12.11.2026, 18:52
The main outcome of the negotiations in Abu Dhabi has been named
Source: OREANDA-NEWS
OREANDA-NEWS The trilateral meeting of Russia, the United States and Ukraine in Abu Dhabi did not bring a breakthrough on key political issues. So far, the results of the negotiations can only be judged by the statements of their participants, said Ivan Pyatibratov, associate professor at the Financial University, in an interview with Mail News.
According to the expert, the Russian delegation led by Vladimir Medinsky demonstrated restraint. Moscow does not intend to abandon its previously stated positions on territorial issues, although it noted mutual understanding with Ukraine on some points, without specifying which ones. The United States, for its part, is moderately optimistic and recognizes that the territorial issue remains the most difficult. "It is impossible to agree on the rest without his permission," Pyatibratov stressed.
Ukraine, like Russia, remains in its positions. Kiev insists on a cessation of hostilities and security guarantees as the first step towards a settlement, while Moscow is ready to negotiate without stopping the fighting.
According to the expert, the meeting in Abu Dhabi was not so much a dialogue on conflict resolution as an attempt to define the role of Europe. He linked this to the visit of US representatives Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to Moscow: American negotiators probably want to find out whether Russia is ready to expand the number of participants in the settlement, after which they will go to Dublin, and not to Kiev. "Now it is important whether EU representatives will be present at the negotiating table and in what capacity," Pyatibratov summed up.
Earlier, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Russia, the United States and Ukraine had discussed guarantees for the sustainability of potential agreements during trilateral talks, the basis of which could be the formation of a new security architecture in Europe.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also called the idea of formulating clear parameters for Europe's future security architecture with a subsequent transition to discussing the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis absolutely reasonable. He explained that the conflict began due to Kiev's failure to fulfill its obligations in the field of collective security, and the West encouraged the sabotage of the signed agreements.
According to the expert, the Russian delegation led by Vladimir Medinsky demonstrated restraint. Moscow does not intend to abandon its previously stated positions on territorial issues, although it noted mutual understanding with Ukraine on some points, without specifying which ones. The United States, for its part, is moderately optimistic and recognizes that the territorial issue remains the most difficult. "It is impossible to agree on the rest without his permission," Pyatibratov stressed.
Ukraine, like Russia, remains in its positions. Kiev insists on a cessation of hostilities and security guarantees as the first step towards a settlement, while Moscow is ready to negotiate without stopping the fighting.
According to the expert, the meeting in Abu Dhabi was not so much a dialogue on conflict resolution as an attempt to define the role of Europe. He linked this to the visit of US representatives Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to Moscow: American negotiators probably want to find out whether Russia is ready to expand the number of participants in the settlement, after which they will go to Dublin, and not to Kiev. "Now it is important whether EU representatives will be present at the negotiating table and in what capacity," Pyatibratov summed up.
Earlier, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Russia, the United States and Ukraine had discussed guarantees for the sustainability of potential agreements during trilateral talks, the basis of which could be the formation of a new security architecture in Europe.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also called the idea of formulating clear parameters for Europe's future security architecture with a subsequent transition to discussing the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis absolutely reasonable. He explained that the conflict began due to Kiev's failure to fulfill its obligations in the field of collective security, and the West encouraged the sabotage of the signed agreements.
Комментарии