Putin Isn’t Changing; Russia Continues Tough Stand

Four years and eight months after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the massacre in Bucha, Russia isn’t showing any indication of changing its position on the war.

Despite President Donald Trump’s regular assurances that the war is coming to an end and a deal to end the fighting is close at hand, in reality, Moscow is continuing its fight to subjugate the country, while Kyiv is forced to defend its nation blow by blow as it has for many years.

None of the rulers of Russia, who regularly appear in the news, have indicated that they are amenable to stopping the war and withdrawing their cutthroats back to Russia. That would be the only, realistic first step toward peace. Rather, they are making new meaningless and impossible demands on Ukraine and the international community just to prolong the war and its killing of civilians.

After the latest round of negotiations in Abu Dhabi, the US envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff flew off to Moscow, where they were met with more bad news. On the other hand, if they have been listening to the Moscow leaders, the Russians merely reinforced what they’ve been recently saying and planning for generations.

Vladimir Putin warned US negotiators that Russia would target any foreign troops deployed to Ukraine that would ensure its security, in a series of hard-line remarks that came as the Ukrainian military faced renewed disruptions to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite service, reported Britain’s The Guardian.

During the talks at the Kremlin with Kushner and Witkoff yesterday, the Russian fuhrer refused to soften his territorial demands, insisting on full control over four Ukrainian regions that Moscow claims to have annexed. Pundits, observers and others believe this is a Russian diabolical ruse to defeat and subjugate all of Ukraine.

He also ruled out accepting the deployment of foreign peacekeeping troops in Ukraine, describing such a move as a “continuation of war.”

Putin’s comments severely dampened hopes that a peace deal could be within reach, after Volodymyr Zelenskyy said there was a “window of opportunity” to reach an agreement before the end of 2026.

The latest trip to Moscow by Witkoff and Kushner, who have made numerous visits to Russia, was partly aimed at securing European participation in future negotiations, according to two people familiar with the talks. The continents participation is obvious because of their close proximity to saber-rattling Russia. New and old NATO members are paying close attention to Moscow and have been building their countries’ defenses.

But Europe is wary of Russian attempts to focus discussions on a European security architecture, while Moscow continues to pound Ukraine with bombs and missiles.

The EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, told reporters: “We already have a European security architecture in place.” Kallas pointed to the Cold War-era Helsinki accords and the Budapest memorandum, which guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine. “The problem is that Russia is not keeping to those agreements, so right now the focus should be that Russia actually keeps to their obligations … and they don’t attack another country again.” Focusing on a European security architecture was a “distraction” without a ceasefire, she added.

Both Washington and Moscow have been urging European leaders to appoint a single representative to lead negotiations on their behalf.

EU leaders are due to discuss the issue of who speaks for Europe on Friday, but so far have declined to nominate one person to speak for the bloc. One EU official said the EU would be represented by its institutions when issues concerning the union were on the table, but played down any imminent appointment. They said: “Do I expect an agreement on a special representative? My answer is no, I don’t.”

Kallas suggested she – as the EU’s high representative for foreign and security policy – should represent the EU in talks, alongside António Costa, the president of the European Council.

Without a doubt, Europe must abandon its internal squabbles and join the bandwagon of defending Ukraine’s security.

‘We Reaffirmed Our Unwavering Support to Ukraine and Its Courageous People’

The following is an excerpt from the joint declaration following the G7 Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Paris on November 9-10, 2026, that pertains to Ukraine.

We, the G7 Foreign Ministers representing Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, along with the High Representative of the European Union, met under the 2026 French G7 Presidency in Paris, on 9 and 10 November 2026. 

Ukraine 

We reaffirmed our unwavering support to Ukraine and its courageous people as they defend their territorial integrity, sovereignty, freedom, and independence. We stand in full solidarity with the Ukrainian population suffering from daily Russian attacks affecting residential buildings, civilian infrastructure, and cultural heritage, as well as malicious hybrid activities against Ukraine and other partners. We condemned the campaign of strikes carried out against civilian shipping in the Black Sea area, which have significant consequences on global food security, and strengthened our commitment to safeguarding food supply chains. 

