Abu Dhabi talks open with Washington in a hurry and Moscow in no rush

Talks with a familiar gap

The first day of trilateral talks between the United States, Russia and Ukraine in Abu Dhabi ended on Tuesday, and discussions continue on Wednesday. The meeting itself is a change after a period of stalled diplomacy. What it has not changed is the distance between the parties on the two questions that matter most: whether fighting stops first, and who is in the room when security arrangements for Europe are discussed.

Russia's foreign minister has rejected European calls for an immediate ceasefire, and Moscow has also turned down a direct role for the EU in Abu Dhabi. European representatives are due to take part in the wider discussions regardless, while France says it will hold no security talks with Russia until a ceasefire is in place. The result is two parallel positions that do not meet. Europe wants a pause before politics; Russia wants politics without a pause and without Europe.

The Financial Times reported that expectations of a breakthrough are low, with Vladimir Putin showing little sign of wanting to end a war now in its fifth year. That assessment fits what Moscow has said in public over the past 24 hours. A government preparing to settle does not usually reject a ceasefire and the participation of the continent that would have to live beside the outcome.

Why speed favours Moscow

The Economist argues that Donald Trump is in a hurry for peace while Putin is not, and that American-brokered talks may help Russia prolong the war. The logic is simple. A negotiator under time pressure tends to concede on process and substance to secure a headline result, and the party that can wait holds the stronger hand.

There are signs of that pressure on the American side. Polling shows strong US public support for ending the separate war with Iran, which Global Eye 24 has reported weighs on domestic politics. An administration that wants fewer open conflicts has its own reasons to seek a quick Ukraine settlement, and Moscow can read the same polls.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump is weighing a broader European security deal with Russia. If accurate, that would move the agenda from ending this war to redrawing arrangements for the whole continent, a far larger subject that European governments have so far refused to discuss with Russia before a ceasefire. It would also put Russia in a position to trade concessions it has not yet made for recognition it has long wanted.

The Financial Times also reported that Washington asked Moscow whether it would object to an American security guarantee for Ukraine resembling NATO's Article 5. The question is revealing in itself. Asking Russia for its view on a guarantee to a third country implies a veto, and several readers took it as evidence that Moscow is being treated as a party with that right. Whether Russia answers, and how, is one of the clearest tests of the talks.

Pressure outside the room

The negotiations are running alongside continued strikes. Ukraine says Russian attacks hit five substations in its power grid as winter approaches. In the other direction, the Kyiv Independent reported that Ukrainian long-range drones hit the Kirishi refinery in Leningrad Oblast on 9 November, damaging three main crude processing units. Global Eye 24 has not independently verified the extent of that damage.

Many readers of the Financial Times argue that this is where the real bargaining takes place. In their view, Russia will move only when its oil-processing capacity and domestic fuel supply are under sustained strain, and talks without that pressure are largely for show. That is an argument about leverage, not a prediction, and it assumes that Russian economic pain translates into policy change, which the record of the past four years does not clearly show.

Casualty figures are part of the same calculation. A leak reported by the Moscow Times on 8 November, attributed to Russia's statistics agency, put official Russian war deaths above 450,000. That figure is unconfirmed and comes from a single report, but if accurate it would sharpen the domestic cost of a settlement that looks like failure, as well as the cost of continuing.

Readers disagree about where the obstacle lies. Most point to Putin's inability to concede without losing face at home. A smaller group argues that Volodymyr Zelensky also has reasons to avoid a ceasefire, since it could bring elections and scrutiny of corruption cases and of mobilisation practices. Others answer that he has said he would hold elections once a ceasefire is established. The disagreement is hard to resolve from outside, but only one party is currently rejecting a ceasefire in public.

What to watch

The first signal is whether Russia moves on the ceasefire or the European seat when talks resume on Wednesday. A change on either would be significant; continued refusal would confirm the pattern. The second is whether Washington commits to a security guarantee for Ukraine without waiting for Moscow's consent, which would show how much the US is prepared to push back.

The third is whether the wider European security deal moves from a press report to a formal proposal. France has set its condition, and the UK has this week warned of Russian state-sponsored hybrid threats, so European appetite for such an arrangement looks limited. The gap between Washington's urgency and Europe's caution is now as important as the gap between Moscow and Kyiv.