Indian Council of World Affairs

Introduction 

On 23 January, the trilateral talks between the USA, Russia and Ukraine took place, where the USA is served as a mediator to facilitate progress towards ending the ongoing war. The first phase of the talk continued for two days and was concluded on 25 January.^[i] As the Russia-Ukraine conflict is about to approach its fifth year, the trilateral talks in the midst of this tense situation offer hope for a resolution. The first phase of the talk was defined as constructive and substantive, laying the ground for subsequent peace talks.^[ii] While it did not provide a major breakthrough to the conflict, it ended with a direction for the second phase of the talk. The second round of the dialogue was held on 4 and 5 February in Abu Dhabi, whereby both parties agreed on a prisoner swap and the intention of resuming negotiations. Further, President Zelensky also mentioned that the next round of talks would be held in the USA.^[iii]

The talk was attended by Russia’s top intelligence officer, Admiral Igor Olegovich Kostyukov; the top Ukrainian negotiator, Rustom Umerov; the Deputy Head of President Zelensky’s office, Kyrylo Budenov; and the Chief of General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Andri Hnatov. The negotiations began in the presence of US envoy Steve Wittkoff and Jared Kushner.^[iv] Their presence marked high-level political commitment from the USA; both were present in working room groups and joint sessions and were active in framing discussions between the Russian and Ukrainian representatives.

The history of the peace effort is extensive, but has had limited success in fostering peace or putting an end to the Russia-Ukraine War. Following the onset of the full-scale war, both countries participated in several rounds of bilateral discussions, the most significant of which was held in Istanbul in 2022 to end the conflict.^[v] The prospects of the meeting seemed promising, but the parties lacked consensus. Maximalist demands coming from both sides were hard to meet; disagreements were caused in terms of territorial issues, projecting Russia’s demand for recognition of its control over Crimea, limiting Ukraine’s military and ending its NATO aspirations. Ukraine demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops from the occupied territories and sought security guarantees, which Russia plainly rejected. Such overambitious demand from both parties replicated post-war frameworks rather than pragmatic and incremental steps. The failure was also a result of pressures coming from the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, towards Ukraine to not sign any agreement that ended in neutrality and insisted on resistance. In the same year, the alleged Bucha incident halted the scope of further talks due to the rising distrust, where Ukraine held Russia accountable for the series of alleged war crimes. On the other hand, Russia claimed that killings took place after the troops left and denied the allegations.^[vi]

Following peace talks and summits, like the Jeddah Peace Summit held in 2023, the Switzerland Peace Summit in 2024 and the Saudi Arabia-hosted peace talks, which excluded Russia, resulting in failure. The second round of Istanbul talks resumed in 2025 under the changed circumstances of war.^[vii] Ukraine’s urgency to end the war was growing due to a gradual decrease in military help and financial aid from the USA, along with the increasing success of Russian forces on the battlefield.

Issues on the Negotiating Table

The most pressing issue on the table remains territorial disputes to date. Discussions on 23 January began with addressing the territorial issues. The contested territory under discussion was Donbas, the eastern Ukrainian region.^[viii] The Donbas region comprises two provinces, namely Donetsk and Luhansk. At present, Russia has taken nearly complete control of Luhansk and 75-85 per cent of Donetsk. Russia has put forward its demand for the remaining Donetsk area under Ukraine,  along with the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, and has stated that it would not transfer the nuclear power plant to Ukraine or any other third party. Ukraine, however has been resolute in protecting its territorial and sovereign rights, arguing that any region or land not captured on the battlefield should not be put forward in negotiation.

Ceasefires remained a contested issue. Ukraine has been pushing for a ceasefire, posing it as the only way to breed ground for peace.^[ix] Russia has shown its interest in good faith by adhering to the short-term energy strike ceasefire, but has refused to hold back for too long. The tension escalated when Russia launched 71 missile strikes on the night of 2 and 3 February, ending the latest ceasefire.

Discussion regarding Ukraine’s security guarantee was raised. Ukraine revised its demands for security guarantees against any future Russian aggression post-agreement^[x].On 25^th January 2026 over 30 Western countries in early January, gathered in Paris to discuss a new framework for Ukraine’s security guarantees.^[xi] However, the document is yet to be ratified by the US Congress and the Ukrainian Parliament and is not yet publicly out. Russia, on the other hand, countered by demanding a neutral Ukraine in the future. Russia is also proceeding to rebuild its relations with the USA amidst the talks, and both parties have agreed to re-establish military-to-military talks.^[xii] Alongside the trilateral talks, Russia and the US also discussed the continuation of the New START nuclear arms treaty, which limits nuclear warheads, which came into effect on 5 February 2018. However, no formal agreement has been reached so far.^[xiii] The treaty has formally expired, leaving the USA and Russia without any weapon control agreement.

