A fraught push for peace, and a race to fund Ukraine

The proposed negotiations would bring together Russia, Ukraine and the United States. The Kremlin says it is “in principle” ready to restart this trilateral format in mid-November. The talks matter because they could create a channel for discussing an end to the war, despite major disagreements.

Abu Dhabi has emerged as a possible venue. The proposal follows a meeting in St Petersburg between Vladimir Putin and US envoy Steve Witkoff. Witkoff had also discussed Ukraine with President Zelenskyy and European leaders in Oslo. Finnish President Alexander Stubb has been mentioned as a possible European participant or envoy.

The timetable and location are not final. Russia has not indicated that it will drop its maximalist demands. A separate summit involving Donald Trump, Putin and China’s Xi Jinping is also under consideration. That meeting could discuss Ukraine’s future without Kyiv, and its relationship to the proposed talks remains unclear.

The talks are described as fraught because diplomacy has not produced a meaningful narrowing of the positions held by Russia and Ukraine. Moscow has repeatedly entertained negotiations without softening its maximalist demands. That creates the risk that talks become a diplomatic performance rather than a route to compromise.

The latest example came after Vladimir Putin met US envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg. Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov said proposals Witkoff brought from discussions with Zelenskyy and European leaders in Oslo offered little that Russia considered useful. Russia’s conditions for possible Finnish involvement also suggest it wants to control how Europe participates.

Ukraine has offered a possible basis for stopping the fighting: a ceasefire along the current front lines without recognising Russian sovereignty over occupied land. Russia’s position has barely shifted, however. The proposed talks therefore begin with sharply different goals and no clear agreement on the terms.

A ceasefire along the current front line would mean halting military operations where opposing forces are positioned now. It would freeze the battlefield rather than create an immediate final settlement. Ukraine could accept that pause while continuing to reject Russia’s claim that occupied Ukrainian territory belongs to Russia.

The key mechanism is a separation between control and recognition. Russia might continue controlling some land in practice, while Ukraine would not formally recognise Russian sovereignty over it. That would leave the territorial dispute unresolved. The arrangement could reduce fighting without answering the question of permanent borders.

Zelenskyy told Fox News that Ukraine could accept this approach. The position is not new, since Kyiv has articulated it before. The article gives no indication that Russia accepts the proposal. Any lasting agreement would therefore still face difficult negotiations over territory, security and enforcement.

Ukraine’s request is for €70 billion in additional military and financial support for 2027. The scale matters because the request is being folded into the EU’s already difficult negotiations over its next long-term budget. Leaders must decide both how to support Ukraine and how to finance the bloc’s wider priorities.

The European Council has agreed to address the shortfall, but Brussels wants other allies to contribute too. The United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, Australia and Japan are among the countries urged to increase donations. The EU is therefore not meant to carry the entire burden alone. The European Commission must first calculate how much of the €70 billion the bloc would need to provide.

That calculation will shape the funding options. Joint EU debt currently appears the likeliest avenue, although it would be costly with borrowing costs high. EU leaders will discuss Ukraine at an extraordinary summit on 26-27 November, alongside the budget negotiations.

If the EU raises money through joint debt, it would borrow collectively rather than relying only on immediate contributions from national budgets. That could provide a large funding pool for Ukraine and help close the shortfall. It would also connect Ukraine’s support directly to the EU’s shared finances.

The key consequence is repayment. Borrowed money must be serviced and eventually repaid, with costs distributed through the EU’s budget and member states. When borrowing costs are high, interest payments rise. The same amount of support can therefore require more public money over time, leaving less room for other priorities.

The article identifies joint debt as the likeliest funding route but calls it costly amid sky-high borrowing costs. The European Commission must first estimate the EU’s share of the €70 billion request. That figure will shape the final financing design and intensify divisions over the next EU budget.

The EU budget is shaped politically by member states and their leaders, with European Council President António Costa trying to broker agreement. The European Commission then works out practical financing options, including how much the EU should provide for Ukraine. No single institution can settle the dispute alone.

The “Frugals” and “Friends of Cohesion” are opposing camps. Frugal countries generally press for spending restraint and tighter contributions. Friends of Cohesion support stronger investment in less prosperous regions through EU cohesion funding. Their disagreement affects the size and priorities of the next long-term budget.

Costa will present a new compromise focused on possible EU-wide taxes, called new own resources. Leaders remain divided, and diplomats also disagree about combining the budget and Ukraine funding into one package. Costa says the next long-term budget must be approved by the end of this year, raising the pressure for compromise.

International recognition of sovereignty matters because it distinguishes temporary control from accepted legal ownership. A force may hold territory without another country accepting that control as legitimate. In a peace agreement, recognising sovereignty would normally mean accepting which state has the lawful authority over the land.

Ukraine’s proposed position separates these issues. It could accept a ceasefire along the current front line, meaning the fighting would stop where forces are positioned. At the same time, it would refuse to recognise Russian sovereignty over occupied territory. Russia could retain control in practice while Ukraine preserved its legal claim.

This approach could make a ceasefire possible without forcing Ukraine to accept a permanent territorial settlement immediately. But it would leave the central dispute unresolved. The article says Kyiv has articulated this position before and does not report that Moscow has accepted it, so negotiations would still face a major obstacle.