Rosenberg: US diplomatic push offers little hope for imminent Ukraine peace

The Oslo meeting brought together Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, US special envoy Steve Witkoff and European representatives. Norway’s prime minister called it “good and constructive.” Its main purpose was to discuss new approaches and possibly prepare a leaders’ meeting involving Zelensky, Putin and Trump.

In St Petersburg, Witkoff met President Vladimir Putin and Putin’s foreign policy aide, Yuri Ushakov. Witkoff briefed Putin on the Oslo discussions and what he described as new approaches from Europeans and Kyiv. The meeting was meant to test Russia’s response and explore whether negotiations could restart.

The results were limited. The Kremlin said it might resume trilateral talks next month in Abu Dhabi, but only at a technical level. Ushakov said there was not much useful in the Oslo proposals. Witkoff also acknowledged that important work remained, so neither meeting produced an imminent peace agreement.

Trilateral talks are negotiations involving three parties. In this case, the proposed participants are Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump. The format would put the central wartime leaders and the influential US president around the same table.

The hoped-for mechanism is direct political bargaining. The leaders could discuss ending the fighting, possible terms and the role of the United States in supporting an agreement. The idea was raised in Oslo, and Witkoff’s visit to Russia was expected to test whether Putin would accept it. Putin, however, has shown little desire to meet Zelensky unless the meeting is in Moscow.

The summit is therefore important but uncertain. Russia has mentioned restarting talks in Abu Dhabi next month, yet only at a technical level. A Putin-Zelensky-Trump meeting may not be imminent, leaving lower-level diplomacy to deal with unresolved differences.

Russia, Ukraine, the United States and European countries have different positions in the peace effort. Ukraine is represented by Zelensky and Kyiv’s proposals. Russia controls whether it will enter serious negotiations. The United States, through Trump and Witkoff, is trying to broker movement. European representatives are helping shape proposals discussed with Ukraine.

The key mechanism is diplomatic pressure and possible leader-to-leader contact. Witkoff carried Oslo’s discussions to Putin in St Petersburg. The hoped-for result was a trilateral meeting involving Putin, Zelensky and Trump. Russia instead indicated that talks might resume only at a technical level in Abu Dhabi next month.

The balance currently favors Russia, according to the article’s account. Ushakov said the European and Ukrainian ideas offered little useful material. Trump’s criticism of Zelensky and easing of some pressure on Moscow also suit Russia. This makes diplomacy active, but the participants are not yet aligned on terms or timing.

Sanctions and economic restrictions are intended to raise the cost of continuing a war. If the United States eases them, Russia may feel less economic and political pressure to compromise. That can weaken diplomacy’s leverage, especially if Moscow believes its battlefield position is improving.

The article gives several examples. Trump has paused some sanctions on Moscow, agreed to buy Russian diesel and criticized Zelensky sharply. These actions improve the possibility of a better relationship between Washington and Moscow. Russian MP Evgeny Popov says Trump is the only Western leader doing something for peace, but openly adds that Russia wants peace on its own terms.

The immediate implication is reduced Russian urgency. The article says these steps ease pressure on Putin, who already knows Ukraine’s air defences are strained and may see winter as an opportunity. Economic engagement could support talks, but it may also make Russia more willing to wait for stronger negotiating advantages.

The conflict is both prolonged and international. The article describes nearly five years of war in Ukraine, with fighting continuing despite renewed diplomatic activity. The immediate peace effort involves Russia, Ukraine, the United States and European countries, each bringing different interests and influence.

The diplomatic push covered two days, with meetings in Oslo and St Petersburg. A possible Abu Dhabi meeting could resume trilateral talks, while a separate gathering in China might bring Putin, Trump and Xi Jinping together around the Apec summit. That would add China to the highest-level discussion of the conflict.

The article identifies Russia, China and the United States as the world’s only superpowers, according to Russian MP Evgeny Popov. Thus, four main political groupings are involved in the peace effort, but three superpowers could shape the wider balance. No settlement is imminent, and the war’s length gives every major actor strong reasons to influence its outcome.

The Yalta Conference took place in 1945. Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt met there to plan the political and territorial reorganisation of post-war Europe. In the article, Yalta represents a meeting where powerful leaders discuss the shape of international politics after a major conflict.

Some commentators apply that comparison to a possible meeting between Putin, Trump and Xi Jinping in China. The three leaders would represent Russia, the United States and China. The proposed meeting could occur on the fringes of the Apec summit next month. Its significance would extend beyond Ukraine because these states are described as the world’s only superpowers.

The comparison does not mean a new settlement is agreed. It signals expectations of a high-level discussion about global power and political arrangements. For Putin, such a meeting would place him at the top table of global politics after nearly five years of war, even though a Putin-Zelensky-Trump peace summit remains uncertain.

A war usually ends only when the parties accept workable terms, not merely when they meet. Those terms commonly cover security, territory, enforcement and the balance of power. Security arrangements address future attacks. Territorial agreements define control. Enforcement creates consequences for violations. Power balances determine whether either side believes peace is safer than continued fighting.

The article shows why this matters. Oslo produced discussion of new approaches, but Yuri Ushakov said there was little useful in them. Russia may resume talks in Abu Dhabi only at a technical level. Putin also appears to feel little pressure, because Ukraine’s air defences are strained and Washington has eased some pressure on Moscow.

The article does not specify security guarantees, territorial terms or enforcement mechanisms. Those details would need agreement before talks could become a durable settlement. Until the sides see acceptable terms and credible consequences, diplomacy may continue without ending the war. A leaders’ meeting could help, but it cannot replace that underlying agreement.