|
Lekshmi MK
31 January 2026 |
In the news
On 24 January, Ukraine, Russia and the United States held peace talks in Abu Dhabi after previous negotiations in Moscow and Berlin. Russia’s demand to withdraw Kyiv's forces from the Donbas remains a major sticking point that Kyiv firmly rejects. There has been no sign of compromise on the territorial dispute. As the talks continued, Russian forces carried out air strikes on Kyiv and other areas. Ukraine’s Foreign Minister said that Russia launched attacks on Ukraine during the talks, calling the timing “cynical.”
On 26 January, the media reported that Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that the US-backed security guarantees document for Ukraine is “100% ready,” following the trilateral peace talks in Abu Dhabi. President Zelensky said the agreement underscores Ukraine’s need for US security guarantees, while reaffirming Kyiv’s stance on territorial integrity.
On 28 January, the media reported that Russia and Ukraine negotiators are to meet again on Sunday in Abu Dhabi, with possible participation by US officials. The Financial Times reported that the Trump administration has signalled to Ukraine that future US security guarantees may be tied to Kyiv agreeing to a peace deal that would involve ceding control of the Donbas region to Russia.
On 29 January, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the issue of control over Donetsk as “very difficult” and still requiring work to bridge differences between Moscow and Kyiv at US-mediated talks. He said there might be a US presence in follow-up talks.
Issues at large
First, the stalemate over territorial integrity and security guarantees. The primary issue has been over Ukraine’s insistence on preserving its territorial integrity and its demand for credible US security guarantees. Reports indicate that Washington is signalling that such security assurances may be tied to Ukraine agreeing to withdraw from areas of Donetsk. This places Ukraine in a difficult position, where securing future protection appears to depend on accepting the present territorial compromise.
Second, continuing disagreement over Donetsk. The disagreement over control of parts of Donetsk in the Donbas region remains a key sticking point in the peace talks. Russia wants Ukraine to withdraw its forces from areas of Donetsk that Kyiv still holds. Moscow sees full control of this region as necessary for any lasting settlement. However, Ukraine strongly opposes leaving these areas, as doing so would entail giving up more territory and weakening its position. For Kyiv, such a move would undermine its sovereignty and appear to accept territorial loss by force. This unresolved territorial disagreement over Donetsk continues to slow progress in the negotiations.
Third, the narrowing focus of negotiations. As the talks progress, the focus of the discussions has become narrower and more specific. Earlier, negotiations covered broad issues such as ceasefire arrangements, humanitarian concerns, and general security matters. Now, the talks are mainly centred on difficult territorial questions, especially the status of Donetsk and the wider Donbas region. This shift shows that both sides realise that without addressing core territorial disputes, no agreement can be reached. As a result, other issues have taken a back seat while negotiators try to resolve the most sensitive and decisive matters first.
Fourth, continuing Russian military strikes and the issue of trust. Even as peace talks continue, Russian strikes on Ukrainian cities have not stopped. Missile and drone attacks during negotiations show that the war is still active on the ground. These attacks create a serious trust problem between the two sides. Ukraine sees the strikes as a sign that Russia is not fully committed to diplomacy and may use military pressure to strengthen its position at the negotiation. The continuing strikes highlight the fragile and uncertain nature of the peace process.
In perspective
First, a settlement would require Ukraine to make tough decisions over its territory and securing long-term US security guarantees. It also shows that peace may come with compromises that Kyiv earlier refused to consider.
Second, the US neutrality. Its security guarantees to Kyiv, linked to Ukraine's acceptance of territorial compromise, raise questions about Washington’s neutrality.
Third, Russia leverages military pressure to shape negotiations. Russia’s actions on the ground show that it is using the battlefield to gain an advantage in negotiations. This creates pressure on Ukraine and shapes the tone of diplomacy. Instead of building trust, these attacks remind all sides that Russia holds military leverage. Russia may use it to push for favourable terms in any possible agreement.
