to be extracted, not an open-ended commitment. Administration officials have privately suggested that Ukraine may need to accept a "frozen conflict" arrangement, similar to the Korean Peninsula, rather than a negotiated peace.
This approach aligns with Trump's broader "America First" foreign policy, which prioritizes reducing U.S. overseas commitments. The president has shown little interest in the strategic arguments for supporting Ukraine—that Russian victory would embolden authoritarians globally and destabilize the European security order.
The Europe Factor
European allies are watching the Abu Dhabi process with growing concern. While officially supportive of diplomatic efforts, European leaders fear being sidelined in negotiations that will fundamentally reshape their security environment.
The EU has continued its own support for Ukraine, including the recently adopted 20th sanctions package targeting Russian oil revenues. But European influence in the peace process is limited. The talks are essentially a U.S.-Russia dialogue with Ukraine as a junior participant—a dynamic that troubles Brussels and capitals across the continent.
Chapter 5: Scenarios and Outlook
Scenario A: Frozen Conflict (45%)
The most likely outcome of current negotiations is some form of frozen conflict—a ceasefire without a peace treaty, leaving territorial disputes unresolved. This would resemble the Korean Peninsula model, with a demilitarized zone separating the parties but no formal end to hostilities.
Supporting factors:
- Both sides are exhausted but neither is defeated
- A ceasefire would allow Trump to claim diplomatic victory
- Russia retains territorial gains while avoiding further losses
- Ukraine maintains sovereignty over most of its territory
Obstacles:
- Zelensky has explicitly rejected this outcome
- No mechanism for long-term security guarantees for Ukraine
- Risk of resumed hostilities once Russia rebuilds its forces
Scenario B: Continued Stalemate (35%)
The talks could simply fail, returning all parties to the status quo ante. Fighting continues at current intensity, with neither side able to achieve decisive victory. International fatigue grows, but the conflict grinds on.
Supporting factors:
- Positions remain fundamentally incompatible
- Neither side has incentive to make significant concessions
- Domestic politics in all three countries constrain flexibility
Obstacles:
- Growing economic strain on all parties
- Risk of escalation or miscalculation
Scenario C: Breakthrough Agreement (15%)
A genuine peace agreement remains possible but unlikely. This would require dramatic concessions from all sides—Russian withdrawal from occupied territories, Ukrainian security guarantees that fall short of NATO membership, and Western sanctions relief.
Supporting factors:
- All parties have reason to seek an end to the conflict
- Creative diplomacy could find face-saving compromises
- Economic incentives for reconstruction could sweeten the deal
Obstacles:
- No evidence of willingness to make necessary concessions
- Deep mutual distrust after four years of war
- Verification and enforcement mechanisms would be extremely difficult
Scenario D: Escalation (5%)
The failure of diplomacy could lead to escalation rather than stalemate. Russia might resort to more extreme measures—expanded attacks on civilian infrastructure, possible tactical nuclear threats. Ukraine might strike deeper into Russian territory.
Supporting factors:
- Frustration with diplomatic failure
- Domestic pressure for decisive action
- Miscalculation or accident
Obstacles:
- All parties understand the catastrophic risks
- International pressure would increase dramatically
Conclusion: The Long Road Ahead
The Abu Dhabi talks have not produced a breakthrough, and none was expected. What they have revealed is the depth of the divide between the negotiating parties and the precarious position of Ukraine, caught between Russian aggression and American impatience.
Zelensky's red line—"nothing about us without us"—is both a statement of principle and a warning. Ukraine will not accept being traded away in a great power bargain. But whether Kyiv has the leverage to enforce this position depends on continued Western support that can no longer be taken for granted.
As the fourth anniversary of the invasion approaches, the conflict shows no sign of resolution. The Abu Dhabi talks will be remembered not as a turning point, but as another marker in a war that has already defied expectations of its duration and intensity.
The next round of negotiations is expected within weeks. Whether it will bring progress or simply confirm the deadlock remains to be seen. What is certain is that the fate of Ukraine—and the broader European security order—hangs in the balance.
This article was written on February 7, 2026.
Leave a Reply