Global & US Headlines
Abu Dhabi Trilateral Opens as Putin Demands Remaining 20% of Donetsk
On 23–24 Jan 2026, Russian, Ukrainian and U.S. negotiators hold their first three-way session in Abu Dhabi, but talks hinge on Moscow’s ultimatum that Kyiv cede the final 5,000 km² of Donetsk it still controls.
Focusing Facts
- Putin’s team is insisting Ukraine surrender the last 20 % of Donetsk—about 5,000 km²—before any cease-fire is signed.
- Zelenskiy states a U.S.–Ukraine security-guarantee agreement is fully drafted and only awaits President Trump’s date and venue for signature.
- The UAE meeting follows a 22 Jan midnight Kremlin encounter where U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner and Josh Gruenbaum briefed Putin on a 27-point peace proposal, leaving territory as the lone unresolved issue.
Context
Great-power brokerage over Ukrainian territory echoes earlier partitions—from Yalta (1945) that redrew Europe to Dayton (1995) that froze Bosnia—where battlefield facts, not legal claims, dictated maps. Today’s dispute fits a century-long pattern: Moscow exploits deadlock to lock in gains, Washington seeks a quick settlement before its election cycle, and Kyiv tries to avoid a 1938-style Munich concession that could invite future aggression. The trilateral format signals a shift from multilateral, rules-based diplomacy toward naked power bargaining, underscoring a broader 21st-century trend of asset-seizure diplomacy (frozen Russian reserves resemble Versailles-era reparations). Whether the UAE conclave results in peace or merely entrenches lines matters because it will shape Europe’s security architecture for decades—either crystallising a new “frozen conflict” that normalises revisionist land grabs, or, less likely, producing the first enforceable security guarantees for a non-NATO state since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Perspectives
International wire-service and general news outlets
e.g., The Straits Times, West Hawaii Today, ThePrint — They portray the Abu Dhabi negotiations as another U.S-brokered attempt to end the war, stressing that Washington is prodding Kyiv toward a land-for-peace compromise while Moscow still demands full control of Donbas, leaving little hope of an imminent breakthrough. Because these stories are lifted almost verbatim from Reuters copy, they focus on balance and official statements but give limited historical context or on-the-ground Ukrainian voices, which can flatten moral distinctions and over-index on U.S. diplomatic manoeuvring.
Ukraine-sympathetic analytical media
e.g., Intellinews — They frame the talks through Kyiv’s security anxieties, arguing Europe’s hesitancy and dwindling aid leave Ukraine confronting existential risk while still refusing to cede any territory to Russia. The intense focus on European shortcomings and apocalyptic language about a looming Ukrainian defeat may inflate worst-case scenarios to spur Western action, echoing government talking points and downplaying U.S. aid cuts or Kyiv’s own political challenges.