Can the Abu Dhabi Ukraine Talks Produce a Real Deal?

The first three-way talks on Ukraine since February opened in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday 10 November, and the statements made in the 48 hours before them already show where the real argument sits. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking in Paris on the sidelines of the G7 foreign ministers’ meeting, said it was “good that the trilateral talks are on again” and “better than not having talks”. The Kremlin has said Europe stays out of the room. Germany’s foreign minister has said it must be in it. Whether the talks produce a deal depends first on who is in the room.

President Donald Trump, for his part, told reporters on Monday that the White House is “seeing a very strong inclination to end Russia and Ukraine”. He had told a television interviewer, in remarks published the same day, that Ukraine would “end up with a little bit different shape”. That sentence is the one Kyiv will read most closely.

The talks run for two days, Tuesday and Wednesday. American mediation is led by envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Silent Dossier has already set out what the talks are meant to cover and the dispute over who sits at the table.

The United States is publicly optimistic and has not said what it expects Ukraine to give up. Russia has said the format is three-sided and that Europeans come later. Germany and Ukraine have each said, in their own words, that a deal made without them will not hold. The only concrete agenda item named by the US side is the security architecture after the war.

Rubio spoke first, on Sunday 8 November, before flying to Paris. He framed the question as a design problem: “What is the postwar security infrastructure of Ukraine and more broadly of the European continent going to look like?” He added that “there’s been some advances made in what that architecture could look like post-conflict”, and he cautioned: “Nothing’s been finalized yet, and maybe some progress can be made in Abu Dhabi.”

On Monday, Trump took questions in the White House briefing room. He said: “We’re having a very good conversation about that in Abu Dhabi.” He explained why Washington is involved: “We’re involved in that because I want to see people stop getting killed again.” A reporter then noted that Trump had set Vladimir Putin several deadlines over 22 months and that Putin had ignored them. Trump answered: “Has he been fighting us in the war?” and moved to another question without saying whether the United States would act.

In the television interview, Trump named the obstacle as personal. “It was the hatred between Zelensky and Putin,” he said. Asked whom he trusts more, he replied: “I’d rather not say, but I get along with both.” He did not say which territorial changes he had in mind.

Kushner, on Monday, set out the American goal for the room: that the sides “discuss directly their postwar security concerns, proposals, and potential solutions”.

Three things are visible when the sequence is laid out. Rubio spoke of progress on the postwar architecture on Sunday. On Monday, two US officials placed the European governments that would have to help build that architecture outside the main room. On the same day Wadephul said there could be no solution without them.

A second pairing concerns territory. Trump said Ukraine will have a “different shape”. A US official said Moscow and Kyiv were privately showing some flexibility on a possible territorial exchange. A senior Ukrainian official rejected reports that Kyiv was considering concessions, and said any territory discussion would have to happen between the two presidents and come with security guarantees. Russia has publicly kept its demand that Ukraine give up the whole of the Donbas region, including land Moscow has not captured.

The third is the tone of the American optimism. Trump’s “very strong inclination” describes a mood. Rubio’s “nothing’s been finalized” describes the file. Silent Dossier’s reading is that Washington is describing the talks as a success before they begin, and that its own secretary of state is the one keeping the claim small.

The first marker is the end of Wednesday’s session: whether the three delegations issue any joint statement or only separate accounts. The second is Europe’s separate meeting on security guarantees, and whether Russia treats its outcome as relevant. The third is whether territory is raised in the room at all. If it is, Sybiha’s line that no one decides Ukraine’s fate behind its back will be tested first.

Until a text exists, the record is statements that name the same subject and disagree on who is party to it.