On November 11, 2026, delegations from Ukraine, Russia, and the USA continued negotiations in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates. This is the first in-person meeting since the February round in Geneva. According to Politico, the second day after a nine-month break is dedicated to territories; the previous day was about security guarantees and prisoner exchanges. The first meeting lasted about four hours; there is no ceasefire agreement. The Ukrainian delegation is headed by Rustem Umerov, and the Russian by Vladimir Medinsky.
Author: R. Verter — NANews
The map that was not believed in Kyiv
On November 10, Volodymyr Zelensky stated in Copenhagen that Russian military and intelligence at the negotiating table claimed to have captured half of the remaining Ukrainian-controlled part of Donbas — an industrial region including Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The Ukrainian delegation objected, presenting video recordings and information about the presence of their units. According to the president, the Americans confirmed that the Ukrainian assessment is closer to the actual situation on the front.
Zelensky linked this discrepancy to Putin’s perceptions, who, according to the Ukrainian president, promises the Americans to occupy eastern Ukraine in one to three months. It is unknown whether the Russian negotiators intentionally exaggerated the results of the offensive or relied on erroneous reports. There is no independent verification of the maps shown by the parties yet. About Moscow’s broader plans, NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency wrote the day before.
Why a NATO general came to the meeting
In the American delegation, along with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, was Alexus Grynkewich — commander of US forces in Europe and simultaneously the supreme commander of NATO’s combined forces in Europe. A representative of the American command confirmed to TVP World: the general is present as a senior military consultant. This does not mean that NATO has officially become a party to the trilateral negotiations.
However, the story with the verification of Russian maps requires precise attribution. Zelensky spoke of confirmation from the Americans, not a personal public statement by Grynkewich; versions that the general was specially brought to expose Moscow are not documented. His participation, however, allows discussing control lines with the involvement of a professional military, not just political intermediaries.
Where the ceasefire line should actually pass
Russia demands from Ukraine the entire Donetsk region, including settlements that Moscow does not control; it also insists on Kyiv’s renunciation of NATO and restrictions on its army. Kyiv rejects these conditions. A general statement is not enough for a ceasefire: it is necessary to fix the coordinates of contact, agree on monitoring, and the procedure for resolving violations. If the Russian map preemptively shades Ukrainian positions, the map will first need to be corrected, and only then the line of troop stoppage signed. American interlocutors of Politico speak of some flexibility on both sides, but there is no report of Ukraine agreeing to cede territories.
The mere arrival of the Russian delegation does not prove the Kremlin’s weakness, nor are talks of Ukraine’s imminent capitulation confirmed by the events. While negotiators met in the UAE, Russia continued strikes on Ukrainian energy, and Ukrainian drones attacked Russian targets, including the Baltic oil port of Ust-Luga. Reuters also reported strikes on Russian oil refineries. The war has not stopped for diplomacy.
Prisoner exchanges and limited truce
The most concrete humanitarian topic is the exchange of ‘1000 for 1000’ or ‘1500 for 1500’, as Zelensky mentioned. Politico clarifies: there is no final agreement; the release of detained civilians and the return of abducted Ukrainian children are also being discussed. American representatives intend to continue consultations with Moscow, but the timing of the exchange is unknown.
Kyiv proposed a separate cessation of strikes on energy facilities and a truce in the Black Sea, on which the safety of navigation and export depend. Moscow has not yet agreed; Sergey Lavrov objects to an immediate halt to the war without resolving further security issues. Zelensky called the conversation substantive, Marco Rubio — productive; the US Secretary of State warned that a quick result should not be expected.
Army, guarantees, and the European security dispute
Politico reports that the US is investigating whether Moscow will agree to guarantees for Ukraine resembling Article 5 of the NATO collective defense treaty, possibly without admitting Kyiv to the alliance. The article itself applies to NATO members; the proposed analogue has not yet been signed. AFP citing a Ukrainian source writes about another condition of Kyiv: international funding of an 800,000-strong army for at least ten years after the war.
Umerov is working with Kyrylo Budanov, Serhiy Kyslytsia, David Arakhamia, and Vadym Skibitsky, with Medinsky — Sergey Ryabkov, Mikhail Galuzin, and Igor Kostyukov. The US conducts a direct trilateral format, Europeans meet separately: Moscow opposes their direct participation. In a joint statement the EU, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Ukraine, the US, and NATO confirmed Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the need for real guarantees.
At the same time, the Kremlin seeks much more than a cessation of hostilities. Moscow wants a revision of the European security order, including NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe, even before the end of the war; Kyiv considers it necessary to first stop the hostilities. Zelensky proposes discussing territorial issues at a meeting of state leaders, but such a summit has not yet been agreed upon.
The Sinai lesson and the role of the Emirates
The UAE, which previously hosted prisoner exchanges, maintains relations with Israel after the Abraham Accords of 2020. The meeting was also attended by the UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed. Israel has a practical example of what a signed map means: the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979. Its military annex divides Sinai into zones A, B, and C, and the adjacent Israeli territory into zone D, with troop and armament restrictions; implementation is monitored by the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO). The control mechanism does not replace a political agreement but makes it verifiable.
Guarantees similar to NATO’s Article 5 answer the question of what will happen in the event of a new attack; demarcation coordinates — where the fire will cease now. In Abu Dhabi, there is no agreement on any of these points yet. Even the discussed prisoner exchange still needs to be formalized.