US negotiators are heading to Abu Dhabi for exploratory talks with Russian representatives on a draft peace plan aimed at ending the war in Ukraine, as Moscow signals it will only consider a settlement on terms Ukrainian officials have described as unacceptable to Kyiv’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, according to Western diplomats and recent public statements from Russian leaders.


The discussions, expected to take place under Emirati facilitation, come amid increasingly public hints from Moscow about what it would accept in any Ukraine peace agreement and behind-the-scenes pressure from some countries in the Global South for a negotiated end to the conflict, now in its third year.


Delegations from Russia, the United States, and mediators meeting in a conference room in Abu Dhabi
Diplomats from the United States and Russia are due to meet in Abu Dhabi for exploratory talks on a Ukraine peace framework. (Image: Supplied / News API)

Abu Dhabi Meeting Follows Quiet Back-Channel Contacts

According to Western officials briefed on the plans, the Abu Dhabi talks build on months of low-profile contacts between intermediaries close to Washington and Moscow, aimed at testing whether there is any scope for a ceasefire or broader settlement. The United Arab Emirates, which has maintained ties with both Russia and the West throughout the conflict, has previously hosted prisoner exchanges and discreet diplomatic meetings.


US officials, speaking on background to US and European media outlets, have stressed that the envoys do not carry a finalized proposal from the White House and that any framework must ultimately be acceptable to Ukraine’s elected government. The initiative is taking place as winter fighting continues along the front lines in eastern and southern Ukraine, with neither side achieving a decisive breakthrough.


The original peace outline under discussion, described by diplomats as a 28‑point plan, is believed to touch on core issues that have divided Moscow and Kyiv since Russia launched its full‑scale invasion in February 2022: territory, security guarantees, sanctions relief, and the future of Ukraine’s relationship with NATO and the European Union.


Russia Hints at Hard-Line Conditions for Any Ukraine Peace Deal

Russian officials have recently given what analysts describe as a grim preview of Moscow’s likely demands. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly insisted that what he calls the new realities on the ground — including Russia’s claimed annexation of Ukrainian territories in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, as well as Crimea — must be recognized in any settlement. Kyiv and its Western allies reject these claims as illegal under international law.


In public remarks reported by Russian state media and international outlets including Reuters and BBC News, senior Russian diplomats have emphasized that Russia will not withdraw its forces unconditionally and expects guarantees that Ukraine will not join NATO. They have also tied any discussion of peace to the easing of Western sanctions, which have targeted Russian energy exports, financial institutions, and key technologies.


Critics in the West argue that these conditions amount to demanding recognition of territorial gains won by force, which the United Nations General Assembly has condemned in multiple resolutions. Moscow, for its part, maintains that it is defending Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine and countering what it portrays as NATO encroachment — narratives Western governments dismiss as unfounded pretexts for aggression.


Kyiv and Washington Reaffirm That Ukraine Will Decide Terms of Peace

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has consistently argued that any negotiations must be based on his government’s 10‑point “peace formula,” which calls for the full withdrawal of Russian troops, the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, security guarantees, and accountability for war crimes. Speaking in recent weeks, Zelenskyy has warned international partners against what he called any appeasement that would reward aggression.


US officials have publicly echoed that posture. In statements reported by The New York Times and other outlets, the Biden administration has said there will be nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine, underscoring that Washington will not pressure Kyiv to accept territorial concessions. At the same time, some US lawmakers from both parties have expressed concern over the long‑term sustainability of military aid, especially as political debates in Washington intensify ahead of the 2026 midterm election cycle.


Ukrainian officials have reacted cautiously to news of the Abu Dhabi discussions, welcoming their allies’ diplomatic efforts but insisting that any peace plan must align with Ukraine’s own red lines. In comments carried by Ukrainian media, one senior adviser to the president said Kyiv is prepared for diplomacy, but only on the basis of justice and international law.


Global South Pushes for Negotiations as Europe Urges Unity

A number of countries in the Global South, including Brazil, India, China and several Gulf states, have urged renewed diplomatic efforts to end the war, citing the global economic fallout from higher energy and food prices. Some have proposed their own mediation initiatives or floated alternative summits to complement a series of Ukraine‑led peace conferences hosted in Europe.


European Union leaders, while broadly supportive of Kyiv’s conditions, are watching the Abu Dhabi talks closely. Several EU members, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, fear that any premature compromise could undermine European security and set a precedent for border changes by force. Others, notably in southern Europe, are under domestic pressure to limit the economic costs of a prolonged conflict.


NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has repeatedly stated that the alliance’s role is to support Ukraine militarily and diplomatically so that it can negotiate from a position of strength if and when talks become serious. NATO as an organization is not a party to the Abu Dhabi discussions, though member states are closely coordinating their positions.


From Minsk to Abu Dhabi: A History of Failed Peace Agreements

The current talks are the latest in a long line of attempts to end fighting between Russia and Ukraine that stretches back to 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine. The Minsk I and Minsk II agreements, brokered in 2014 and 2015 under the auspices of France and Germany, temporarily reduced violence but ultimately failed to produce a lasting settlement.


After Russia’s full‑scale invasion in 2022, early negotiations in Belarus and Turkey broke down as reports of atrocities in Bucha and other occupied areas hardened Ukrainian public opinion and as both sides believed they could improve their position on the battlefield. Since then, diplomatic efforts have focused largely on specific issues, such as the Black Sea grain export initiative and prisoner exchanges, rather than a comprehensive peace.


Analysts note that any new framework that emerges from the Abu Dhabi channel would have to overcome the deep mistrust left by these earlier failures. Verification mechanisms, international peacekeeping arrangements, and long‑term security guarantees for Ukraine are all likely to be central topics in any serious negotiation.


Scenes From a Prolonged Conflict

Urban areas across Ukraine continue to suffer damage from ongoing missile and artillery strikes. (Photo: The Wall Street Journal / Fair Use for news reporting)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy insists any peace must uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. (Photo: AP via Politico)

NATO leaders have pledged long‑term support for Ukraine while saying Kyiv will decide when to enter peace talks. (Photo: The New York Times)


What Abu Dhabi Could Mean for the Future of the War

Analysts caution that the Abu Dhabi channel is unlikely to produce a rapid breakthrough. Both Russia and Ukraine continue to invest heavily in military operations, and their core demands remain far apart. However, experienced diplomats say that even limited talks can clarify red lines, identify potential areas of compromise, and prepare the ground for more substantive negotiations if battlefield dynamics or domestic politics shift.


For Ukraine, the risk is that its partners might be tempted over time to accept a settlement that falls short of restoring all its internationally recognized territory. For Russia, the danger is that prolonging the war could deepen its economic isolation and military losses while making any eventual compromise harder to sell domestically.


For now, US officials insist that the purpose of the Abu Dhabi talks is to explore possibilities rather than to impose a blueprint. Whether those possibilities can be translated into a credible peace process will depend on decisions in Moscow and Kyiv — and on whether both sides eventually see diplomacy as offering more than continued fighting.