The second day of negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the United States has concluded in Abu Dhabi, with European governments still excluded from the principal negotiating table. Washington is attempting to broker a settlement, Moscow is demanding long-term security guarantees, and Kiev is resisting territorial concessions. Meanwhile, Europe's continued military support for Ukraine has become a central point of contention. Is the continent helping to secure a lasting peace, or making a negotiated settlement more difficult?
INR Report: Based on reporting by RT, published 11 November 2026, HERE.
Two Days Behind Closed Doors
The second day of trilateral negotiations involving Russia, Ukraine and the United States concluded in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday, marking another stage in Washington's efforts to negotiate an end to the Ukraine conflict.
According to RT, Wednesday's discussions lasted just under two hours, considerably shorter than the nearly five hours of closed-door negotiations held the previous day.
The November meetings represent the first formal trilateral negotiations since February and follow renewed diplomatic engagement between Washington and Moscow.
The latest round was reportedly made possible through American mediation, including discussions between US envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian President Vladimir Putin last month.
Although the talks have brought the three principal parties together, no comprehensive settlement has been announced.
The negotiations nevertheless represent an important diplomatic development after years of fighting, international sanctions, military assistance and unsuccessful attempts to establish a lasting agreement.
The central question is whether the participants can move beyond their competing demands and establish terms acceptable to both Moscow and Kiev.
Washington Takes the Lead
The American delegation includes special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law.
Russia is represented by a delegation led by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, while Ukraine's negotiating team is headed by Foreign Intelligence Service chief Rustem Umerov.
The United Arab Emirates has provided the venue for the discussions, with Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan also participating.
According to RT, Umerov has stated that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky authorised his delegation to discuss all matters relating to ending the conflict.
That authority is significant because any eventual agreement will require decisions on issues extending far beyond an immediate cessation of hostilities.
These include territorial control, military deployments, international security guarantees, reconstruction funding and the future relationship between Russia and Western governments.
The United States appears to be positioning itself as the principal intermediary between Moscow and Kiev.
This has created a diplomatic situation in which Washington is engaging directly with Russia while European governments, despite their substantial involvement in supporting Ukraine, remain outside the main negotiating format.
Russia Demands Security Guarantees
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has outlined Moscow's priorities for the negotiations.
According to RT, Lavrov said the first task was to establish security arrangements for Russia, Ukraine and the wider region before proceeding towards a final settlement.
Moscow has consistently argued that any lasting agreement must address what it describes as the root causes of the conflict.
Russia's position has included demands concerning Ukraine's military alignment, the expansion of Western security arrangements and the future status of territories occupied or claimed by Moscow.
Those demands remain deeply contentious.
Ukraine and its Western supporters maintain that Russia's invasion violated Ukrainian sovereignty and that Moscow cannot acquire internationally recognised Ukrainian territory through military force.
Russia, meanwhile, argues that its security concerns cannot be ignored in any future European security arrangement.
The competing positions demonstrate why the negotiations cannot be reduced to simply ordering both sides to stop fighting.
A ceasefire may suspend military operations, but a lasting settlement would require agreement on the political and security disputes that contributed to the conflict.
America's Peace Agenda
Jared Kushner has outlined several priorities for the American negotiating effort.
According to RT, Washington is concentrating on ending hostilities, establishing postwar security guarantees, supporting Ukraine's economic recovery and addressing humanitarian concerns.
These objectives suggest that the United States is attempting to construct a broader settlement framework rather than negotiate a temporary battlefield pause.
Security guarantees would be particularly important for Ukraine, which has repeatedly expressed concern that a ceasefire without enforceable protections could leave it vulnerable to renewed military action.
Economic recovery is another substantial challenge.
Years of fighting have damaged infrastructure, disrupted production, displaced populations and imposed enormous costs on Ukraine's economy.
Reconstruction would require long-term international financing and decisions concerning the use of frozen Russian assets, sanctions and potential compensation arrangements.
Humanitarian issues, including displaced civilians, prisoners and family reunification, also remain central to any durable agreement.
However, progress on these matters may depend on resolving the territorial dispute that continues to divide the negotiating parties.
