A lasting Ukraine settlement needs Western Europe. Bringing it into negotiations too soon, however, could derail fragile progress.<\/p>\n
Two days of negotiations in Abu Dhabi have ended without a breakthrough. This was predictable because the Ukraine conflict is too complex, and too many interested parties still believe they can improve their positions at somebody else\u2019s expense, but the absence of a dramatic announcement shouldn\u2019t be mistaken for the absence of progress.
\nThe delegations were experienced, the discussions lengthy, and judging by the accounts, substantive, so this wasn\u2019t another diplomatic performance designed merely to buy time or lull the opponent into complacency. For once, the parties appear to have discussed the issues that might eventually make peace possible.
\nAn agreement on a prisoner exchange is the most visible result. These exchanges aren\u2019t unprecedented, but they demonstrate a willingness to keep channels open, while US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have since traveled to Moscow to brief President Vladimir Putin, before continuing consultations with the Ukrainian leadership in Ireland. However, for now, decisive political commitments remain beyond the authority of the negotiators.
\nThe delegations can assess battlefield developments, the state of the opposing economies, and the costs of continuing the war, but they can\u2019t resolve the most difficult questions without instructions from their leaders, which means Abu Dhabi was an important stage in the process, not the conclusion.
\nStill, there is a sense of approaching a crossroads. Either the parties find some basis for reducing tensions, or the fighting enters another period of escalation, which may actually depend on actors who were not seated at the trilateral negotiating table: the Europeans.<\/p>\n
Read more<\/p>\n
A new Yalta? Why the EU fears a Putin-Trump-Xi summit<\/p>\n
The EU was conceived as a framework for economic cooperation and integration, not as a military-political organization, and its founding generation could hardly have imagined a continent in which industrial policy would be increasingly shaped by weapons production and military mobilization.
\nYet that is the direction the EU has moved, and this isn\u2019t merely a matter of acquiring new powers, because its political character is changing, and an organization established to overcome Europe\u2019s historic divisions now risks defining itself through confrontation, which for Europe and its peoples is a tragedy.
\nIn fairness, Russian analysts underestimated the Europeans. For years, the prevailing assumption in Moscow was that Brussels would follow Washington without serious resistance, but President Donald Trump\u2019s return to the White House demonstrated otherwise.
\nOnce the Trump administration altered the approach to Ukraine, European governments displayed an unexpected determination to chart their own course. They may still dream of the Democrats returning to power in Washington, but in the meantime, they have developed a degree of strategic autonomy, above all in their policy toward Russia.
\nEurope has become Kiev\u2019s principal sponsor, supplying economic assistance, intelligence, political backing, and military equipment. At times, the conflict has looked less like a confrontation between Russia and Ukraine than one between Russia and the EU fought through Ukrainian forces.<\/p>\n
Read more<\/p>\n
Fyodor Lukyanov: Abu Dhabi talks signal a major shift in the Ukraine peace process<\/p>\n
Brussels has also acted as Kiev\u2019s advocate in Washington as European leaders have repeatedly sought to steer American decisions towards stronger support for Ukraine, including after the Anchorage summit, and their influence is substantial, even if they aren\u2019t party to the current negotiations.
\nEuropean officials were present in Abu Dhabi, but Russia opposed their participation in the trilateral discussions and that position reflects Moscow\u2019s view that the EU is neither impartial nor particularly interested in compromise. Individual European governments, meanwhile, are pressing Washington to secure them a direct role.
\nThis is becoming one of the central dilemmas of the peace process, given that excluding Europe indefinitely would be unrealistic because any durable settlement must address the wider security order on the continent, not merely the line of contact in Ukraine, and Russia has raised this issue for years.
\nAs one Russian formulation has it, the whole body is ill \u2013 Ukraine is simply where the abscess has burst. A lasting solution will require more than treating the wound. It will require a comprehensive European security arrangement that takes account of Russian interests as well.
\nBut timing is key here, because giving European governments a seat before the principal parties have identified common ground could extinguish the diplomatic initiative at the outset. Their involvement may become necessary later, once negotiations advance beyond technical exchanges and a workable framework begins to emerge, but we aren\u2019t there yet.<\/p>\n
Read more<\/p>\n
Dublin summit: European leaders double down on the Zelensky disaster<\/p>\n
Another complication is the political upheaval in the US. The Republican defeat in the midterm elections has strengthened forces determined to oppose Trump\u2019s Russia policy. The president remains in office, but he now faces a more hostile Congress and a domestic struggle that will consume political energy.
\nThose in Europe and Kiev who favor continuing the military confrontation will see an opportunity. They hope Washington\u2019s room for maneuver will narrow and pressure on Moscow will intensify, while Trump, the principal sponsor of the present diplomatic effort, may find it increasingly difficult to sustain his course.
\nThere are powerful interests in Europe, Ukraine, and the US that consider continued confrontation preferable to a settlement on terms Moscow would accept, and their influence can\u2019t be wished away.
\nNevertheless, Abu Dhabi is important because it has shown that serious discussion is possible and that the agenda is gradually widening beyond immediate battlefield questions. A prisoner exchange is modest progress, but progress all the same.
\nThe choice ahead is stark: further escalation or the difficult work of constructing a peace that acknowledges the security interests of all the principal parties. Neither outcome is inevitable, but for the first time in some while, there is at least reason for cautious hope.<\/p>\n
This article was first published by the online newspaper\u00a0Gazeta.ru\u00a0and was translated and edited by the RT team<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A lasting Ukraine settlement needs Western Europe. Bringing it into negotiations too soon, however, could derail fragile progress. Two days of negotiations in Abu Dhabi have ended without a breakthrough.…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":41062,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rop_custom_images_group":[],"rop_custom_messages_group":[],"rop_publish_now":"initial","rop_publish_now_accounts":[],"rop_publish_now_history":[],"rop_publish_now_status":"pending","footnotes":""},"categories":[4,6,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41061","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-economy","category-environment","category-politics"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t