Abu Dhabi Trilateral Talks: The "Anchorage Framework" for the Ukraine Crisis and the Illusion of Peace
25/01/2026
On January 23, 2026, in a conference room in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the UAE, an unusual dialogue was unfolding. Rustem Umerov, Secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council, Admiral Igor Kostyukov, Director of Russia's Main Intelligence Directorate, along with U.S. Presidential Envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, gathered around the same negotiation table. This marked the first formal talks among representatives of the United States, Russia, and Ukraine since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The meeting lasted two days, with the atmosphere described as constructive and positive, but the undercurrents swirling beneath the negotiation table were far more complex than the diplomatic rhetoric on the surface.
This meeting did not emerge out of thin air. Just hours before the talks began, Russian President Putin held a nearly four-hour late-night meeting with Vitkov and Kushner at the Kremlin. Meanwhile, in Davos, Switzerland, Ukrainian President Zelensky had just concluded a roughly one-hour closed-door meeting with U.S. President Trump. Behind this intensive diplomatic shuttle lies a country tormented by nearly four years of war, a major power under economic pressure from sanctions, and a U.S. administration eager to leave a legacy on the diplomatic stage. All three parties claim to see a glimmer of peace, but beneath that glimmer lies the territorial abyss that still stands in the way.
Layout of the Negotiation Table: The Deep Signals of Personnel, Location, and Agenda
The list of participants at the Abu Dhabi talks itself serves as a cipher for interpreting the intentions of each party.
Russia dispatched a delegation composed entirely of military and intelligence officials. The head of the delegation, Kostyukov, is the head of military intelligence, and the remaining members are all from the Ministry of Defense. This configuration clearly conveys Moscow's negotiation logic: advantage on the battlefield is the only bargaining chip at the negotiation table. Kremlin foreign policy advisor Yuri Ushakov stated bluntly before the meeting that without resolving the territorial issue, there should be no expectation of reaching a long-term agreement. Russia's position shows no flexibility—demanding the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the entire Donbas region, including areas not yet under actual Russian military control. According to reports, Russia's so-called Anchorage approach has emerged, which entails Russian control over the entire Donbas while maintaining the status quo and freezing other fronts in eastern and southern Ukraine. This term originates from the meeting between Putin and Trump in Anchorage, Alaska, in August 2025, suggesting that this framework may have already taken initial shape with the tacit approval of the United States.
The Ukrainian delegation is a mix of security and political elites. In addition to the head of negotiations, Umerov, the delegation also includes the head of the presidential office, Kirilo Budanov, the chief of the general staff of the armed forces, Lieutenant General Andriy Hnatov, and the deputy foreign minister, Serhiy Kyslytsia. This combination reflects Kyiv's dual approach: it requires both military professionals to assess security risks and political strategists to manage the pace of negotiations. Before the meeting, Zelensky emphasized to reporters via WhatsApp that the issue of control over Donbas is crucial. However, he also expressed a weary pragmatism, stating that it is not only about Ukraine's desire to end the war but also about whether Russia can, in some way, develop a similar desire.
The composition of the U.S. delegation highlights the personalized diplomatic style of the Trump administration. Envoy Vitkov and Kushner, who carries a family political influence, are at the core, with Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and NATO Supreme Commander, U.S. Air Force General Alexis Grinkevich also included. After the meeting, Vitkov told the media that only one issue remains in the negotiations, meaning it can be resolved. This optimistic statement aligns with Trump's claim at Davos that both Russia and Ukraine are making concessions, demonstrating Washington's strong desire to push for an agreement as soon as possible.
Choosing Abu Dhabi, UAE as the meeting location is equally significant. This Middle Eastern country maintains relatively good relations with the United States, Russia, and Ukraine, and its neutrality and confidentiality can provide a sanctuary for sensitive negotiations. Against the backdrop where traditional European diplomatic centers like Switzerland have become overly politicized due to the Russia-Ukraine war, Abu Dhabi has emerged as a compromise third space.