Donbass Remains the Obstacle
Territory remains one of the most difficult questions confronting negotiators.
According to RT, Zelensky has again ruled out withdrawing Ukrainian forces from the remaining areas of Donbass under Kiev's control.
Speaking at a press conference in Dublin, the Ukrainian president argued that Washington should identify another way to reach an agreement with Moscow.
The Telegraph has also reportedly described Kiev's rejection of an American proposal to redraw administrative boundaries as part of a possible territorial compromise.
Russia has continued to demand recognition of what it calls the territorial realities on the ground, including an end to Ukrainian control over the remaining parts of Donbass.
Ukraine rejects Russia's claims to its territory, and the international legal status of the occupied regions remains distinct from the military situation on the ground.
This distinction is fundamental.
Russia's territorial demands reflect its negotiating position, not internationally recognised sovereignty over the areas concerned.
For Ukraine, accepting territorial concessions could have profound domestic political and constitutional consequences.
For Russia, securing control over the disputed territories has become a central objective of its military and diplomatic strategy.
Neither side has publicly indicated that it is prepared to abandon its fundamental position.
Europe Left Outside
One of the most significant features of the Abu Dhabi negotiations is the absence of European governments from the principal talks.
According to RT, European representatives met separately with American and Ukrainian officials on Tuesday but did not participate in the trilateral discussions involving Russia.
Umerov also indicated that Wednesday's negotiating session would be followed by a separate meeting with Ukraine's European supporters.
The arrangement highlights the diplomatic divide between Washington's direct engagement with Moscow and the approach adopted by several European governments.
European countries have provided substantial military, financial and political assistance to Ukraine since Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022.
They have also imposed sanctions on Moscow and supported measures intended to reduce Russia's ability to sustain its military campaign.
From the European perspective, this assistance is intended to defend Ukrainian sovereignty, discourage further aggression and strengthen Kiev's position in negotiations.
Moscow presents a sharply different interpretation.
Russian officials accuse European governments of undermining previous diplomatic initiatives and prolonging the conflict by continuing to supply weapons and financial assistance.
These competing claims raise an important question about whether military support improves Ukraine's negotiating position or reduces the incentives for compromise.
The answer depends on the assumptions made about each side's intentions and the consequences of withdrawing support.
Peace or Prolonged Conflict?
Russia's criticism of European involvement has become an increasingly prominent feature of its diplomatic messaging.
Moscow argues that European military assistance has enabled Ukraine to continue fighting rather than negotiate on terms Russia considers acceptable.
European governments counter that withdrawing support could reward territorial conquest and encourage further military aggression.
Both positions have consequences.
Continued military assistance may strengthen Ukraine's ability to defend territory and resist concessions made under military pressure. It may also contribute to the continuation of hostilities if no diplomatic settlement emerges.
Conversely, reducing assistance could create pressure for negotiations but might also weaken Ukraine's security and bargaining position.
The critical question is whether Western policy is directed towards a clearly defined and achievable settlement or whether military and diplomatic objectives have become increasingly disconnected.
The Abu Dhabi negotiations may provide an opportunity to test whether the principal parties can identify practical areas of agreement.
However, the absence of European governments raises questions about how any settlement would be implemented, particularly if European states are expected to provide security guarantees, reconstruction assistance or sanctions relief.
Who Speaks for Europe?
Europe's exclusion from the main negotiations also exposes a problem of representation.
The European Union is not a single state, and its members do not necessarily share identical positions on Russia, Ukraine or future security arrangements.
Individual governments have different economic interests, defence commitments and assessments of the risks associated with engaging Moscow.
Britain, although no longer a member of the European Union, remains an influential European military and diplomatic supporter of Ukraine.
France and Germany also occupy important positions within Europe's security and economic institutions.
NATO adds another dimension, with decisions involving both European governments and the United States.
The result is a complicated diplomatic structure in which European countries may agree on supporting Ukraine while disagreeing over the terms of a possible settlement.
The suggestion that European policy is controlled by a single financial or political centre, including the City of London, would require substantial documentary evidence.
The RT report does not provide evidence supporting such a conclusion.
A more immediate and demonstrable issue is that European governments have yet to secure a unified and effective role in negotiations that could determine their future security arrangements.
