First Round in Abu Dhabi Comes to an End; Dealing with Russians is ‘Difficult’

The first round of the renewed trilateral negotiations to end Russia’s war against Ukraine came and went with no tangible results.

It was a classic “feeling out” round.

The two-day session focused primarily on security guarantees, humanitarian issues, and framework conditions for stopping the conflict. Ukraine sought immediate steps toward a formal ceasefire and reliable security guarantees to prevent future aggression, while Russia focused on geopolitical stance and NATO considerations.

Ukraine’s team was led by Rustem Umerov, head of Foreign Intelligence, along with Kyrylo Budanov and Davyd Arakhamia.

US representatives mediated the discussion, alongside consultations involving European and NATO partners (UK, France, Germany, Italy, and the European Commission).

The initial sessions lasted around four hours. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio characterized the discussions as “very productive,” while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy noted that Ukraine participated from a strengthened position.

However, no concrete peace treaty or immediate cease-fire agreement was finalized.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy justified his comment that Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table has been “strengthened” through two primary factors:

Battlefield Gains & Strategic Military Impact: In his address, Zelenskyy explicitly cited reports from Ukraine’s military command pointing to heavy recent Russian battlefield losses and the tangible effects of Ukraine's long-range strikes on high-value targets inside Russia, such as oil facilities and critical logistics. He emphasized that ongoing Ukrainian military pressure directly strengthens the country's posture during diplomatic exchanges.

Substantive Agenda & Defense Needs: Zelenskyy highlighted that Ukraine entered the discussions backed by concrete, well-defined priorities—specifically establishing effective long-term security guarantees, organizing prisoner releases, and securing mechanisms to prevent any future recurrence of Russian aggression.

While characterizing the discussions as “constructive and quite substantive,” Zelenskyy also noted the diplomatic reality of the encounters, bluntly observing to reporters that dealing with the Russian delegation remains difficult.

The talks, which will resume tomorrow, served as a critical diplomatic probe to gauge parameters for future high-level negotiations, while military operations and aerial engagements on the front lines and in Ukrainian cities and towns, continued unabated. 

Ukraine’s UN Ambassador Declares: ‘Until Hell Freezes’

You may be wondering how long will Ukrainians’ willpower endure in the face of Russian cutthroats bombings and the arrival of the seasonal frigid temperatures.

Russian fuhrer Vladimir Putin and his gang of killers goad President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into surrendering to save the people. The people themselves are demonstrating a monumental amount of resilience and commitment to see the war to its successful end.

Nonetheless, Ambassador Andrii Melnyk, Ukraine’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, offered his typical pithy response. The Ambassador is known in the hallowed halls of the UN for his unfiltered defiance, when addressing Russian diplomats.

Andrii Melnyk has built a distinct reputation on the international diplomatic stage for his unapologetic, confrontational, humorous style.

Where standard international relations favor measured reserve and diplomatic double-talk, Melnyk operates with unapologetic candor—using razor-sharp wit and tactical bluntness as intentional geopolitical tools rather than slips of the tongue. 

In his latest caustic repartee to the Russians in the audience, Ambassador Melnyk assured them of Ukrainians’ determination by asserting:

"The problem is that Putin still clings to the delusion that he can break Ukraine's will and force us to surrender. Let me repeat our message in this Chamber in Russian: «Не дождетесь! Не видать вам этого как своих ушей». 'You can wait until hell freezes over'." 

Ukraine Will Be Smaller When Peace Comes, Trump Says

After contributing to the historic defeat of his Republican Party in last week’s midterm elections, President Donald J. Trump is continuing to overturn the apple cart with his detrimental and immoral suggestions that would force Ukraine, the victim, to surrender its land to Russia, the aggressor, for the sake of unsecured peace with Moscow.

Trump’s comment reinforces his ongoing stubborn pro-Russian point of view that the Kremlin is justified in making such demands because, as its fuhrer Vladimir Putin said many times, Russian soldiers died fighting for that land, and Ukraine must accommodate Moscow’s insistence.

In an interview with 60 Minutes on November 9, Trump detailed his expectations for peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, discussed Starlink slowdowns, and defended his policies regarding the war.

"I think we're going to have it done and I think it’s going to happen, and they're going to end up with a little bit different shape [for] Ukraine," Trump told 60 Minutes correspondent Ross Douthat about his expectations for how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will end.

Speaking about the upcoming trilateral peace negotiations between the US, Ukraine and Russia to be held in Abu Dhabi on November 10-11, Trump said he believes “that we’re very close to making a deal.”

