Abu Dhabi, previously caught in the Iran-Israel conflict, has again become a diplomatic stage. On November 10–11, 2026, US envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are bringing Russian and Ukrainian representatives together for another round of peace negotiations. Earlier efforts failed to deliver a lasting settlement. Leaders gather, cameras capture the moment and diplomatic language promises progress, but implementation remains missing. Gaza and Yemen offer examples of ceasefires that have not delivered durable stability. Can Abu Dhabi produce a different result?
Why does Moscow prefer Washington while resisting a central European role? Why is the European Union desperate for a seat? And does Donald Trump need a peace agreement as urgently as the countries at war need peace?
- Moscow’s Insecurities: Why Avoid Europe and Trust Trump?
This is the first trilateral round since February. Washington’s reported easing of restrictions on Russian diesel sales has offered Moscow an economic incentive. Putin’s agreement to resume negotiations gives Trump a diplomatic opening and an image of progress. Yet this should not be mistaken for trust. Moscow wants sanctions relief without leaving its economic future dependent on European consent. From the Kremlin’s perspective, the EU is not neutral: it has supported Ukraine politically, financially and militarily.
Russia’s appointment of Vladimir Medinsky, a presidential aide and historian, rather than its foreign minister suggests Moscow views the talks through a political and historical lens. It is unlikely to surrender its leverage. China and India remain important markets for Russian energy, while Iran can remain a strategic card in Moscow’s wider contest with Washington. Russia wants territorial concessions, particularly over Donbas, and an arrangement recognising its strategic position.
But is Trump reliable? Moscow may see him as the less unfavourable option, not a trusted partner. His position can change quickly, and sanctions relief can be reversed. Russia is gambling on his willingness to pressure Kyiv while keeping alternative partnerships available. Claims that Moscow orchestrates unrest inside Europe require evidence; nevertheless, European divisions could make it easier for Washington to press Ukraine towards a settlement favourable to Russia.
- Europe’s Desperation: Why Demand a Seat, and Why Distrust Trump?
Differences between Washington and European capitals have become visible over sanctions and Ukraine’s future. When Washington considers easing restrictions without European agreement, allies can interpret it as a strategic bypass. Europe depends heavily on American military capabilities, intelligence and NATO support. Systems such as Starlink have also exposed that dependence.
The EU wants to shape the post-ceasefire settlement: security guarantees, reconstruction and Europe’s future security architecture. Britain, France, Germany and Italy, alongside EU and NATO representatives, want their concerns heard. Their argument is simple: a war fought on European soil cannot be settled without considering European security. Yet Russia sees these governments as Ukraine’s supporters, not impartial brokers. Can Europe be both a participant and a judge? That is Moscow’s objection.
Europe also fears Trump could withdraw American support and leave it carrying the military and financial burden. Without Washington, European states would struggle to replace the full scale of US assistance. They want peace, but not a settlement that sacrifices Ukraine’s sovereignty or leaves Europe exposed. Reconstruction and security guarantees cannot be secondary matters.
- Does Trump’s Administration Desperately Need a Deal?
Kushner and Witkoff are tasked with bridging positions that remain far apart. For Trump, a breakthrough would reinforce his claim that personal diplomacy can end major wars. Approaching midterm elections add to the incentive to demonstrate progress. But a photo opportunity is not a peace agreement. Optimism cannot erase disagreements over territory, security guarantees and enforcement.
Why Abu Dhabi? Its diplomatic position offers a venue, but location alone cannot guarantee success. Nor should the talks become an excuse to blame Iran or another regional actor if negotiations collapse. The danger is a cycle in which the same mediators return with the same assumptions, announce another initiative and produce the same disappointing outcome. You cannot change the result if you refuse to change the approach.
Ultimately, the EU and Trump administration are divided by mistrust, while Moscow seeks advantage from that division. What happens if today’s diplomatic concessions become tomorrow’s strategic liabilities? The world needs more than transactional diplomacy. It needs consistent principles, credible guarantees and international law applied equally to every state—whether Iran, Russia, Ukraine or any other country. Peace cannot survive when trust is a bargaining tool and accountability is reserved only for opponents.