Ukraine and Russia to negotiate next week in Abu Dhabi with US mediation

The planned Abu Dhabi meeting is a new three-party negotiation involving Ukraine, Russia and the United States. It matters because Washington is trying to help end the war and shape arrangements for the period after fighting stops. The talks are scheduled for November 10–11 in the United Arab Emirates.

U.S. Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff said the United States would bring the Ukrainian and Russian delegations together. Reuters reported that Witkoff and Jared Kushner are expected to serve as the main U.S. negotiators. Their stated agenda includes ending Moscow’s war against Ukraine, creating postwar security arrangements and reducing tensions.

The meeting comes after Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to another three-party round following talks with Witkoff in St. Petersburg. Yet Ukraine and Russia remain far apart on a possible peace agreement. The Abu Dhabi meeting is therefore a diplomatic attempt, not evidence that a settlement has already been reached.

When the United States acts as a mediator, it serves as an intermediary between Ukraine and Russia. It helps arrange contact, presents or discusses possible compromises, and keeps negotiations focused on an agreed agenda. A mediator can encourage communication without being one of the two sides directly settling the dispute.

That role is reflected in Steve Witkoff’s announcement. He said the United States would bring the Ukrainian and Russian delegations together in Abu Dhabi. The planned discussions cover ending the war, postwar security arrangements and easing tensions. Witkoff and Jared Kushner are expected to be the main U.S. negotiators.

Mediation does not guarantee success. Ukraine and Russia still have sharply different positions, while the United States has increased pressure on Ukraine to reach some kind of agreement. The American role could help produce a breakthrough, but the parties themselves would still need to accept and implement any peace deal.

The central participants are delegations from Ukraine and Russia, with the United States acting as mediator. The American negotiating team is expected to include Steve Witkoff, the U.S. Middle East special envoy, and Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law. Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to this new three-party round after meeting Witkoff.

The planned agenda is broad. The delegations are expected to discuss ending Moscow’s war against Ukraine, security arrangements after the fighting and ways to reduce tensions. These subjects connect an immediate goal, stopping the war, with the longer-term question of how peace could be protected.

The wider diplomatic effort also includes meetings in Brussels this week. U.S. negotiators are expected to meet representatives of France, Germany, Britain, the European Union and NATO. Those discussions concern Ukraine’s security guarantees, Europe’s future security structure and financial support for reconstruction. The article does not name the Ukrainian or Russian delegates.

The article identifies six countries in the broader diplomatic effort: Ukraine, Russia, the United States, France, Germany and Britain. It also names two international organizations, the European Union and NATO. Counting the countries and organizations together gives eight named participants or entities.

The three-party Abu Dhabi talks involve Ukraine, Russia and the United States. Separately, American negotiators are due to meet in Brussels with representatives of France, Germany, Britain, the European Union and NATO. Those meetings are part of preparations around the wider peace effort, rather than a description of the Abu Dhabi negotiating table itself.

The wider discussions will address Ukraine’s security guarantees, Europe’s future security structure and economic support for rebuilding Ukraine. The article does not state that all eight participants will attend Abu Dhabi. It distinguishes the three-party meeting from the Brussels consultations with European countries and organizations.

Ukraine and Russia remain far apart because their views on a possible peace agreement have not converged. The article does not list their specific disputed terms. It does show that the distance remains substantial, even as the United States increases pressure on Ukraine to help produce some kind of agreement.

The disagreement affects more than the question of stopping battlefield fighting. The planned talks also concern postwar security arrangements and easing tensions. Separate Brussels meetings will address Ukraine’s security guarantees, Europe’s future security structure and economic help for reconstruction. These issues would require agreement about what happens after a ceasefire or peace settlement.

The Abu Dhabi meeting is therefore an effort to overcome a continuing gap, not a confirmation that compromise is close. U.S. negotiators hope for a breakthrough before winter, but the article gives no agreed formula. Any progress would depend on whether Ukraine and Russia can bridge their positions in the new round.

The earlier U.S.-mediated peace negotiations were held in February. According to the article, they occurred before the United States and Israel began a war against Iran. The article does not describe the results of those February talks or identify a concrete agreement that emerged from them.

The Abu Dhabi meeting is described as a new attempt because it creates another three-party negotiating round involving Ukraine, Russia and the United States. Vladimir Putin agreed to the round after meeting Steve Witkoff in St. Petersburg two weeks earlier. Washington’s negotiators are seeking a breakthrough in the prolonged conflict before winter arrives.

The new effort also includes preparation outside Abu Dhabi. U.S. negotiators plan to meet European and NATO representatives in Brussels about security guarantees, Europe’s security structure and reconstruction funding. The talks therefore renew diplomacy after the earlier round, while the article makes clear that the two sides remain far apart.

Security guarantees are promises or arrangements designed to support a country’s safety after an agreement. They can clarify how partners would respond to threats and help make peace more credible. The article does not define a specific guarantee, but it identifies Ukraine’s security guarantees as a central subject of the Brussels discussions.

Their importance lies in the period after fighting stops. A peace agreement could end active combat, yet uncertainty about Ukraine’s future protection could leave tensions unresolved. That is why U.S. negotiators will discuss guarantees with France, Germany, Britain, the European Union and NATO, alongside Europe’s future security structure.

The Abu Dhabi agenda also includes postwar security arrangements. If negotiators make these arrangements credible and acceptable, they could support a more durable settlement. However, the article reports that Ukraine and Russia remain far apart. It does not say what guarantees have been proposed or whether any participant has accepted them.

If the Abu Dhabi negotiations succeed, they could move the parties closer to ending Russia’s war against Ukraine. They could also clarify security arrangements for the postwar period and create a path toward reduced tensions. The wider effort may add support through discussions about Ukraine’s security guarantees, Europe’s security structure and reconstruction funding.

The main mechanism would be agreement among the Ukrainian and Russian delegations, with the United States helping them negotiate. A workable settlement would need to address both the immediate end of fighting and the arrangements that follow. The Brussels consultations could help shape the broader security and economic framework around such an agreement.

If the talks fail, the article’s central problems would remain: Ukraine and Russia would still be far apart, and the prolonged conflict would lack the hoped-for breakthrough. Postwar security guarantees and reconstruction support could also remain unsettled. The article does not predict the outcome or describe specific consequences beyond these unresolved issues.