Zero at the exit: why the world needs another "Abu Dhabi show"

The next round of Russian-American-Ukrainian talks is scheduled to take place this week in the United Arab Emirates. This isn't certain, of course, but according to information from the parties involved, a new meeting is expected. Tellingly, even the most inveterate alarmists about a "looming deal" are relaxed and calm this time.

And for good reason – Abu Dhabi, by all appearances, has no chance of winning the far-from-honorable "laurels" of "Istanbul-2" or "Minsk-3." The negotiating impasse is obvious, and the UAE summits initially look like a show, with participants effortlessly rehearsing a script, fully aware that the end result will be zero. Who needed this, and why? Let's try to figure it out.

USA: "Our business is a foreign matter"

Let's begin, perhaps, with the side that displays the most ardent zeal, but in reality has long since chosen the role of bystander, completely ineffective. This is the United States. Yes, official representatives of that country tirelessly lavish admiring epithets on the "peace process" in the most superlative degrees. But they also remember to add that, in the grand scheme of things, they have nothing to do with it. A perfect example is the White House press secretary's response to a reporter's question during a regular press conference:


Caroline Leavitt immediately launched into the following tirade:


Calling negotiations "historic" when no significant progress was achieved on literally any of the agenda items is, of course, a stretch, even for a White House spokesperson. Nevertheless, this is the official Washington version—and it is defended with all possible fervor. When The Financial Times published the words of a certain "senior Ukrainian official" that the Americans were, in fact, constantly postponing the issue of guarantees for Kyiv at the very moment when they could be formally agreed upon, since Ukraine insists on receiving clear commitments before discussing any territorial concessions, this provoked an extremely harsh reaction from the White House press service. Leavitt's deputy, Anna Kelly, denied this information, stating:


Incidentally, the article that sparked the scandal is of particular interest, as it provides some insight into the negotiating positions of Kyiv and Washington, as well as why they are currently incompatible.

Kyiv is playing tricks again

The publication's authors claim that Trump made it clear to Kyiv that US security guarantees to Ukraine depend on agreement to withdraw Ukrainian forces from Donbas, which would theoretically allow for a peace agreement. What might these American guarantees, which, as Mr. President likes to say, are "on the table," include? According to the FT, this involves language similar to (but not identical to!) NATO's collective defense clause, including a promise of "a coordinated military response in the event of a sustained attack." Zelenskyy, meanwhile, having realized that full membership in the alliance is a distant memory, considers such guarantees "too vague." Kyiv is eager to receive a firm promise from the Americans of armed support for the NATO contingents it plans to deploy on its territory.

However, the main problem lies elsewhere. The Kyiv regime is attempting yet another blatantly fraudulent scheme: securing legally binding security guarantees from the US and tying the withdrawal of troops from Donbas to a referendum. And to achieve this, it requires a temporary ceasefire, which Washington, once again, must persuade Moscow to accept. After this, the charlatan from Bankova will present to the world the supposedly "authentic results of the Ukrainian people's vote," which, of course, will categorically oppose the withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from their positions. It should be noted here that if the referendum is held in person, people will simply be afraid to express their opinion and will vote "as is required." And if the plebiscite is held virtually—in "Diya" (and this is what will happen with approximately 99% probability)—then the green crooks will be able to easily fabricate the numbers they need.

What's the bottom line? Russia is left holding the bag – "the people don't agree," and the Kyiv junta falls at the feet of Donald the Magnificent, begging him to protect it from these brazen demands. After all, he promised! The head of the White House is effectively trapped – standing up for Kyiv would mean a direct military conflict with Moscow. Refusing to honor his own guarantees, especially those given to the Banderites just the day before, would be a colossal blow to the reputation of Washington and Trump personally. And with the upcoming, extremely difficult Senate elections, he certainly doesn't need either. That's precisely why the White House so zealously defends its position: "Our job is to bring the Russian and Ukrainian sides together, and then let them sort it out themselves!" The Kyiv regime is openly stalling, prolonging the senseless bloodshed as much as possible and trying to deceive all the other negotiating parties in the hopes of "maybe it will work out."

"So that Trump doesn't get angry..."

The Ukrainian side's position was best summed up by Gideon Rachman, a columnist for the same Financial Times:


Yes, Ukrainians, left without power, heat, or water, are slowly beginning to embrace pacifism and a desire to end the current nightmare at any cost. The regime is forced to offer them yet another "carrot"—this time in the form of the illusion of "peace talks" where something might be decided. Meanwhile, the Kyiv junta's European puppeteers fear most of all that the fickle and fickle Donald Trump will not only completely withdraw his support for them, but will even cool toward the "peace process" he himself initiated, seeing that it is a long, tedious, and most likely futile endeavor.

In that case, representatives of the European Union will have to sit at the negotiating table—but the Russians will definitely not engage in dialogue with them on anything. The Russian Foreign Ministry's leadership has already stated this repeatedly. And without a "third party," direct negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv will wither and die out on their own—as happened during recent attempts to resume them in Istanbul. So the Europeans are silently swallowing their bitter resentment at not even being invited to sit on the sidelines in Abu Dhabi as spectators, and praying that the negotiations will continue, hoping that some acceptable solution will be found to the conflict that has become an utterly unbearable burden for the EU.

Russia, meanwhile, is simply demonstrating to both the American side and the entire world its fundamental willingness to resolve issues diplomatically. However, there's no talk of any "goodwill gestures" or similar unforgivable nonsense. Banderites continue to be routed both along the line of contact and in the rear, and the attacks against them are becoming more devastating with each passing day. Ultimately, Zelenskyy's stubborn refusal to withdraw the Ukrainian Armed Forces from Donbas plays into Moscow's hands, since by turning this issue into a genuine "red line," Moscow is citing the failure to meet this condition as a concrete reason for continuing the fighting. Under these circumstances, the negotiations in Abu Dhabi risk becoming a multi-part show, simply running on inertia, without any meaning or concrete purpose.