We reiterated our support to ongoing US-led efforts to facilitate peace through direct and serious negotiations. We reaffirmed the importance of securing a full, comprehensive, and reciprocal ceasefire. A reciprocal halt to attacks on all energy infrastructure and in the Black Sea to protect civilians, reduce disruption to energy, including heating, water and sanitation, and food supply and support greater stability in global markets is an important first step towards just and lasting peace. We reiterated that negotiations on the future security of Europe must include the Europeans. 

As we pledged during the G7 Summit in Évian, we took stock of progress on supplying Ukraine with air defense capabilities, systems and interceptors, long-range capabilities and licenses that will allow it to increase its military production and to exercise its inherent right of self-defense. We remain committed to continuing and strengthening our efforts in this direction. 

We acknowledged the need to address Ukraine’s pressing financing needs for 2027 and beyond in a coordinated way to support Ukraine. 

We condemned the provision of military assistance to Russia by North Korea and Iran, and the provision of weapons, military training and dual-use components by China, which enables the continuation of the war. We made clear our intention to continue to take action against these countries.

Building on the consensus among our leaders in Évian, we discussed increasing pressure on Russia’s war economy, including through sanctions. We reaffirmed the commitment of our leaders to closely coordinate on sanctions against Russia. We reiterated our determination to focus on ships flying false flags or stateless ships, as well as structural enablers, such as insurers, oil traders, and intermediaries, to further disrupt and deter shadow fleet vessels used to circumvent sanctions. 

We reaffirmed our support to Ukraine’s energy security and resilience, and decided to step up our financial and material support to help the country get through the winter. We welcomed efforts to keep the repair of the Chornobyl New Safe Confinement high on the international agenda, as demonstrated by the donors’ conference organized in Paris on 9 November by France, EBRD, and Ukraine. We also welcomed the ongoing projects coordinated through the Tallinn Mechanism under Italy’s Chairpersonship to support Ukraine’s civilian cyber resilience. 

US Floats Idea about Ukraine Redrawing Its Administrative Borders

US negotiators came up with the idea of Ukraine redrawing its administrative borders in the east in order to reflect battlefield realities and Russia’s victories.

Is this a sign of desperation on the part of the Witkoff-Kushner team? Is it a way to placate the Russians?

This report surfaced in The Economist and The Telegraph during the ongoing Abu Dhabi talks.  

During preliminary outreach around the trilateral talks (involving US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, along with Ukrainian and Russian delegations), American negotiators reportedly floated redrawing regional administrative lines. The idea was to adjust boundaries to reflect current frontline control, effectively allowing Russia to claim a political or symbolic victory over the Donbas without requiring Ukraine to surrender major fortified cities it currently holds.  

Kyiv dismissed and rejected the notion, declaring again that ceding territory, altering official borders, or legitimizing Russian occupation—whether de facto or de jure—is completely out of the question and not up for negotiation. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has consistently maintained that frontline defense structures (the "fortress belt") and territorial integrity remain non-negotiable.  

The formal agenda in Abu Dhabi focused on concrete humanitarian steps—such as major prisoner exchanges—and immediate security guarantees, rather than drawing new maps or making immediate territorial concessions.

Diplomatic leaks, trial balloons, and rumors move quickly during high-stakes peace talks, and this specific proposal emerged as part of media reporting surrounding the Abu Dhabi meetings. Official statements from Kyiv emphasize that no formal text or official agreement to alter Ukraine's borders has been accepted or endorsed.

If Witkoff-Kushner want to end the war and bring peace to Ukraine and the surrounding region, then they should join Zelenskyy’s team and simply demand that Russia pack up and leave Ukraine.

Ukrainian POWs to Be Released – Thank God at Least for That

At least for the sake of Ukrainian prisoners of war, who are confined under inhuman conditions by Russia, the latest trilateral negotiations about ending Russia’s war against Ukraine concluded successfully.

Participants said it would be one of the biggest such swaps since 1,000 soldiers returned home last year. The latest exchange could take place in the next two or three weeks.

“One of the positives is we agreed that we’re going to have the biggest humanitarian release of prisoners, which we’re going to finalize the numbers tomorrow,” said Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, after the Abu Dhabi talks ended today.

Along with postwar security guarantees for both countries, other key hurdles are the fate of Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory and what role European countries will play in an eventual settlement.

The talks lasted just under two hours Wednesday, after a four-hour session the previous day.

Moscow doesn’t want European countries, which are concerned about Russia’s conduct and broader intentions on the continent, involved in the direct negotiations. Kushner said one of the goals of the Moscow meeting is to try to get Europeans added to the talks.

“Ukraine’s priority is to end the war as soon as possible with a dignified peace,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on X. “We believe that Europe must be represented at every stage of real diplomacy. It is essential that the United States has a strong position and exerts influence on the source of this war — that is Russia.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said European representatives could eventually join peace talks but added their current statements “don’t indicate any desire on their part to contribute to movement along the path toward peace.”

Russia’s insistence on Ukraine ceding parts of its national territory to Moscow is a main stumbling block to ending the war. Kremlin negotiators (led by Vladimir Medinsky) continue to demand that Ukraine fully surrender the remaining Ukrainian-controlled portions of the Donbas region (Donetsk and Luhansk), alongside Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.  

President Zelenskyy maintains that Ukraine will not cede territory currently defended by its troops, pointing out inaccuracies in Moscow’s claims regarding control on the ground.  

The US delegation (including envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner) introduced specific operational frameworks to break the deadlock. The US put forward security guarantee proposals structured to give Ukraine binding defense assurances akin to NATO’s Article 5, which would be meaningless because Moscow has not complied with any bilateral or multilateral accord that it signed since the end of World War Two.

US negotiators are moving directly to follow-up meetings with Vladimir Putin in Moscow and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. European officials are pushing for formal representation alongside the U.S. in subsequent rounds to ensure European security terms are respected.  

While the sides discuss and wrangle, Russia’s war against Ukraine is raging at full intensity on the front line.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov poured cold water on hopes for a ceasefire by emphasizing that Russia will not agree to a standalone or immediate true unless the broader security framework is clarified first. Lavrov is insisting on knowing the future in advance.

Lavrov stated that it is necessary to first define the overall security architecture for Europe. He argued that signing an immediate truce without knowing what the political and territorial reality will look like in the future is unacceptable to Moscow. In other words, Moscow is insisting that the future be revealed to it before it agrees to anything.

Russian officials dismissed calls for a quick pause in combat—such as proposals prioritizing a ceasefire prior to broader negotiations—as attempts by Western powers to provide Ukraine with temporary breathing room to rebuild military capabilities rather than resolving the core conflict. Moscow's stance requires any final agreement to incorporate wider security arrangements rather than acting strictly as a localized military pause. All of this is camouflage for delaying a resolution while Russia rearms and remobilizes.

This rationale reflects a core element of Russian diplomatic strategy or practical excuse: using battlefield operations to force concessions on broader strategic issues. From Russia’s perspective, signing an isolated ceasefire without a binding, long-term political and security agreement risks freezing the conflict in a way that allows Ukraine to re-arm while leaving broader strategic disputes unresolved.

Moscow doesn’t want European countries, which are concerned about Russia’s conduct and broader intentions on the continent, involved in the direct negotiations. However, fortunately, Kushner said one of the goals of the Moscow meeting is to try to get Europeans added to the talks.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said European representatives could eventually join peace talks but added their current statements “don’t indicate any desire on their part to contribute to movement along the path toward peace.” Moscow complains that Europe is financing and supplying weaponry to Ukraine.

Kushner said both Ukraine and Russia needed clarity on postwar security arrangements. He said European countries, the EU and NATO have to be involved in those discussions to build consensus on next steps.

Ukraine wants to ensure that Moscow doesn’t invade again, and EU officials say any discussions on Europe’s security arrangements could only start after a ceasefire. Many in Europe see the inclusion of Russia in those plans as a concession to Putin, who has described NATO’s eastward expansion as a top threat to its security. Russia has demanded that the alliance pull back its troops from its borders.

Russia’s security concerns were discussed at the talks, Kushner said, adding that Moscow was told it needs to provide different de-escalation proposals acceptable to Europe.

“The reality is, is there’s no trust right now between the sides. And that’s to be expected after a conflict like this,” he said. But he posted on X later that the POW exchange “will reunite families, build trust and create momentum toward peace.”

How can there be trust between Ukraine and Russia when Russia hasn’t complied with any treaty that it signed and it has invaded Ukraine numerous times throughout history. 

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.