Core Stalemate: Donbass - The Territorial Black Hole and Security Paradox
All superficial diplomatic progress ultimately collides with the same hidden reef: Donbas.
Russia occupies approximately 20% of Ukraine's territory, but in the Donbas region, about 20% of the land remains under Ukrainian control. Moscow's Anchorage approach demands swallowing this final piece of the puzzle to achieve complete control over the entire Donbas. Kremlin spokesperson Peskov reiterated before the talks that Ukraine's withdrawal from Donbas is an extremely important condition. For Putin, this is not only about territorial gains but also about the legitimacy of this special military operation in the domestic narrative—whether he can declare to the public a decisive victory on historical territory.
Ukraine faces an almost unsolvable strategic dilemma. Accepting territorial concessions would mean acknowledging the legitimacy of changing borders by force, severely damaging national morale and potentially triggering a domestic political earthquake. The Zelenskyy government is well aware that public opinion polls show extremely low support for territorial cession within Ukrainian society. However, refusing concessions could lead to an indefinite continuation of the war. Ukraine is experiencing its most severe winter since the war began, with Russia's sustained attacks on energy infrastructure causing widespread power outages. There is a shortage of manpower on the front lines; the Ministry of Defense reports approximately 200,000 deserters, with another about 2 million people evading conscription. Although Ukraine's own military-industrial production has improved, it still heavily relies on Western military aid, which, as Zelenskyy complained at Davos, appears fragmented and directionless.
The role of the United States here becomes exceptionally delicate and full of contradictions. The Trump administration has shown an eagerness to broker a deal, and Vitkov's statement that only one issue remains has focused all pressure on territorial compromise. This essentially urges Ukraine to accept a solution favorable to Russia based on the current battlefield realities. The potential security guarantees the U.S. might offer have become the sweetener to persuade Ukraine to make concessions. Zelenskyy confirmed that the draft security agreement with the U.S. is almost, almost ready, awaiting only Trump's decision on the signing time and location. However, how reliable such security guarantees can be after losing strategic depth is a huge question mark. Historically, similar security guarantees failed to prevent the occupation of Crimea in 2014.
This creates a security paradox: Ukraine may need to first cede territory (sacrificing security) in exchange for a piece of paper guaranteeing future security, yet the effectiveness of this guarantee is precisely undermined by the loss of territory. Russia, on the other hand, attempts to make resolving the territorial issue a prerequisite for any peace arrangement, thereby firmly locking the focus of negotiations onto topics where it holds a relative advantage.
Diplomatic Chessboard: Multi-Party Games and Europe's Decline
The Abu Dhabi talks are not an isolated incident; they represent the culmination of a recent series of high-intensity diplomatic activities and reflect a broader geopolitical chessboard.
The activation of direct communication channels between the United States and Russia was key to making this meeting possible. The nearly four-hour talks between Putin and Trump's envoy at the Kremlin were described as candid, constructive, and fruitful. This indicates that, despite sanctions and confrontations, there is a genuine willingness between Washington and Moscow to reach some form of high-level understanding regarding the Ukraine issue. Upon returning from Davos, Trump revealed that the obstacles in the negotiations were the same as those over the past six or seven months, with borders being the key issue. This suggests that negotiations may have been ongoing behind the scenes and have now been brought to the forefront.
Europe has been marginalized in this process, triggering sharp criticism from Zelenskyy. At Davos, Zelenskyy harshly criticized Europe for appearing lost, acting too slowly, having insufficient defense spending, failing to stop Russia's shadow oil tanker fleet, and hesitating to use frozen Russian assets to aid Ukraine. He compared himself to the movie "Groundhog Day," self-deprecatingly saying that year after year at Davos, he calls on Europe to learn self-defense, but a year passes and nothing changes. These remarks not only express disappointment in Europe's efficiency but also imply anxiety over Europe being excluded from the U.S.-led peace process. The arrangement of the talks itself confirms this: Zelenskyy told reporters that today's meeting would follow a Ukraine-Russia-U.S. format, after which Europeans would, of course, receive feedback from us. The term "feedback" clearly marks Europe's subordinate role in this round of dialogue.
