The second round of trilateral negotiations in Abu Dhabi has ended with a major prisoner swap, but failed to resolve the core territorial disputes
High-level delegations from Russia, Ukraine, and the United States concluded a second round of peace talks in Abu Dhabi. While the meetings failed to produce a ceasefire or a roadmap to end the war, they resulted in the most significant humanitarian outcome in months: a reciprocal exchange of 157 prisoners of war from each side. This swap, confirmed by both Kyiv and Moscow, marks the first such agreement since October 2025 and serves as a rare display of diplomatic resilience in a conflict nearing its four-year anniversary.
The negotiations were led by a US mediation team including special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Despite the lack of a “grand bargain,” Witkoff noted that the talks were “detailed and productive,” highlighting that the re-establishment of a high-level military-to-military dialogue channel—suspended since 2021—will provide a consistent point of contact as parties work toward a lasting peace.
Territorial deadlock and maximalist demands
The primary obstacle to a breakthrough remains the “land for peace” dilemma. Moscow continues to push maximalist territorial demands, specifically requiring that Kyiv withdraw its forces from the entire Donetsk region, including heavily fortified cities still under Ukrainian control. President Vladimir Putin has signalled that Russia is prepared to prolong the fighting unless these “draconian” terms, which also include a ban on Western troops and a cap on Ukraine’s military, are met.
Ukraine, led by chief negotiator Rustem Umerov, has flatly rejected these conditions. Kyiv’s counter-proposal centres on freezing the conflict along the current front lines while maintaining its claim to sovereignty over all occupied regions. President Volodymyr Zelensky remained cautious following the talks, stating that while Ukraine remains “as constructive as possible,” the process is “certainly not easy” as long as Russia continues its campaign against civilian infrastructure.
The energy truce and battlefield reality
The talks took place against a backdrop of contradictory signals on the ground. Earlier in the week, a brief “energy truce” was shattered when Russia launched a massive strike involving over 450 drones and 60 missiles, leaving thousands in Kyiv without heating during sub-zero temperatures. This “thundering” escalation was described by Ukrainian officials as evidence that Moscow is using the negotiating table as a tactical pause rather than a sincere path to de-escalation.
Also Read: India’s Budget 2026-27: A Defensive Pivot in an Era of Managed Disorder
Despite these strikes, the inclusion of senior military and intelligence officials such as Ukraine’s Kyrylo Budanov and Russia’s Igor Kostyukov suggests a shift toward more serious technical engagement. The US has sought to maintain pressure, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasising that any progress will not be made public until a genuine breakthrough is achieved. For now, the diplomatic resilience of the Abu Dhabi format is being tested by the mounting human toll, with Zelensky recently disclosing that at least 55,000 Ukrainian troops have been killed since the 2022 invasion.
The expiration of New START
Adding a layer of global urgency to the Abu Dhabi discussions is the expiration of the New START treaty on 5 February 2026. As the last remaining nuclear arms pact between the US and Russia nears its end, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stated that Moscow is “prepared for a new reality” with no arms control limits. The intersection of a hot war in Ukraine and the collapse of the global nuclear framework has made the Abu Dhabi talks a critical, albeit fragile, safety valve for international security.
The Hinge Point
The 5 February 2026 conclusion of the Abu Dhabi talks marks the exact moment when the war shifts from a “territorial struggle” to a “diplomatic endurance test.” This is the hinge point because it proves that while the US can bring both sides to the table, it cannot yet bridge the gap between Moscow’s demand for land and Kyiv’s demand for security. The story changes here because the prisoner swap and the restored military hotline represent a shift toward “managing the conflict” rather than “solving it.”
What can no longer remain the same is the hope for a swift, Trump-brokered peace “within 24 hours.” By completing a second round with only humanitarian gains, all parties have signalled that the road to peace will be a “long grind” measured in months or years of diplomatic resilience. This marks the end of the illusion of a quick fix and the beginning of a permanent, UAE-based diplomatic mission that must navigate the most complex geopolitical landscape of the 21st century.