The talk has led to the exchange of 314 prisoners. This was the first such exchange after five months; the last exchange occurred in October 2025. A total of 185 prisoners and 20 civilians were released in the combined swap.^[xiv] Humanitarian aid, the safety of the civilians and the treatment of the captives remained part of the broader discussions. Hence, the talk overall addressed the issues of territorial control, ceasefire, security guarantees, exchange of prisoners, humanitarian aid and strategic issues.

The Way Forward from the New Trilateral Talks

This offers a fresh perspective on the talk links directly with the peace process and the post-Cold-War European security architecture, if not counted as a conflict resolution, but can be taken as conflict management while exploring pathways to harbour peace.^[xv] The presence of the USA in the talk is not only related to its status of a negotiator but also gives various new dimensions to the Russia-Ukraine crisis. It was acknowledged in the talk by Americans that as long as territorial disputes persist, there is no chance of reconciliation. The Russia-Ukraine crisis is no longer treated as bilateral tensions alone but as a broader challenge to regional stability in the wider region. It is being considered a direct challenge to the European security order, which transcends beyond NATO and the EU. At its foreground lies the Russia-Ukraine crisis and Russia’s demands for a revised European security architecture.^[xvi]

Ukraine seeks to safeguard itself against potential future aggressions, thus looking for collective security or European multinational support.^[xvii]. It has consistently stressed that these guarantees are essential for achieving a successful peace agreement and therefore seeks political and legal commitments from the USA and Europe. These security guarantees include military assistance, intelligence sharing, training and defence cooperation as a part of the broader Euro-Atlantic security framework.^[xviii] President Zelensky demanded that these security guarantees simply cannot be symbolic but must be clearly stated in the documents with specified commitments.

Russia its opposes western security guarantees. Russia has described these security guarantees or the deployment of troops in Ukraine deeming them unacceptable. The redesigned idea of the European security architecture is more complicated. It demands revisions to the post-Cold-War security order, opposing NATO expansion and Western military infrastructure near its borders.

USA has viewed transatlantic security as the foundation of global stability and believes that long-term security architecture is the way to institutionalise deterrence and bring peace.^[xix] The USA’s presence in the 2026 trilateral talks reflects diplomatic, strategic and geopolitical reasons, along with the need to balance domestic political pressure.^[xx]. Ukraine viewed US participation as the guarantor of enforceable outcomes, thereby not leaving Ukraine vulnerable to future aggressions. The participation of the USA in this talk is a balance between Russian and Ukrainian influences and signals global stakes. It remains active in facilitating dialogue, drafting peace proposals and hosting negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Ending  crisis holds strategic importance for the USA.

A novel aspect post the 2026 trilateral talks is thawing Russia-USA relations. Following the discussions on 4-5 February, both parties decided to re-establish high-level military-to-military communication.^[xxi] This military dialogue will reduce the risks of accidental clashes and serve as a ground for diplomatic engagement rather than confrontation.

Conclusion

The trilateral dialogue between the USA, Russia and Ukraine signifies a cautious but meaningful shift in the Russia-Ukraine conflict management. Though the talk didn’t produce a breakthrough, it marked the beginning of structured diplomatic engagement. The negotiation framed the Russia-Ukraine crisis as more than just bilateral tensions, incorporating a broader perspective of the European security architecture, power relations and post-war stability. Key issues related to territorial control, mechanisms of ceasefire and humanitarian concerns highlight persistent distrust and opposing objectives of the parties involved.

While the talk functions primarily as a conflict management tool, its value lies in restoring channels of communication and reducing the risk of escalation. The success of the talk depends on the willingness of Russia and Ukraine to move beyond maximalist positions and shift towards commitments to bring peace to the region. Despite being uncertain and fragile, the trilateral talks remain a viable road towards de-escalation and a redefined European security order.

*****

*Ditipriya Ghosh, Research Intern, Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal. 

REFERENCES

[i] “Russia, Ukraine and US to Hold Trilateral Talks in Abu Dhabi,” BBC News, January 23, 2026, bbc.com/news/articles/cx20011w4zzo.

[ii] Anadolu Agency, “US-Mediated Russia-Ukraine Talks in Abu Dhabi ‘Constructive’ for Peace, Says Communique,” Anadolu Agency, February 5, 2026, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/russia-ukraine-war/us-mediated-russia-ukraine-talks-in-abu-dhabi-constructive-for-peace-says-communique/3821811.

[iii] Olena Harmash and Max Hunder, “Ukraine, Russia End Second Round of Peace Talks with Agreement on Prisoner Swap, New Meeting,” Reuters, February 5, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-russia-start-second-day-peace-talks-abu-dhabi-2026-02-05.