“There's a very important meeting taking place,” Trump said. “I believe that that war is going to end and it's going to end soon. And the only reason it’s going to end is because of me."

When asked about what he viewed as the biggest obstacle to peace in Ukraine, Trump pointed to the relationship between President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian Vladimir Putin.

"It was the hatred between Zelenskyy and Putin," Trump said, repeating his asinine remark about the antagonistic relationship between Russia and Ukraine. When Douthat pointed out that Zelensky’s feelings towards Putin were "understandable" given that Russia invaded Ukraine, Trump demurred.

“When [Putin and Zelenskyy] had their first meeting, there was great disrespect shown to Russia,” Trump said. "So I'm not going to say anything.”

The American President apparently is ignorant of this one little fact: while Ukraine has never invaded Russia or another foreign lands, Russia has regularly invaded and subjugated Ukraine, violated the nation’s human rights, destroyed its culture, while starving, killing or imprisoning as many Ukrainians as it could. Today, Trump or anyone else cannot expect Ukraine to surrender even an iota of its hard fought freedom and independence.

Realistically, there is nothing new in Trump’s comments. He has previously touted that peace between Ukraine and Russia is just around the corner, but it wasn’t. Every attempt to end the war has been shattered by Russia’s ongoing bloody strikes against not merely Ukrainian military positions but most dramatically against civilian targets such as homes, supermarkets, schools, churches and energy facilities. This evidence has largely been discounted by Trump.

Not surprisingly, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, commenting on Trump’s assertion that Ukraine will take on a “little bit different shape” after the war ends, has said that “from a geographical point of view, it is already a different country,” clearly referring to territories occupied during Russian aggression. When asked what Trump might have meant, Peskov replied: “As far as the territory of Ukraine is concerned, from a geographical point of view, it is already a different country. The realities on the ground are obvious, and hardly anyone can deny them.”

If Trump’s hopes and scenario play out, it would be immoral, unjustified and a violation of international norms that have come into existence since at least the end of World War II. Accepting that one sovereign country cannot demand of another sovereign country parts of its territory, the prohibition against acquiring territory through force or aggression is not just a casual recommendation; it is one of the most foundational rules of modern international law. Kyiv does not endorse any agreement with Russia to end its war against Ukraine that foresees the surrender of Ukrainian sovereign land to the aggressor and invader Russia. If forced, Ukraine would be an unwilling partner of this devil’s arrangement. The United Nations Charter, the Geneva Convention, the Rome Convention of the International Criminal Court, the Helsinki Final Act, among other treaties prohibit such actions.

UN Charter, Article 2(4) explicitly states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…” This forms the cornerstone of modern anti-annexation law.

UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (1970 - Friendly Relations Declaration): Clarifies Article 2(4) by declaring: “The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.”

Helsinki Final Act (1975 / CSCE/OSCE) Principle III (Inviolability of frontiers): Participating states agree to regard each other's frontiers—and the frontiers of all states in Europe—as inviolable, committing to refrain from assaulting or seizing foreign territory. Principle IV (Territorial integrity of states): States explicitly pledge to respect the territorial integrity of each participating state and refrain from making each other's territory the object of military occupation or direct/indirect acquisition.

Budapest Memorandum (1994), Point 1 & 2: Signatories (the US, UK, and the Russian Federation) reaffirmed their commitment to Ukraine "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine," and pledged that "none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."

North Atlantic Treaty (1949 - NATO) Preamble & Article 1: Formally binds all alliance members to settle international disputes by peaceful means and refrain from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

It has come to be accepted by countries, member-states of many accords that beyond the prohibition of force, customary international law imposes a duty of non-recognition on third-party states. First established diplomatically in 1932 (in response to Japan’s invasion of Manchuria) and formally codified by the UN International Law Commission (Articles on State Responsibility, Article 41), states are legally required not to recognize as lawful any territorial gain or border alteration brought about by aggression or the illegal use of force.

Demanding land concessions from a state that gave up its nuclear weapons under explicit international security guarantees (the 1994 Budapest Memorandum) punishes the law-abiding state while satisfying the territorial ambitions of the invading state. The argument that imposing or conditioning a settlement on Ukraine surrendering land amounts to a coerced, de facto redrawing of the international order rests on distinct legal and political pillars, among them:

Rewarding Armed Aggression.The Principle: Under the legal maxim ex injuria jus non oritur ("unlawful acts cannot create law"), a state cannot gain legal rights or territory through an illegal act.

