Ukraine, Russia and the difficult search for a peace that lasts

Angela Smith

The prospect of renewed negotiations between Russia and Ukraine presents an important diplomatic opportunity, but it also exposes the fundamental difficulty of ending a war in which the parties continue to disagree over territory, sovereignty and the future European security architecture.

The planned United States-mediated trilateral discussions in Abu Dhabi on 10–11 November could provide a new channel for engagement. Their significance should not be measured solely by whether they produce an immediate ceasefire. The more important question is whether the participants can establish a negotiating framework capable of addressing the political and security conditions that would make a settlement sustainable.

For Ukraine, any agreement must preserve its sovereignty and provide credible guarantees against renewed aggression. Kyiv cannot reasonably be expected to accept an arrangement that merely suspends hostilities while leaving the country exposed to another military confrontation. Security guarantees, reconstruction financing and the future of Ukraine’s relationship with European institutions will remain central to its position.

Moscow, meanwhile, will seek recognition of its strategic concerns and an outcome that can be presented domestically as a political achievement. These objectives remain difficult to reconcile with Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the principle that borders cannot be changed through force.

Washington occupies a complicated position. The Trump administration has sought to accelerate negotiations, but the credibility of American mediation will depend on its ability to maintain engagement with both parties without undermining the confidence of its European allies. A settlement imposed under intense political pressure could produce an agreement on paper while creating instability on the ground.

Europe cannot remain a secondary participant in decisions that will directly determine its security. France, Germany, Britain, Poland and other European governments will have to contribute to the discussion of guarantees, military assistance, sanctions and reconstruction. Any agreement that excludes Europe’s legitimate security concerns risks creating a new strategic division across the continent.

Abu Dhabi’s potential diplomatic role also deserves attention. The United Arab Emirates has developed relationships with several international actors and has demonstrated an interest in facilitating diplomatic communication. Its participation reflects a broader shift in international mediation, in which influential middle powers increasingly provide platforms for negotiations that traditional diplomatic structures struggle to advance.

Nevertheless, the road to peace will require more than a meeting and a joint communiqué. A durable settlement must establish mechanisms for monitoring ceasefire arrangements, addressing violations, protecting civilians, facilitating prisoner exchanges and resolving disputes through sustained political engagement.

The central lesson is that ending a war and establishing peace are two different undertakings. The former requires the cessation of fighting; the latter requires a political arrangement that makes renewed fighting less attractive than cooperation.

The Abu Dhabi discussions should therefore be judged by whether they move the parties towards a credible and enforceable framework. Ukraine needs security, Russia needs a negotiated political outcome, and Europe needs strategic stability. Unless these interests are addressed together, a ceasefire could become little more than an interval between confrontations.