In Abu Dhabi on November 10, for the first time in nine months, the Russian, Ukrainian and American delegations sat down at the table. The closed meeting lasted about 4.5 hours with a 40-minute break. There are no substantive agreements yet, and the second meeting is scheduled for November 11. The words of the delegates and the assessments of experts diverge: some say “productive,” others “absolutely do not hope for anything.”
The American side speaks optimistically. Jared Kushner expects “a very productive couple of days.” He said that on the question of Putin’s readiness for peace one can “say with fairly high confidence ‘yes’ under proper conditions,” and that the gap between Moscow and Kyiv has narrowed over two months. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the day productive but warned that much work remains. The exact wording in Russian translations diverges, so I am conveying the meaning. Steve Witkoff said that the US, Ukraine and European countries agreed to involve Europe in multilateral negotiations.
Ukrainian delegates are more cautious. Rustem Umerov confirmed that the delegation has Zelensky’s mandate to discuss all issues, and added: “We are doing everything to make Europe a participant in the diplomatic process.” Kyrylo Budanov, in an interview with CBS, did not expect significant progress and called the meetings “neither final nor capable of resolving the conflict immediately.” Davyd Arakhamia does not expect a breakthrough in the first round but calls the resumption itself an achievement. Zelensky called the day “constructive and fairly substantive.” An anonymous source in the delegation said that Kyiv’s key position is first a cessation of hostilities, and then a new security architecture.
Russia speaks less. Vladimir Medinsky expressed hope that a more professional team would allow it to “advance on the path to peace.” Sergei Lavrov treated the Europeans with irony: “Well, they flew to Abu Dhabi, let them sit in a hotel there,” and an immediate truce, according to him, is needed only to restore Ukraine’s strength. Maria Zakharova stated that the purpose of the Europeans’ visit “remains unclear.”
What publications and experts say
ABC News presents the talks as a test of Trump’s promise to end the war quickly. Samuel Charap of RAND considers a large-scale deal unlikely, since there has been no substantive conversation for nine months. Ukrainian MP Oleksandr Merezhko “absolutely does not hope for anything” except a prisoner exchange.
Al Jazeera, on the eve of the meeting, quoted Matthew Boyse of the Hudson Institute: Putin continues to “insist on his own” and usually “demands the maximum, escalates and waits for others to compromise.” Arkady Moshes of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs believes that Moscow is interested in continuing the conflict until Ukraine is defeated. Anders Åslund of the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics suggests that Trump, as a “lame duck,” will pressure Kyiv.
New Arab writes that expectations are low: previous rounds produced only limited solutions on prisoners and humanitarian issues.
Liga.net even called the talks a potentially dangerous deal: “Russia wants a new Yalta.”
What stands behind the rhetoric
Kushner’s optimism is conditional. “Under proper conditions” promises nothing. The statement about the narrowing gap cannot be verified, and none of the Ukrainian delegates confirmed it. Budanov and Arakhamia, meanwhile, are lowering expectations in advance. This looks like expectation management, since it does not benefit Kyiv either to show weakness or to create illusions.
Russia is silent on substance, since Medinsky’s quotes contain not a single position on territory or guarantees, only hopes. Lavrov, by contrast, sounds harsh, and the harshness is directed at Europe. There is a sense that Moscow is not risking anything for now and is preserving room for negotiations.
The parties argue about sequence. Kyiv demands a ceasefire first; Moscow rejects an immediate temporary truce, understanding that the truce time will be spent on building up strength for a new strike. An American official cited by Al Jazeera expects the territorial issue to be resolved at the end. But, according to NGS, the territories are scheduled for the second day. This information obviously contradicts itself; which version is correct will become clear only from the results of November 11.
Europe is behind the door. Witkoff and Umerov speak of including Europe; Lavrov and Zakharova effectively close the door to Europeans. According to Kommersant, the Ukrainian delegation communicated with representatives of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, NATO and the European Commission before the meeting. The Europeans remain spectators, not participants.
The prisoner exchange is so far the only tangible result. Interfax-Ukraine, citing an anonymous source, reported an agreement on a large exchange, but there are no numbers, no dates and no official confirmation. A similar outcome occurred in January–February 2026: the meetings in Abu Dhabi led to the exchange of 314 prisoners (157 from each side), and positions on the Donbas did not move.
The first day proved that the process is possible, but did not show that the result is near. The realistic outcomes of the coming days are only a prisoner exchange and technical agreements. Territory and security guarantees remain unresolved. The next reference point is the results of November 11 and a possible trip by American envoys to Moscow.