The Argument: Russia's invasion of Ukraine violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. If a third party—even a superpower acting as a mediator—pressures Ukraine to cede sovereign territory to end the invasion, it validates the use of illegal force as a tool for gaining land. Critics argue this transforms the prohibition against conquest into a mere negotiating position, establishing a dangerous precedent that borders can be rewritten if an aggressor is willing to use sufficient violence.

Invalid Coercion Under the Law of Treaties. The Principle: Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) explicitly states that any treaty or agreement whose procurement has been brought about by the threat or use of force in violation of the UN Charter is null and void.

The Argument: If Ukraine is coerced into signing away land under the threat of having military assistance, economic aid, or diplomatic support withdrawn by key allies—while facing ongoing military bombardment—that consent is legally tainted. Critics argue that a "peace deal" signed under total asymmetric duress is not a free exercise of state sovereignty, but a forced capitulation masked as a treaty.

Rather than holding Russia accountable for violating those guarantees, proposing that Ukraine accept diminished borders reverses the core guarantee. Critics contend that a legal guarantor endorsing the loss of the protected state’s land compromises the credibility of security assurances worldwide and opens the door to future aggrandizement of sovereign territory by any national stakeholder. In other words, it would undermine global stability and security.

In Trump’s mind, none of this matters. He is prepared to knock over the proverbial apple cart of diplomacy and warfare for the sake of his glory, his warped beliefs, and future recognition. 

Will Next Round of Trilateral Talks Bring Peace? Moscow Ensures There’ll be only More Meetings but No Peace

The world is looking at the upcoming three-way negotiations to end Russia’s war against Ukraine with bated breath. After 1,718 days of the latest iteration of Moscow’s aggression against Ukraine the free world is rightly tired but naively hopeful. Moscow doesn’t want to end the war, it wants to re-subjugate Ukraine and rebuild its empire.

Nonetheless, the United States, Ukraine and Russia will attend Moscow’s meaningless diplomatic ouroboros of bad faith—recycling the exact same maximalist demands, dragging out the negotiations to buy time, and then pointing to the lack of progress as a pretext to launch another round of attacks.

US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are representing the American mediation team, even though in the wake of the midterm elections last week some have called for their resignation. The Ukrainian delegation is led by Rustem Umerov alongside intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov, while Russian diplomatic and military envoys are representing Moscow.  

The talks again will center on parameters for a potential settlement—including territorial security questions, post-war security guarantees, and mechanisms for ending active hostilities. Russia’s demands have been clear since before this war began — return Ukraine to Moscow’s concentration camp.

Ukraine’s position has also been declared: Kyiv will continue to decide its fate, Kyiv will not surrender an inch of Ukrainian territory, Ukraine will decide whether or not it will accede to NATO. The final point is also of paramount importance for Ukraine: security guarantees. Knowing Russia’s never ending desire to subjugate Ukraine, third party security guarantees are essential bulwark against future Russian invasions.

Following preliminary US-European consultations in Brussels, European nations pressed Washington to ensure European security concerns are integrated into any broader peace framework.

French diplomatic statements confirmed that European representatives will participate alongside or on the sidelines of the Abu Dhabi format to ensure continental security guarantees are upheld.  

Moscow has publicly signaled caution regarding initial US ceasefire proposals, stating through Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov that Russia cannot accept the proposed models “as is.”

American mediators continue attempting to bridge the distance on post-war security guarantees and regional control before the end of the year.

Moscow is largely sticking to its core maximalist posture, though the specific structural dynamics of the mediation framework have shifted.

Rather than offering genuine concessions, the Russian side is recycling foundational demands while attempting to maneuver around the new US proposal.

Washington is under immense pressure to force a rapid breakthrough, driven by an egotistical desire to resolve the conflict before key domestic and international deadlines.

The "scare" is not physical, but strategic and political. American mediators are operating with extreme urgency, aiming to bridge the immense gap between the two sides and secure a deal, potentially by the end of the year. This rush is fueled by political timelines and the immense cost of ongoing support.

In their eagerness for a resolution, American mediators are proposing frameworks that Ukrainian and European allies fear are premature or under-guaranteed. The US "scare" is that if they fail to force a deal now, the entire situation could collapse, creating a wider security crisis that will be even harder to manage. It will also undermine President Trump’s promise to bring an end to the war regardless of the conclusion.

This powerful visual and metaphorical assessment cuts through the diplomatic phrasing to show the true stakes: a Russia that views "negotiation" as a tool for conquest, a Ukraine that correctly identifies this trap, and an America whose rush for a resolution risks validating the predator's strategy.

