Global & US Headlines
Abu Dhabi Trilateral Talks End Without Deal but Set Re-Start Amid Largest Single-Night Russian Barrage
Two days of first US-mediated, face-to-face Russia-Ukraine negotiations (23-24 Jan 2026) adjourned in Abu Dhabi with an agreement to reconvene next week, hours after Moscow unleashed 375 drones and 21 missiles that blacked out 1.2 million Ukrainian buildings.
Focusing Facts
- Overnight 23-24 Jan 2026, Kyiv’s air force logged 375 Shahed drones and 21 missiles; 1 person killed, 30+ wounded, and about 800,000 Kyiv residents lost power in –10 °C cold.
- UAE-hosted talks included U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Ukrainian negotiator Rustem Umerov; the sides agreed to report back to capitals and meet again as early as the week of 26 Jan 2026.
- Kremlin still demands Kyiv relinquish the remaining 5,000 km² of Donetsk it controls; Zelensky and public polls reject any territorial concession.
Context
Bombardment during bargaining is hardly new: in December 1972 the U.S. ‘Christmas Bombing’ of Hanoi coincided with Paris peace talks, and in 1951–53 Panmunjom armistice sessions unfolded amid seesaw battles along Korea’s 38th parallel. The Abu Dhabi round echoes that logic—using firepower to shape negotiating leverage—while also extending a post-Cold-War pattern where Gulf states host conflicts far from their soil and a U.S. president presses allies to cut a deal (Madrid ’91, Annapolis ’07). Whether this moment matters on a century scale hinges on two systemic currents: Russia’s attempt to re-legitimize territorial revision by force, and Washington’s waning appetite to underwrite an open-ended proxy war. If the talks crystalize a land-for-security trade, they could mark the first rollback of the post-1945 norm against conquest; if they fail, the war may grind on like the Iran-Iraq stalemate (1980-88), eventually ossifying into a frozen conflict. Either way, the juxtaposition of negotiation and escalation underscores how modern wars increasingly pivot on simultaneous diplomacy and deterrence rather than clear front lines or formal declarations.
Perspectives
UK government statements
UK government statements — Presents Russia’s growing missile and drone campaign as conclusive proof that the Kremlin has zero interest in peace and that Ukraine therefore deserves steadfast Western military backing. Because London is a leading supplier of arms to Kyiv, the statement highlights staggering civilian-casualty statistics and explicitly says there are “zero” credible signs of Russian willingness to negotiate while omitting any mention of the simultaneous US-brokered talks reported elsewhere.
Western mainstream outlets
Reuters/AFP fed, e.g., Yahoo, Aol, Sky News — Report that US-brokered Abu Dhabi talks produced no breakthrough while Russian strikes on Kyiv and Kharkiv killed civilians, framing the bombardment as evidence of Moscow’s cynicism and a key obstacle to peace. Reliance on Ukrainian officials and UN figures foregrounds Russian brutality and portrays the U.S. role as constructive, but gives scant space to Russia’s stated conditions (full control of Donbas) or to questions about Washington’s pressure on Kyiv to compromise.
Asia-Pacific regional media
Free Malaysia Today, Taipei Times, Oman Observer — Highlight the same overnight strikes but devote significant space to detailing the U.S. 20-point peace plan, Trump administration pressure on Kyiv, and the sticking point of Donbas territory, suggesting diplomacy might advance if Ukraine concedes land. Heavy use of wire copy reproduces both U.S. and Russian talking points without much scrutiny, giving the territorial-concession framing more visibility and downplaying Kyiv’s public refusal to cede any territory.