A massive geopolitical drama is unfolding behind the scenes of today’s ongoing talks between Russia and Ukraine, held in the presence of the US in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Following predictions that the conflict may conclude by the spring of 2026 and reports of a more optimistic climate in the negotiations, the Abu Dhabi summit has become the focus of intense international scrutiny. This follows a significant intervention by US President Donald Trump, who, regarding a massive Russian strike on Ukrainian energy and military infrastructure just days ago, argued that Putin had kept his word, sending a blunt message to his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who had accused Moscow of violating a supposed "energy truce." It is increasingly apparent that Zelenskyy may be in the dark regarding the specific agreements reached between Presidents Putin and Trump. However, the Ukrainian president remains oriented toward continuing the war, because—as estimated—he calculates that any territorial loss through combat will not weigh on him exclusively, as would happen if he consented to ceding land through negotiation.
Core premise: Ukraine will not enter NATO
A new series of US-mediated talks for Ukraine is already underway today, Wednesday 4/2, in Abu Dhabi. According to information from the Russian news agency TASS, the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine are being conducted with the understanding that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO. "The understanding that Ukraine will not join NATO already exists among all participants," TASS points out, citing its source. At the same time, Russia announces that the doors for a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian conflict remain open, noting however that the corresponding decisions have not yet been made by Kyiv, resulting in Moscow continuing its special military operation.
A grim atmosphere
According to Politico, the general outlook remains equally grim for Ukraine as it approaches the fourth anniversary of Russia's war. On the eve of the scheduled two-day talks, Russia launched a massive air attack—with 71 missiles and 450 drones—against Ukraine's devastated infrastructure after a brief weekend break. Focusing on cities such as Kyiv, Dnipro, Kharkiv, Sumy, and Odesa, Russia struck the energy grid and residences while temperatures plummeted below -20 degrees Celsius.
The plea from Kyiv
"Putin must be stripped of the illusions that he can achieve anything with his bombings, terror, and aggression," argued Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, stating: "Neither the expected diplomatic efforts in Abu Dhabi this week nor his promises to the United States prevented him from continuing the terror against ordinary people in the harshest winter." According to US President Donald Trump, these promises included avoiding the targeting of Kyiv and other major cities for an entire week during a period of "unusually cold" weather. According to Zelensky, the truce began last Friday night and should have lasted until the night of Friday 6/2—meaning after the completion of the negotiations in Abu Dhabi. However, the Kremlin stated that the truce, which Putin and Trump agreed upon, had been announced until February 1st and therefore expired when the Russian attack took place.
The Trump message
To the ongoing appeals from Zelensky, who spent a full day waiting for a reaction from Trump regarding Putin's alleged violation of the energy truce, the American president responded that Putin kept his word. This reaction is highly indicative of the current trajectory of peace negotiations. While Republican "hawks" like Senator Lindsey Graham supported Zelensky’s version and called for the delivery of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, the plea fell on deaf ears. Trump explicitly backed the Russian version, stating that the agreement with the Russian president was for a truce from Sunday to Sunday, ending 1 February.
Two key conclusions
Zelensky’s assertions were directly contradicted by the man to whom they were addressed. From this, two conclusions emerge. First, Zelensky is seemingly unaware of the exact private agreements between Trump and Putin. It is unlikely he would have promoted a Friday-to-Friday truce so aggressively if he knew Washington and Moscow had only agreed on a pause until Sunday. This raises questions about how many other points of the Trump-Putin dialogue Kyiv is ignoring or is excluded from.
Second, it is striking that Trump did not condemn the attacks on Ukrainian energy facilities, effectively signaling tacit approval for further pressure. This suggests that, like Putin, Trump may view these strikes as a tool to force the Ukrainian authorities to accept peace terms that Zelensky has so far refused—specifically regarding the withdrawal of troops from Donbas and reduced demands for security guarantees.
Pressure from the United States
This represents a significant signal for the Abu Dhabi talks, indicating that pressure on Kyiv is mounting from both Moscow and Washington. While the US president’s stance could shift under pressure from European allies or internal party hawks, for now, the White House has stated its position clearly: Putin kept his word. This is far from an auspicious start for the Ukrainian delegation. Some Ukrainian politicians argue that Russia is "playing a part" to avoid antagonizing an unpredictable American leader who currently shows more patience with Putin than with Zelensky.
Podolyak: 'Everything is absolutely predictable'
"Unfortunately, everything is perfectly predictable," Zelensky’s advisor, Mykhailo Podolyak, posted on social media. "This is what a Russian truce looks like: during a brief lull, they accumulate missiles and then attack at night when temperatures drop to -24 degrees Celsius or lower, targeting civilians." He argued that Russia sees no reason to stop the war or genocide, relying instead on "large-scale freezing tactics."
Hopeful signs in the talks
Despite the public friction, Politico reports that some Ukrainian and American sources familiar with the talks see signs that the current negotiations may be more constructive than widely believed. A Republican official advising Kyiv noted that while previous sessions were "like pulling teeth without anesthesia," the Russians now appear to be taking the process more seriously. This shift is partly attributed to the new Ukrainian leadership team following the departure of Andriy Yermak. The team now includes Kyrylo Budanov, head of Military Intelligence, Rustem Umerov, Secretary of the National Security Council, and Davyd Arakhamia.
Improvement after Yermak’s departure
"I notice that since Davyd became involved, there has been a noticeable improvement with the Russian negotiators. I think this is because they respect them—especially Davyd—and see them as people who live in reality and are ready to make compromises," the expert explained. He expressed "cautious optimism" that the conflict could end in the spring. Even a former senior Ukrainian official agreed that there is a palpable change in the tone from the Russian side.
A shift in Russian tone
The Russian delegation, led by Igor Kostyukov of the GRU and military intelligence officer Alexander Zorin, is described as practical. Unlike Lavrov or Putin, they reportedly avoid long lectures on the "causes" of the conflict, focusing instead on methodical details. This shift may be linked to the Kremlin’s assessment that Europe is becoming more serious about independent defense production. A peace plan could sap the momentum for increased European defense spending, making it harder for leaders to justify sacrifices to their voters.
RBC-Ukraine: Kyiv ready for a truce
Kyiv is reportedly interested in discussing the terms of a truce in Abu Dhabi, according to RBC-Ukraine. Following an introductory session, the delegations have split into political and military subgroups. The military subgroup has discussed the separation of forces, truce monitoring, and the creation of a coordination center, as well as which third-party states might participate. While the military side is preparing proposals, the political subgroup has made less progress, as points of disagreement remain "limited but critical."
Why Zelensky prefers losing territory to war over negotiations
According to The American Conservative, Zelensky may prefer to lose territory through military means rather than diplomatic ones. "Ukraine is losing territory in battles that it could have surrendered at the negotiating table. But Zelensky likely prefers this option," the report states. If he makes concessions through dialogue, the political responsibility rests solely on him. However, if territories are seized by Russian troops, the public's anger can be directed toward Western allies for insufficient support, while protecting Zelensky from the wrath of Ukrainian nationalists.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών