Zelensky Says Ukraine-Russia-US Peace Talks Could Take Place on Nov. 10

The proposed meeting would be the first in-person negotiations involving Ukraine, the United States and Russia since President Donald Trump eased sanctions against Russia. Its central purpose would be discussing an end to Russia’s war against Ukraine. Kyiv wants the process to begin quickly, while the exact date and format remain unsettled.

Zelensky said talks initially planned for the end of next month might be moved forward. He also proposed a meeting on Sunday but chose to wait until voting in the United States had finished. Abu Dhabi is expected to host the summit, led by a US delegation.

The meeting is not confirmed. Moscow said it was ready to resume negotiations after its Nov. 4 National Unity Day holiday. Participants and the agenda remain unclear. Kyiv will seek credible security guarantees and protection against Russia using a ceasefire to prepare another attack.

A trilateral negotiation is a diplomatic discussion involving three countries. In this case, Ukraine, the United States and Russia would meet to discuss ending Russia’s war against Ukraine. The format matters because all three governments would be represented in the same process, rather than communicating only through separate meetings or intermediaries.

The proposed talks could let Kyiv present its security needs directly. The United States would lead the delegation, while Russia would bring its own position after saying it was ready to resume negotiations. The meeting could therefore test whether the countries can find common ground on ending the war.

Important limits remain. The date, participants and agenda are not settled. Kyiv insists that any settlement include credible security guarantees. It also wants to prevent Russia from using a ceasefire to rebuild its forces and prepare another attack.

The article describes at least three possible diplomatic formats. The first is a Ukraine-US-Russia meeting in Abu Dhabi. The second is a possible summit involving Washington, Moscow and Beijing. The third is broader discussions about continental security, where European representatives might participate.

Each format has a different focus. The first would center on ending Russia’s war against Ukraine. The second could address Ukraine and the Middle East while also considering wider global influence. The third could expand the conversation to European security, although the article does not identify the participants or structure.

None of these formats is fully settled. Zelensky wants Ukraine to meet US and Russian delegations before any US-China-Russia summit. He fears a broader meeting could enable a new division of global influence. Russia’s possible demand for NATO’s 1997 configuration could also affect the wider security discussion.

Abu Dhabi is one of the possible venues for the next negotiations and is described as the expected location for the proposed summit. Choosing a venue matters because the talks would involve delegations from Ukraine, the United States and Russia. The meeting would be led by a US delegation if it happens.

Timing is linked to two events. Zelensky proposed a Sunday meeting but decided to wait until voting in the United States had concluded. Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov said Moscow was ready to resume negotiations after Russia’s Nov. 4 National Unity Day holiday. Zelensky later suggested the talks could happen as early as Nov. 10.

These dates show that planning remains flexible. The next round was previously expected in the first half of November. The format, participants and possible European involvement are still unclear, so the venue and schedule could change.

If a ceasefire allowed Russia to rebuild its forces, Moscow could use the pause to prepare another attack. That would make the ceasefire temporary rather than a reliable path toward peace. It could also leave Ukraine exposed after fighting stopped.

The article gives the key mechanism clearly: Russia might use renewed negotiations or a ceasefire to gain time for military preparation. Kyiv therefore wants any settlement to include credible security guarantees. Those guarantees are intended to make a new attack more difficult and give Ukraine confidence that peace would last.

This concern shapes Kyiv’s negotiating position. Ukraine wants talks to begin soon, but it does not want speed to replace protection. The proposed negotiations remain exploratory, and the article does not state what specific guarantees would be offered. Their credibility would be central to any future agreement.

The 1945 Yalta Conference was a meeting of major Allied powers during World War II that helped shape postwar arrangements in Europe. The source does not provide its participants or detailed outcomes. Zelensky invokes it because he sees a possible parallel with powerful countries making decisions that affect other nations.

He warned that a US-China-Russia summit could allow Russia to seek a new division of global influence. In his view, such a meeting might set broad arrangements involving regions and security without placing Ukraine at the center. He said the agenda could include the Middle East and Russia’s war against Ukraine.

Zelensky also argued that Russia would benefit most from this broader summit, while China would have the least to gain. He wants Ukraine to meet US and Russian delegations in Abu Dhabi first. That sequence would keep Ukraine involved before wider power discussions begin.

NATO is a military alliance in which member countries coordinate their defense and security. The article says Moscow could demand that NATO roll back its military presence to the alliance’s 1997 configuration. That would mean returning to an earlier security arrangement, although the reported demand is not confirmed as Russia’s official position.

The possible effect is direct. The article says the rollback could require forces to withdraw from Poland, the Baltic states and Finland. Those countries would therefore see a changed military environment around them. The demand would not concern only Russia and Ukraine; it could affect the wider European security system.

This issue could become part of renewed negotiations or broader continental-security discussions. European representatives might join those discussions, but their participation is uncertain. Any proposal affecting NATO’s presence would likely be politically significant, while its exact terms and consequences remain unresolved in the article.