Britain's Influence
Britain's role deserves particular attention because London has been among Ukraine's most prominent Western supporters.
Successive British governments have supplied military equipment, supported sanctions against Russia and advocated maintaining pressure on Moscow.
Britain's defence and intelligence relationships with the United States and other NATO members give it influence in Western security discussions.
London is also a major international financial centre, and British financial institutions operate within the wider system of international banking, investment and sanctions compliance.
However, the existence of those relationships does not establish that the City of London directs European military policy or controls the decisions of Ukraine's government.
Such a claim would require evidence identifying the institutions involved, their decision-making authority and the mechanisms through which that control was exercised.
What can reasonably be examined is whether Britain's strategic priorities align with Washington's current diplomatic approach.
If the United States increasingly favours negotiations while Britain and other European governments continue to advocate sustained military pressure, differences within the Western alliance could become more pronounced.
Those differences may influence the terms, timing and prospects of a settlement.
A New European Order?
The implications of the Abu Dhabi negotiations extend beyond Ukraine.
Any comprehensive settlement could influence NATO's future posture, European defence spending, relations between Russia and Western governments, and the economic arrangements governing reconstruction and sanctions.
The war has already accelerated debates about European military independence, energy security and the continent's reliance on the United States.
A negotiated settlement could create opportunities for reducing tensions and rebuilding diplomatic relationships.
Alternatively, an agreement perceived as insecure or imposed could generate new disputes and leave unresolved grievances capable of triggering further conflict.
For European governments, exclusion from negotiations creates the risk that decisions affecting their security will be made primarily by Washington, Moscow and Kiev.
For the United States, a smaller negotiating format may offer a more manageable process, although it could become difficult to implement agreements requiring European cooperation.
For Ukraine, the challenge is to preserve sufficient international support while exploring compromises that could end the fighting.
Does This Affect New Zealand?
New Zealand has a direct interest in the outcome of the Ukraine conflict, despite its geographic distance from Europe.
The country has supported Ukraine through sanctions, assistance and diplomatic statements defending sovereignty and territorial integrity.
A durable settlement could contribute to greater international economic stability, particularly through reduced uncertainty in energy, commodity and financial markets.
New Zealand's agricultural exporters, manufacturers and transport operators have all been exposed to international cost pressures associated with geopolitical instability.
There are also important strategic considerations.
As a relatively small country, New Zealand depends on international rules that protect sovereignty and discourage territorial acquisition through military force.
Any settlement involving changes to territorial control would therefore have implications for the principles New Zealand seeks to uphold in its foreign policy.
The diplomatic role of the United States is also relevant.
New Zealand maintains important security and economic relationships with Western partners while pursuing its own interests in the Indo-Pacific.
Changes in American foreign policy priorities, European security arrangements or relations with Russia could influence the wider international environment in which New Zealand operates.
Will this make New Zealand stronger?
A durable peace that reduces international tensions, protects civilians and reinforces predictable rules would serve New Zealand's interests.
A settlement that merely postpones renewed conflict or leaves major security disputes unresolved could produce further instability.
New Zealand's priority should be a sustainable diplomatic outcome consistent with international law and long-term regional stability.
Who Really Wants Peace?
The conclusion of the second day of Abu Dhabi negotiations represents an important development, but the obstacles remain substantial.
Washington is attempting to broker an agreement. Moscow is demanding security arrangements and territorial concessions. Kiev is resisting the surrender of additional territory.
European governments remain outside the main negotiations while continuing to provide Ukraine with military and financial support.
These differences raise legitimate questions about the objectives of each participant and the consequences of their policies.
It would be premature to conclude that European governments are deliberately preventing peace. It would be equally unwise to ignore the possibility that conflicting Western priorities could complicate the diplomatic process.
The test will be whether the negotiating parties can move beyond declarations of principle and establish practical terms for ending the fighting.
The future of Ukraine, the security of Europe and the wider international order may depend on the outcome.
If peace is genuinely the objective, the coming negotiations must demonstrate how the competing demands can be reconciled — and who is prepared to make the compromises necessary to achieve it.
Sources