Trilateral Russia-Ukraine-US talks signal shift in war di...

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that the second round of trilateral Russian-Ukrainian-US talks in Abu Dhabi will be held on February 1.

There have been few leaks from the first round, leaving observers to speculate about the subject and significance of this new format.

Nevertheless, it is possible to glean some insight based on what is known and has been reported, helping readers better understand this latest development.

What follows are five key points:

1. Territory is reportedly the last remaining issue

Putin’s top aide, Yuri Ushakov, said on the eve of the first round of talks that “bringing about a lasting settlement would be unlikely without addressing the territorial issue based on the formula as agreed in Anchorage.”

This was followed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that “the one remaining item … is the territorial claim on Donetsk.” Prior reports that Russia is demanding Ukraine’s withdrawal from Donbass might therefore be accurate.

Latest stories

US war with Iran demands strategy, not just strength

GRRM’s gold call: A 2024 forecast that held

Did US ‘give back’ Greenland to Denmark, as Trump claims?

2. A post-conflict NATO deployment is being discussed

Rubio also told the committee that discussions over “security guarantees basically involve the deployment of a handful of European troops, primarily French and the UK, and then a US backstop”, which would require Russia’s consent.

The US is still debating the wisdom of becoming “committed potentially in a conflict, in a future conflict,” however, despite special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner earlier signaling US support for NATO troops in Ukraine. The second round of talks is therefore likely involve this issue as well.

3. A quid pro quo might be in the cards

The Financial Times reported that US security guarantees for Ukraine are dependent on its withdrawal from Donbass, while the New York Times reported that this Kiev-controlled part of the region could become either a demilitarized zone or host neutral peacekeepers.

A quid pro quo may therefore be in the cards, under which Ukraine would withdraw from Donbass in exchange for US security guarantees and a NATO deployment – an arrangement Russia might accept if neutral peacekeepers stand between the sides.

4. Trump has eschewed publicly pressuring Zelensky

However promising such a quid pro quo may appear, at least in terms of achieving a ceasefire at a minimum (provided that Russia reverses its formal opposition), Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky remains defiant about withdrawing from Donbass.

Trump has also avoided publicly pressuring him to do so, including through tangible measures such as suspending arms sales to the EU that are destined for Ukraine, suggesting clear limits on how far the US is willing to go in pursuit of a deal.

5. US diplomatic role is now indispensable

Despite these limits, the US diplomatic role is now indispensable, as evidenced by Russia’s agreement to trilateralize its bilateral talks with Ukraine, representing a significant policy shift.

Russia therefore appears to believe that the US is sincere about negotiating a deal with Ukraine, even if it is unwilling to apply maximum pressure to that end.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

Now that the Russian-Ukrainian talks include the US, they are unlikely to revert to a bilateral format until after the second Trump administration, if the conflict is still raging by then.

———-

Taken together, these five points strongly suggest that Russian President Vladimir Putin may be considering far-reaching compromises on the maximum goals he set at the outset of what Russia calls its special military operation in Ukraine.

It is too early to draw firm conclusions about why that might be the case, but if such an outcome is officially formalized in a legal agreement — whether a ceasefire, armistice or peace treaty — it will surely be scrutinized for what it reveals about Putin’s assessment of how it benefits Russia.

A version of this article was first published on Andrew Korybko’s Substack and is republished here with editing for clarity and fluency. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber here.