Who gets a seat when Europe’s security is on the table? After the Abu Dhabi talks of 10–11 November, that has become the central dispute, ahead even of territory and a ceasefire. On Thursday US envoy Steve Witkoff, speaking to CNN at Moscow’s Vnukovo airport after meeting Vladimir Putin, called the Europeans “partners” and said it matters that they take part. He hopes they will join the next round.
Moscow sent a conciliatory signal: according to Ukrainian media reports, Putin said Russia has never opposed dialogue with Europe. Yet in Abu Dhabi the Europeans were kept out of the negotiating room and met the Ukrainian and US delegations separately. Al-Monitor reports that Sergei Lavrov argued a broad European security framework should be defined first and the conflict with Ukraine addressed afterwards, and he rejected a truce.
What “security architecture” would mean is described by the dts news agency, citing informed circles: troop and weapons deployments, military bases, the roles of NATO and the EU, limits on certain weapons systems. The US side is reportedly open to it. EU circles, by contrast, want such agreements only after peace in Ukraine, and it is unclear who would speak for the Europeans at all.
Zelensky’s reaction
Volodymyr Zelensky, at the ninth European Political Community summit in Dublin, called the approach “somewhat strange”. “When Americans and Russians talk about security, they are not only referring to security guarantees for Ukraine,” he said, according to Kyiv Post. Europe spent three decades after the Soviet collapse seeking warm relations with Moscow, he argued; the root of the wars is Putin’s attitude to his neighbours, not a European-Russian rivalry. Ursula von der Leyen has said wider security talks should follow a ceasefire, and France argues that lasting peace is impossible without addressing European security. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, meanwhile, accused Europeans of escalation for signalling readiness to send troops.
Three possible paths
Our assessment: Moscow is trying to turn its war on Ukraine into a negotiation over the European order, a topic on which Russia sits with the US as an equal and Europeans are to join later. How it ends is open, but three paths look plausible.
First, Europeans join the table, but only after a ceasefire. That is the line of Brussels and Kyiv and the most orderly route, yet it needs a concession from Moscow that has so far not come. Second, Washington and Moscow settle framework questions in advance, Europe is briefed and later left to endorse or block the result, which would be the most uncomfortable outcome for the EU. Third, the talks stall; Moscow has so far dropped neither its refusal of a truce nor its territorial demands. A meeting between Donald Trump and Putin at next week’s APEC summit in Shenzhen is not ruled out, dts reports, and could set the direction.
What it means for Ukrainians in Germany
For Ukrainians in Germany this is not distant politics: how solid any security guarantees prove will help determine how predictable a return home can be. Chancellor Friedrich Merz said before the talks that he had no “overly high expectations”. Given the first signals from Moscow and Dublin, little suggests that will change quickly.
Sources: President of Ukraine, Al-Monitor, dts / ad-hoc-news, Kyiv Post, Ukrinform
