Abu Dhabi: Moscow, Washington and Kyiv are talking again, Europe must secure its seat

After eight months of diplomatic silence, Russia, Ukraine and the United States are expected to sit down at the same table. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov announced on Friday 23 October that three-way talks were planned in Abu Dhabi in the first half of November, AFP reports via Euronews. Kyiv has confirmed. But Moscow was careful to set the framework: the negotiation will be trilateral, and Europe will have to wait.

The facts

According to Euronews, the announcement comes at the end of a busy week for US envoy Steve Witkoff. He first met Volodymyr Zelensky in Oslo on 20 October, alongside Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, according to the Kyiv Independent. He then held talks with Vladimir Putin in Saint Petersburg.

The process had been at a standstill since the start of the year. As RTBF recalls, the last meeting between Russian and Ukrainian delegations dates back to February, in Geneva. A meeting planned in Abu Dhabi in March was cancelled after the outbreak of the war between the United States, Israel and Iran, which absorbed Washington's attention for months.

The context remains grim. According to Al Jazeera, citing Ukrainian prosecutors, more than 19,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed since the start of the full-scale invasion, including 762 children. In the only concrete sign of contact, the two sides each exchanged 270 prisoners on Friday, according to the Russian Defence Ministry.

The positions at stake

Moscow sets the agenda. According to RTBF, Dmitry Peskov says the discussions will focus on the security of both countries once the transition towards a peace agreement is under way. In a televised interview, Vladimir Putin added that the aim was not to negotiate a short-term truce, but the terms of a final agreement. Al Jazeera points out that Russia maintains maximalist demands: the surrender of large parts of Ukrainian territory and Kyiv's renunciation of NATO.

Kyiv accepts any format, at any time, according to Euronews. Volodymyr Zelensky considers that halting the fighting along the current front line remains the most realistic path, according to AFP. He is calling for strong security guarantees as well as ten years of funding for his army, according to Al Jazeera. He is also asking for Europeans to be involved in the talks.

Washington, finally, is moving forward with its own priorities. Euronews reports that the Trump administration wants to resume technical discussions after the 3 November midterm elections. According to the Kyiv Independent, the US deal on Russian diesel deliveries, announced in early October, has strained relations with Kyiv, and several European leaders believe, according to Al Jazeera, that it gives Moscow grounds for hope.

As for Europe, it is looking for its place. The Commission has said it would be present at future multilateral discussions, without specifying how, Euronews reports. The Twenty-Seven discussed appointing a special envoy at the European Council of 15 and 16 October, without reaching a consensus. Alexander Stubb's name is circulating. The Kremlin says it could accept him, but on condition, again according to Euronews, that he does not simply repeat the European position.

Nothing can be ruled out a priori — Dmitry Peskov, quoted by Euronews

The analysis

The resumption of dialogue should first be welcomed. Those who consider any negotiation premature as long as Russia occupies part of Ukraine have a serious argument: negotiating under threat risks rewarding aggression. But a war that kills civilians every day does not end without talking to the adversary. Refusal on principle is not a policy.

The decisive question lies elsewhere: who negotiates, and on what basis? The format chosen by Moscow is no detail. By postponing the European security architecture to a later stage, it creates a risk: that Ukraine's fate is settled face to face between Moscow and Washington, and that the bill is then presented to the continent. Yet it is Europeans who fund a large share of the Ukrainian effort, who will bear the consequences of a bad deal and who will live tomorrow with Russia on their borders.

The Gaullist tradition has always refused to let Europe's fate be decided without it. Yet it never confused firmness with refusing to talk: General de Gaulle engaged in dialogue with Moscow at the height of the Cold War, without ever giving up on the Alliance. That lesson holds today. Europe does not have to choose between submitting to the American agenda and the empty chair. It must speak with one voice, with a clear mandate.

That mandate already partly exists in international law: respect for territorial integrity, rejection of annexation by force, the return of deported children, justice for the crimes committed. It must be accompanied by concrete solidarity. A lasting peace requires a Ukraine able to defend itself, and therefore sustainable European funding and a common defence industry, rather than renewed dependence on decisions taken in Washington.

Conclusion

There are two to three weeks left before Abu Dhabi. That is little, but enough for the Twenty-Seven to finally appoint their envoy and set out their red lines. France, a permanent member of the Security Council, is well placed to carry this demand. The question is simple: does Europe want to be at the table, or merely read the menu?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.