Moscow's intention is to create facts on the ground while simultaneously standardizing its maximalist demands as the starting point for talks.

Russia pair's its core territorial demands—for the full Donbas, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions—with constant escalations of aerial bombardments of civilian homes. This also includes continuous strikes on energy infrastructure and military advancements, designed to physically weaken Ukraine and reduce its future leverage.

By insisting on the exact same terms—including Ukrainian "neutrality" and "demilitarization"—Moscow is not looking for a genuine compromise, but rather a surrender that validates its territorial captures and allows it to reload for the future. This endless cycle, where negotiation is merely a tactical pause to gather strength for the next attack, is the essence of the ouroboros metaphor.

The Ukrainian delegation is approaching the talks with profound skepticism, refusing to accept any framework that compromises its long-term security.

A primary concern is that a ceasefire without immediate, binding security guarantees—especially in a transitional security environment—would simply hand Russia a strategic victory. Kyiv fears any pause will be used by Moscow to rebuild its depleted forces, creating an even more dangerous invasion later.

The Ukrainian position is to ensure that any "freeze" in hostilities does not create a permanent security vacuum, which is why they are pressing hard for substantial, specific commitments from Western allies. They are guardedly watching to see if any real guarantees materialize from the US or European proposals.

In the meantime, Russia continues bombing, killing and destroying.

Russian cutthroats conducted a wave of drone and missile strikes on November 8, targeting critical infrastructure and civilian areas across multiple regions of Ukraine.  

Overnight strikes hit the Dnipropetrovsk, Odesa, Zaporizhzhia, and Sumy regions.

A barrage of long-range drones and missiles targeted power grid facilities in Dnipropetrovsk, leaving over 600,000 residents temporarily without electricity as the frigid temperatures settle in.

Heavy strikes near Enerhodar caused a power loss to external safety and cooling systems at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, forcing it to rely on backup power. 

At least 7 civilian fatalities and several dozen injuries were confirmed nationwide.  

Shelling targeted port and logistics infrastructure, destroying a large food warehouse in Odesa and killing at least 1 person.  

Dnipropetrovsk & Zaporizhzhia: Strikes inflicted heavy damage on transmission lines, substations, and residential structures. Local rescue operations remain underway to clear rubble from hit civilian sites.  

It seems as if Ukraine knows its mission, Russia is fighting for its form of peace without honor for Ukraine while Washington is muddling on with no intention of standing with Ukraine.

Russia Continues to Target Ukraine’s Energy Plants as Frigid Temps Arrive

Russian cutthroats launched on November 7 a widespread barrage of 36 ballistic missiles and 172 drones across Kyiv and 12 other regions in Ukraine, wounding at least nine people (including a child).  

With frigid temperatures already crossing into Ukraine necessitating home warmth, the intensified attacks on large and small boilers are meant to subdue the Ukrainian nation ahead of so-called peace talks next week.

The strikes damaged residential apartment buildings, a kindergarten, and key energy and municipal infrastructure in Kyiv—including targeted hits on the impressive Northern Bridge and local power grid elements.  

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy noted that the escalation coincided directly with preparations for upcoming trilateral talks involving Ukraine, Russia, and the United States, scheduled to take place in Abu Dhabi (UAE).  

Zelenskyy criticized the timing of the barrage, accusing Moscow of using military force to shape its posture ahead of the US-brokered negotiations aimed at addressing unresolved territorial and security issues.  

During a widespread aerial barrage, Russian forces caused significant damage to residential areas, a kindergarten, and critical power and municipal infrastructure such as Kyiv's Northern Bridge. The escalation coincided directly with preparations for upcoming trilateral peace negotiations between Ukraine, Russia, and the United States scheduled in Abu Dhabi, UAE, drawing strong criticism from Zelenskyy, who accused Moscow of using military pressure to influence the diplomatic talks.

Russia has launched a massive, concentrated wave of drone and ballistic missile attacks targeting Ukraine's critical energy infrastructure. Overnight into Saturday, November 7, the bombardment severely battered the country's electricity transmission networks, triggering widespread emergency blackouts, heating, and water supply disruptions just as winter temperatures dip toward freezing. 

Regions Plunged into Darkness: A "massive attack on a number of energy facilities" knocked out electricity transmission lines across five major regions: Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Dnipropetrovsk. 

Nuclear Network Damaged: Ukraine's Energy Ministry confirmed the strikes directly damaged the high-voltage transmission networks that carry electricity from the Rivne and Khmelnytskyi nuclear power plants into Kyiv and the central regions. 

