Russia says it is ready to resume talks with Ukraine and US to end war

“Ready in principle” signals that Russia accepts the idea of restarting negotiations, not that a final meeting, agenda, or agreement is settled. Yuri Ushakov said Moscow could resume talks with Ukraine and the United States. He also stressed that discussions should focus on building a security system for Russia and Ukraine after the conflict ends.

Ushakov suggested a new round could take place around 10 November in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates. The proposed timing followed Vladimir Putin’s meeting with US envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg. A US official said the three sides had accepted a technical-level trilateral meeting.

The plan remained conditional and unfinished. Russia said the ideas discussed in Oslo were not very useful, while Ukraine wanted talks as soon as possible. The next step could therefore be a technical meeting, but the article does not confirm a final date or detailed agenda.

The proposed meeting would involve three countries: Russia, Ukraine, and the United States. That is why it is called trilateral. The meeting would focus on negotiations aimed at ending the war that began with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

A US official said Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner proposed a technical-level meeting between the three countries. Ukrainian officials accepted the idea in Oslo, and Russian officials accepted it after Putin’s meeting with Witkoff in St Petersburg. The article does not name the full negotiating teams.

The arrangement could create a direct channel among the principal parties. It would also differ from broader discussions involving European allies, who have supported Ukraine and pressed Russia to restart talks. The article gives no confirmed date, although Abu Dhabi around 10 November was suggested for a new round.

The proposed talks would be conducted by teams from Russia, Ukraine, and the United States. The article does not identify the individual Russian and Ukrainian representatives. It therefore cannot establish who would formally lead those two delegations.

The named American participants are Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Witkoff is President Donald Trump’s special envoy and met Putin in St Petersburg after meeting Zelensky and Nordic leaders. Kushner is described as another key negotiator and joined the Oslo discussions by video link. They proposed a technical-level trilateral meeting.

The leaders remain central to the process. Putin met Witkoff, while Zelensky approved the proposed format after receiving feedback from Russia and the United States. The negotiators’ role is to develop practical proposals and a framework for ending the war, but the article does not specify their authority or final decision-making powers.

A ceasefire is an agreement to stop fighting for a stated period or under agreed conditions. Freezing the war along the current front line would stop or sharply reduce active combat where forces are positioned. It would not automatically decide who legally owns disputed territory or create a permanent settlement.

Volodymyr Zelensky said he would accept a deal to “freeze and stop” the war along the existing front. He called this the minimum Ukraine needed from Russia and said security guarantees could be discussed afterward. This separates stopping the killings from resolving political and territorial questions.

A permanent peace treaty would normally settle the conflict’s main terms, including lasting security arrangements and disputed issues. The article does not describe a treaty or say that a front-line freeze would be permanent. The proposed freeze could therefore become a first step, while negotiations continued over guarantees and the postwar security system.

If Russia and Ukraine stopped fighting, civilians could face fewer missile, drone, and artillery attacks while combat-related deaths and destruction declined. Military units would also stop attacking, at least under the ceasefire’s terms. These are the immediate purposes of stopping active hostilities, although the article does not quantify the likely civilian effect.

The main unresolved mechanism would be territorial control. A front-line freeze would preserve the positions held when fighting stopped, without automatically deciding whether those borders were legitimate. Both sides could remain responsible for areas they control, while negotiations continued over territory, security, and the future relationship between Russia and Ukraine.

The result could be a pause rather than a final settlement. The article presents Zelensky’s proposed freeze as a minimum step, with guarantees discussed later. It does not say whether a ceasefire would hold, how violations would be handled, or whether frozen positions would become permanent.

Battlefield conditions affect negotiations because each side calculates what it might gain or lose by stopping. Russia has for months refused to resume talks, according to the article, because it believes it is winning. Ukraine and its European allies dispute that assessment and describe the front as virtually stalemated.

The article gives two concrete factors. Ushakov said Putin told Witkoff that Russian troops were advancing across the front and held a “strategic initiative.” Meanwhile, Ukraine faces an acute shortage of interceptors needed against deadly Russian missile attacks. Russia’s claimed momentum could encourage delay, while Ukraine’s air-defense shortage increases the cost of continued fighting.

These opposing assessments shape urgency and leverage. Zelensky said Ukraine would accept freezing the current front, but Russia may seek better terms if it believes its forces are advancing. Ukraine may press for a ceasefire and guarantees to reduce attacks. The article does not establish which battlefield assessment is correct.

Security guarantees are promises by other countries to support Ukraine’s safety after a ceasefire or war-ending agreement. They matter because stopping fighting would not automatically remove the risk of renewed attacks. A guarantee could make a future attack more costly or provide help if Ukraine were threatened.

The article says Zelensky discussed “strong” security guarantees with Witkoff and other leaders in Oslo. He also said guarantees for Ukraine could be considered after freezing the war. Ushakov, meanwhile, said talks should build a security system for both Russia and Ukraine after the conflict.

The exact mechanism remains undefined. The article does not say whether guarantees would involve military assistance, intelligence, sanctions, diplomatic action, or another commitment. Their credibility would depend on what countries promised and how firmly they would respond. For now, guarantees are a central negotiating issue, not a completed arrangement.