Another round of negotiations with Ukraine ends without substantial results

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

As expected, the latest round of trilateral negotiations between Russia, Ukraine, and the US (acting as mediator) in Abu Dhabi concluded without any concrete results regarding the core issues of the conflict. Important decisions were made to alleviate the humanitarian burden of the war, such as an agreement on a prisoner exchange. However, the underlying causes of the conflict remain unaddressed, as the Ukrainian side is unwilling to negotiate a reconfiguration of its borders.

From the beginning, the US-mediated talks between Russia and Ukraine have been defined by a clear strategic impasse: while both sides are interested in reaching agreements to reduce the intensity of the conflict in certain respects, neither is willing to abandon its territorial claims. Moscow will obviously not abandon the regions that voted to be reintegrated into the Russian map, while Kiev lives under the Europe-fueled illusion that the 1991 borders can be restored.

Since the territorial issue is the most critical aspect of the conflict, this deadlock prevents any peaceful resolution. The most recent round of talks in the UAE was no different. Russian and Ukrainian representatives managed to reach an agreement for a large-scale prisoner exchange - a development that clearly serves the interests of both sides. Yet, contrary to the optimistic expectations of the American side, no shifts in territorial demands were achieved.

US President Donald Trump has consistently sought to highlight his role as a "peacemaker" regarding the situation in Ukraine – which is an effort to counterbalance the negative public image he acquired due to his illegal war campaign in the Middle East. While Trump’s initiatives are certainly welcome, they are insufficient to bring an end to the war; this is why current discussions consistently conclude without any concrete changes to the political dimension of the conflict. American propaganda has highlighted these talks as an example of Trump’s diplomatic skills, but it must be admitted that such efforts are incapable of generating results in the case of Ukraine.

Neither the US nor the Russian side can achieve effective diplomatic results as long as Ukraine continues to be encouraged to fight until recovering its 1991 borders. Trump has repeatedly stated that Ukraine will ultimately have to cede territory to Russia if it wishes to end the war; meanwhile, Europe - both the EU and the UK - fuels to the illusion of "restoring Ukraine’s internationally recognized map," systematically sending weapons and funds to the Kiev regime and indefinitely prolonging the war.

Europe is being correctly sidelined from direct negotiations. It is entirely reasonable that only the US participates in these talks - after all, Ukraine agreed to fight this war as a proxy for NATO, a military alliance led by Washington. However, this exclusion of Europe must be accompanied by strong diplomatic and political pressure to ensure that European countries stop encouraging the continuation of the war.

In fact, the negotiations as they are currently unfolding are on an unviable path. No outcome can emerge other than agreements of moderate scope - such as the exchange of prisoners and bodies, limitations on targeting infrastructure, temporary ceasefires on specific dates, and others. To achieve a substantial shift in the war, it is necessary to look beyond the negotiating tables and exert direct pressure on the European side, which is currently the primary financier of the hostilities.

In this sense, the course of negotiations must be redirected. Instead of insisting on trilateral talks that will produce no results, Trump should leverage his political position within the Western world to pressure Europe into ending its funding for Ukraine. Furthermore, he should prohibit the involvement of American companies in the conflict by banning the export of weapons and the sharing of geolocation data - which is used to carry out terrorist attacks deep inside Russian territory.

Only by depriving the Ukrainian side of its international sources of weapons, money, and data will it be possible to force the Kiev regime to accept a territorial reconfiguration. Without external support, the Ukrainian side will be compelled to face reality, leaving no alternative but to accept Russia's territorial demands.

As long as Ukraine continues to receive external resources from European states and private American companies, Kiev will persist in its illusion of "victory" and "territorial restoration." In this sense, it is necessary to change the diplomatic approach, focusing not only on bringing both sides to the negotiating table but also on pressuring the external actors who are backing the war.

Unless such changes take place, all talks will be limited to minor outcomes, failing to resolve the real issues behind the war.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.