When two nations sit across the negotiating table under the desert sky, there is a quiet rhythm to their words — like distant winds brushing over unfamiliar dunes. In Abu Dhabi, Ukrainian, Russian and U.S. delegates have been doing just that, seeking pathways toward an end to a war that has etched itself deeply into the lives of millions. The negotiations, held in a trilateral format, carry the weight of hopes and years of conflict, even as the ground trembles elsewhere with the rumble of missiles and drones.
The talks, now in their second round, are part of U.S. efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to Europe’s largest conflict since World War II. On the first day, Ukraine’s chief negotiator described the discussions as “substantive and productive,” focusing on concrete steps and practical solutions. Yet the quiet of the conference room contrasts with the chaos still unfolding along the frontlines, where strikes continue to disrupt daily life.
At the heart of these negotiations lies a question almost poetic in its simplicity yet profound in its implications: Who owns the land upon which peace might one day rest? For Kyiv, any ending to the war must safeguard Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. That stance draws from Ukraine’s long-standing diplomatic commitments and from its people’s resolve not to cede ground they have defended at great cost. For many Ukrainians, even one meter of lost land is a story unfinished, a poem without its final verse.
Moscow’s position has proved far more complex. Russia has pressed for territorial concessions that would formalize control over areas it has occupied since 2014 — particularly in the industrial east known as Donbas and in other regions seized since the full-scale invasion began. Kremlin officials have reiterated invitations for more talks in Moscow, insisting on conditions that Ukraine has repeatedly rejected.
Amid all this, international mediators and external partners have woven their own threads into the tapestry of negotiation. The United States, hosting and supporting these discussions, has outlined proposals that might offer Ukraine security guarantees similar to those afforded by collective defense pacts. Such measures are intended not only to close the current conflict but to safeguard any peace that might arise from it.
Still, despite significant diplomatic effort and moments of convergence — including reports that up to 90 % of a draft agreement had once been provisionally agreed in earlier talks — the most sensitive subjects remain unresolved. Land and its future status, the presence of international monitors, peace enforcement mechanisms and the fate of occupied nuclear infrastructure are all sticking points that have tested the patience of negotiators.
The scenes unfolding in the meeting rooms are mirrored by quieter but no less poignant gestures on the ground: families holding their breath, towns and villages waiting to be named peacetime places again, and communities holding onto memories of what once was. Between abstracts and agendas, there is an unspoken wish that the final accord — whenever it might arrive — will be rooted in dignity and sustainability, and not merely the cessation of guns.
As Ukrainian and Russian officials continue their discussions in the United Arab Emirates, both sides have agreed the talks are important but reaffirmed that core disagreements remain, particularly over territorial control and security arrangements. There has been no breakthrough on a comprehensive peace deal as talks proceed.
AI Image Disclaimer (Rotated Wording) Graphics are AI-generated and intended for representation, not reality.
Sources Reuters Parliament UK Research Briefing Wikipedia (2026 U.S.–Ukraine–Russia meetings in Abu Dhabi) The Guardian (context on talks) Additional corroboration from international media summarizations