Naftogaz Targeted: In central Ukraine, Russian forces carried out three consecutive strikes on an oil and gas facility belonging to the state energy giant Naftogaz, igniting a major industrial fire. 

Kyiv Rendered Vulnerable: Mayor Vitali Klitschko described the capital's energy supply as “extremely difficult.”The strikes damaged residential zones, a kindergarten, and the vital North Bridge over the Dnipro River, leaving sections of the city of millions without stable power, heating, or water. 

The intensity of the strikes follows a series of multi-day air campaigns designed to paralyze Ukraine's thermal and transmission capacities. Observers and Ukrainian officials state that Russia is weaponizing the winter cold and deliberately violating previous local truce efforts to force concessions before negotiators sit down with US envoys next week. 

In response, Ukraine has executed long-range retaliatory drone strikes hitting military-industrial enterprises and oil infrastructure inside Russian territory, including the Proton-Electrotex plant in Oryol and the Saratov Oil Refinery. 

As for weaponizing the climate, Russia is skilled at committing that inhuman crime. In 1931-32, Moscow used food, or rather the absence of it, to starve to death at least 7 million Ukrainian men, women and children.

US General Believes Trump has been Bought by Moscow

While it’s been discussed for years in Eastern Europe, at least since the 1980s, the topic has not been broached by American mainstream media, pundits and experts. Is President Donald J. Trump an asset of Russia? His moniker is “Krasnoy” — red, red head, copper head, etc.

Many Americans have not heard of this until now.

Former US Army Europe commander claims Putin is pressuring Trump.  “I think he’s been bought,” retired US General Ben Hodges said on the German political talk show Maybrit Illner.

“I can’t prove it, but it’s absolutely clear that President Trump is under some kind of pressure from Vladimir Putin. I think he’s been bought,” Hodges said.

Hodges observed Trump now has two options: admit that he is beholden to Putin or try to escape accountability by counting on protection from his successor.

“We’ve never had a perfect president. But having a president who is not only corrupt himself, but also allows others to be corrupt, is an incredible disgrace,” Hodges concluded.

Trump Brags about Nonexistent Deal to End Russian War against Ukraine 

President Donald J. Trump claimed earlier this month that an agreement to end the war in Ukraine was close and could expand into a “big, beautiful agreement” encompassing “all of Europe.”

However, Trump is continuing to brag about lies and falsehoods.  Key international stakeholders—including Ukrainian leadership and European allies—do not appear to be part of any agreed-upon framework, and reaction from officials shows skepticism rather than alignment.  

Following a White House meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s special envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that negotiations were progressing rapidly:

“It’s going to be an agreement. It’s going to be a big agreement, and it’s going to involve more than Ukraine... I could even say it might involve all of Europe. It’s going to be a big, beautiful agreement, and everyone’s going to be thrilled."

Despite these sweeping declarations, Trump, as always, offered no specifics regarding the terms, timelines, enforcement mechanisms, or underlying concessions.  

Do Others Know About or Agree to This?

Ukraine — No Direct Meeting: While Ukrainian representatives were present at the White House for a separate event organized by First Lady Melania Trump regarding a localized humanitarian truce in Oleshky, Trump confirmed he did not meet with the Ukrainian delegation prior to making his comments.  

Lack of Endorsement: Ukrainian leadership, including President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has repeatedly emphasized that any lasting deal must respect Ukrainian sovereignty and borders. Ukrainian officials have consistently expressed concern over unilateral U.S.–Russia talks taking place without Kyiv’s full involvement or consent. As Ukraine’s leaders have stipulated: “Nothing about Ukraine, without Ukraine.”

European Allies and NATO Blindsided by Declarations: European governments have consistently reacted with caution and dismay to unilateral announcements regarding broader European security arrangements. Leaders across Europe have emphasized that security decisions governing the continent cannot be negotiated over the heads of European nations or outside established NATO frameworks.  European leaders have closed ranks to reiterate their independent military and financial commitments to Kyiv, expressing skepticism over whether Moscow has fundamentally altered its strategic goals.

Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev noted that Putin appreciated US negotiation efforts, particularly surrounding humanitarian truces and prisoner exchanges. However, the Kremlin has maintained its core geopolitical objectives, giving no public indication of accepting a comprehensive deal that compromises its stated interests. Russia’s demands would turn independent Ukraine into an enslaved Russian colony.

Trump’s assertion reflects his unilateral vision for a high-level diplomatic resolution in his mind only, but there is no public evidence that Ukraine or European nations have negotiated, seen, or agreed to any such comprehensive deal.