Ukraine Peace Talks Yield Prisoner Deal but No Path to Peace

The first trilateral negotiations between Russia, Ukraine, and the US since early this year produced a measured humanitarian breakthrough, but little tangible progress toward ending the war.The two days of talks in Abu Dhabi on November 10 -11 reached an agreement in principle on a large-scale prisoner exchange and opened discussions on broader European security arrangements.But the sides appear to be no closer to peace than they were 48 hours earlier."The fundamental obstacle to ending this war is that neither belligerent currently sees an available peace settlement that would secure its essential interests at a lower cost than continuing to fight," according to Slawomir Debski, visiting professor of strategy and international relations at the Warsaw-based College of Europe in Natolin."That is the underlying impasse. Moscow wants a peace that converts aggression into a wider strategic victory. Ukraine needs a peace that preserves its ability to survive. Europe cannot accept Russian control over European security, and America has no sound strategic reason to facilitate it."US officials described the negotiations as tough but productive, while acknowledging the total lack of trust between Kyiv and Moscow.The talks, nevertheless, marked an important development: Washington is seeking to broaden negotiations beyond Ukraine's future to include wider security arrangements for Europe, potentially bringing European governments into a process from which they have so far largely been excluded.US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are due to travel to Moscow on November 12 to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin before heading to Dublin for discussions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is currently on a visit to Ireland.Those meetings will test whether Washington can turn diplomatic activity into meaningful progress or whether Moscow is using negotiations to advance broader strategic objectives while continuing its war.Prisoner Swap Offers ProgressSenior US officials told RFE/RL on November 11 that the agreement on a large-scale exchange of prisoners of war represented a success.One American negotiator also reported detecting "a little bit of flexibility" from both sides in private conversations, although no details were provided.A senior US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Washington intended to proceed incrementally, adding that the administration would take things "one step at a time."The official cautioned that postwar security arrangements could not be implemented until an agreement had been reached on territorial and other bilateral issues.That qualification highlights the central obstacle: the parties may be willing to discuss practical arrangements, but remain far apart on the political settlement needed to end the war.Zelenskyy said in Dublin on November 11 that the proposed prisoner exchange could involve as many as 1,000 or up to 1,200 people on both sides.But he also stressed that Kyiv has always proposed an all-for-all exchange, saying that he could not understand why "thousands more" should wait for the end of their suffering in captivity.Ukraine's chief negotiator, Rustem Umerov, acknowledged that major differences remained despite the discussions."Over these two days, the parties were able to state their positions directly, and significant differences remain between them," he said.Kyrylo Budanov, the chief of Zelenskyy's presidential administration, described the talks as tough, but insisted that Ukraine's position had not changed. Kyiv wants an end to the war and security arrangements that would rule out a renewed Russian aggression.Moscow offered little indication of flexibility on the most contentious issues. Russia's chief negotiator Vladimir Medinsky said territorial exchanges as part of a settlement were out of question, according to Russian state media.Zelenskyy also disclosed that the Russian delegation rejected Ukraine's proposal for an energy cease-fire, saying it had no mandate to discuss the issue.Paul Saunders, president and CEO of the Center for the National Interest and a former senior State Department adviser, told RFE/RL that the progress achieved so far was largely symbolic."It has not been substantive," Saunders said, arguing that the parties had not materially moved closer to an agreement acceptable to all sides.What Does Moscow Want?Saunders offered a sobering explanation of Russia's willingness to negotiate, arguing that Putin continues to believe Moscow can win a war of attrition.Russia is larger and wealthier than Ukraine, and the Kremlin calculates that Kyiv faces mounting military and economic pressures while European governments may eventually struggle to sustain their support, he said.In this context, negotiations serve several purposes.They allow Moscow to demonstrate willingness to talk, keep the Trump administration invested in a peace process and reduce the risk of a frustrated US president adopting a tougher approach toward Russia.Saunders said Moscow also had an incentive to introduce new subjects when existing negotiating tracks became unproductive.Prisoner exchanges and other relatively low-cost agreements help maintain diplomatic momentum without requiring the Kremlin to abandon its fundamental objectives.The question, therefore, is what incentive would be good enough for Putin to end the war if he believes time and the situation on the battlefield -- as Moscow is presenting -- are working in Russia's favor.Former US Ambassador to the OSCE James Gilmore offered a somewhat different interpretation.Speaking to RFE/RL, he suggested that Ukrainian counterattacks against Russian infrastructure and growing economic pressure could be pushing the Kremlin to seek a diplomatic victory rather than risk an increasingly costly military campaign.Gilmore argued that Russia might be trying to secure through negotiations what it cannot achieve on the battlefield.But, he cautioned, the fundamental positions of Moscow and Kyiv remained difficult to reconcile. Russia wants a settlement that amounts to victory on its terms, while Ukraine's overriding objective is survival and protection against renewed aggression.Gilmore welcomed the prisoner exchange and continuation of negotiations, saying that "any progress opens the door to further progress." But he warned against losing sight of the conflicting interests.Although the experts differ on how much pressure Russia is facing, their assessments point to a common conclusion: Moscow's participation in negotiations does not demonstrate that Putin is prepared to abandon his objectives.Europe's SecurityPerhaps the most consequential development in Abu Dhabi was Washington's growing emphasis on Europe's wider security architecture.A senior US official told RFE/RL that American negotiators wanted to sit down with European partners to discuss the continent's security arrangements.The administration has been developing proposals in close coordination with its partners, the official said, aimed at strengthening Ukraine's long-term security, protecting its sovereignty and contributing to European stability.Washington also hopes to persuade Moscow to accept a multilateral negotiating format, potentially opening the door to formal European participation. Kushner indicated that he would seek Putin's approval during the Moscow visit.The issue is sensitive because Britain, France, Germany, NATO, and the European Commission have not been included in the core trilateral negotiations, although European representatives were present on the sidelines.For Kyiv, the concern is not simply a diplomatic protocol. Ukraine fears that Washington and Moscow could discuss its future without sufficiently involving Ukraine whose territory and sovereignty are at stake.Zelenskyy has insisted that Europe must be represented, arguing that decisions about European security cannot be made without European governments.The broader agenda also raises concerns about Moscow's strategic ambitions.Russia appears to be trying to draw Washington into a much wider discussion about the European security order, potentially weakening the transatlantic alliance and reducing Europe's influence.Under this interpretation, the negotiations are no longer just about Ukraine, but also about the strategic relationship between the United States, Europe, and Russia.NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said his contacts with NATO officials involved in the Abu Dhabi talks indicated that the United States, Ukraine, and Europe were "completely aligned and united." He nevertheless stressed that Russia must demonstrate it is genuinely prepared to engage.Testing Washington's LeverageAny potential meetings with Putin and Zelenskyy would test whether diplomacy can move beyond exploratory discussions and produce concrete proposals.A central problem remains: if postwar security arrangements cannot be implemented until territorial disagreements are resolved, what guarantees can Ukraine obtain before making decisions about occupied territory?For Kyiv, any agreement that leaves the country exposed to another Russian attack risks turning a cease-fire into little more than a pause in the conflict.Zelenskyy said in Dublin that Ukraine needed "very concrete answers" on security guarantees, adding that much would depend on Russia, but even more on the United States, because, in his words, Ukraine is "not seeking security guarantees from Russia, but from the United States."By RFE/RLMore Top Reads From Oilprice.comSaudi Crude Output Jumps 26% as Riyadh Reports Near Pre-War ProductionVitol’s Venezuela Oil Windfall Traced to Trader’s Ties to JD VanceCrude Is Back at 80% in the Gulf, but Refined Products Are Stuck at 35%