[iv]Council on Foreign Relations, “US, Russia, and Ukraine Trilateral Talks Begin,” Council on Foreign Relations, January 23, 2026, https://www.cfr.org/articles/u-s-russia-and-ukraine-trilateral-talks-begin.

[v] Mark Trevelyan and Felix Light, “Russia Is Ready to Resume Talks with Ukraine in Istanbul, Foreign Ministry Official Says,” Reuters, November 12, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-is-ready-resume-talks-with-ukraine-istanbul-foreign-ministry-official-2025-11-12.

[vi] Pragya Malhotra, “Moscow Denies Ukraine’s Claim of Civilian ‘Massacre’ in Bucha,” India Today, April 4, 2022, https://www.indiatoday.in/world/russia-ukraine-war/story/moscow-ukraine-claim-civilian-massacre-bucha-kyiv-russia-1933094-2022-04-04.

[vii] “Russia Set for Ukraine Talks in Turkiye, Says Progress Will Be Difficult,” Al Jazeera, July 23, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/23/russia-set-for-ukraine-talks-in-turkiye-says-progress-will-be-difficult.

[viii] Ukraine’s Donbas Region Explained,” CNN, January 23, 2026, https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/23/world/ukraine-donbas-region-explained-intl.

[ix] Kateryna Denisova, “Russia, US Agree to Resume Military-to-Military Dialogue as 2nd Day of Ukraine Peace Talks Ends,” Kyiv Independent, February 5, 2026, https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-us-russia-begin-2nd-day-of-peace-talks-in-abu-dhabi.

[x] Nils Adler, “Ukraine’s Security Guarantees: What Are They and Why Might They Fall Short?” Al Jazeera, January 26, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/26/ukraines-security-guarantees-what-are-they-and-why-might-they-fall-short.

[xi] Council of the European Union, “Paris Declaration – ‘Robust Security Guarantees for a Solid and Lasting Peace in Ukraine,’ issued by France,” press release, January 6, 2026, Consilium: European Council and Council of the EU, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/01/06/robust-security-guarantees-for-a-solid-and-lasting-peace-in-ukraine-statement-of-the-coalition-of-the-willing-issued-by-france/.

[xii] Peter Weber, “US, Russia Restart Military Dialogue as Treaty Ends,” The Week, February 6, 2026, https://theweek.com/world-news/us-russia-military-talks-nuclear-treaty.

[xiii] Institute for the Study of War, “Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, February 5, 2026,” February 5, 2026, Institute for the Study of War, https://www.understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-5-2026.

[xiv] Mariya Kucheryavets and Oleksandra Bashchenko, “Ukraine and Russia Carry out First Prisoner Swap in Four Months,” RBC-Ukraine, February 5, 2026, https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/ukraine-and-russia-carry-out-first-prisoner-1770298086.html.

[xv] Suzana Elena Anghel and Mario Damen, The Future European Security Architecture: Dilemmas for EU Strategic Autonomy (Study, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, March 12, 2025), https://epthinktank.eu/2025/03/17/the-future-european-security-architecture-dilemmas-for-eu-strategic-autonomy/.

[xvi] Neil Melvin, “Europe’s Security Increasingly Lies Beyond NATO and the EU,” Internationale Politik Quarterly, August 14, 2025, https://ip-quarterly.com/en/europes-security-increasingly-lies-beyond-nato-and-eu.

[xvii] Andreas Umland, “What Would Security Guarantees for Kyiv Mean?” SCEEUS Report No. 11 (Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies, November 27, 2025), https://sceeus.se/en/publications/what-would-security-guarantees-for-kyiv-mean/.

[xviii] European External Action Service. “Paris Declaration – Robust Security Guarantees for a Solid and Lasting Peace in Ukraine.” Press release, January 7, 2026. European Union. Accessed [date you accessed it]. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/ukraine/paris-declaration-robust-security-guarantees-solid-and-lasting-peace-ukraine_en.

[xix] North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Strategic Concepts. Updated July 18, 2022. NATO. https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/strategic-concepts.

[xx] Robert Lansing Institute, “Donald Trump and the Prospects of Peace: Strategic Implications of Ukraine-Russia Negotiations,” January 7, 2025, Robert Lansing Institute, https://lansinginstitute.org/2025/01/07/donald-trump-and-the-prospects-of-peace-strategic-implications-of-ukraine-russia-negotiations.

[xxi] Kateryna Denisova, “Russia, US Agree to Resume Military-to-Military Dialogue as 2nd Day of Ukraine Peace Talks Ends,” Kyiv Independent, February 5, 2026, https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-us-russia-begin-2nd-day-of-peace-talks-in-abu-dhabi/.