The increased mediating role of Middle Eastern countries such as the UAE reflects subtle shifts in the global power structure and the diversification of crisis resolution pathways. When traditional Western-led mechanisms reach a deadlock, flexible intermediary nations are beginning to play more significant roles.
Multiple information sources indicate that the talks have made sufficient progress, and all parties have planned to hold a new round of negotiations in Abu Dhabi on February 1. Some U.S. officials even speculate that if the next round of talks achieves greater progress, it could potentially lead to a direct meeting between Putin and Zelensky in Moscow or Kyiv, which would be their first face-to-face encounter in years. However, the definition of progress may vary significantly among the parties involved. For Russia, progress means Ukraine showing flexibility on territorial issues; for the United States, progress signifies the potential signing of a peace agreement; for Ukraine, progress may simply mean the continuation of the negotiation process itself, along with vague assurances of security commitments from the U.S.
The Path to Peace: Fragile Consensus and Protracted Game
Abu Dhabi Talks Conclude Temporarily Amid Constructive Evaluation, Yet They Raise More Questions Than Answers.
This talk reveals a harsh reality: after nearly four years of attrition, the main parties have reached a preliminary consensus on the necessity of ending the war through negotiations, but there are fundamental disagreements on the terms to end it. The fragility of this consensus lies in the fact that it stems primarily from exhaustion and costs, rather than a shared vision. Although Russia holds the initiative on the battlefield, the economic drain of the war and the pressure of long-term sanctions are very real. Ukraine is nearing its limits in terms of manpower and resources, and the harsh winter has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis. The Trump administration, meanwhile, seeks a landmark diplomatic achievement. However, transforming this negative consensus into a positive peace agreement would require painful concessions from one side on core interests.
Currently, the greatest pressure seems to be on Ukraine. The United States appears inclined to promote a solution based on the current front lines, de facto recognizing Russia's territorial gains, with compensation in the form of security guarantees and post-war reconstruction assistance. Russia, on the other hand, insists on its maximalist demands, waiting for the other side to yield under pressure. Ukraine's negotiating space has been drastically narrowed, leaving the Zelenskyy government with an unprecedented and difficult choice: whether to stand firm in defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity or to accept an imperfect peace amid practical challenges.
The future contest will unfold across several key dimensions: Firstly, the military dimension, where any significant gains or losses on the battlefield will immediately alter the balance of power at the negotiating table. Secondly, U.S. domestic politics, where uncertainties persist regarding the continuity of the Trump administration's Ukraine policy and whether its promised security guarantees will secure congressional support. Thirdly, Europe's response: will a marginalized Europe accept a peace plan dominated by the U.S. and Russia, or will it attempt to propose alternatives or provide more support to Ukraine to strengthen its bargaining position? Fourthly, Ukraine's domestic politics and societal resilience, as any agreement involving territory could trigger significant internal backlash.
The negotiation room in Abu Dhabi has closed, but the diplomatic game is far from over. It has ushered in a new, potentially more complex phase: bargaining has shifted from whether to negotiate to how to make a deal. The outline of peace remains vague, but all parties are already at the table, beginning to weigh the value of their chips. This round of talks is less a final sprint toward the finish line and more like another supply station in a long marathon. Outside the station, the bitter cold of war has yet to dissipate; inside, each side is calculating the cost of the next leg of the journey. True peace still lies far away, shrouded in thick mist.
Reference materials
https://www.dn.se/varlden/konstruktiva-samtal-i-abu-dhabi-ar-over/
https://jp.reuters.com/world/ukraine/H2DHG2FYTJIITHBFZJGU22LNZQ-2026-01-23/
https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2026/01/25/8017755/
https://theweek.com/world-news/ukraine-us-russia-trilateral-talks-uae-peace
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/01/23/ukraine-russia-us-territorial-concessions/
https://www.mathrubhumi.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-us-abu-dhabi-peace-talks-dqwehomx