Ukraine and Russia Talk Peace While Missiles Still Fly

After nearly four years of war, Ukraine and Russia sat down to talk. But even as diplomats debated peace parameters in Abu Dhabi, Russian missiles continued to rain down on Ukrainian soil.

The second day of US-brokered trilateral talks ended without agreement on Friday, yet both warring sides signaled openness to continue dialogue as early as next week—a rare diplomatic opening in a conflict that has reshaped global geopolitics.

What's Actually on the Table

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said discussions focused on "parameters for ending the war, as well as the security conditions required to achieve this." Ukraine's chief negotiator Rustem Umerov and military intelligence head Kyrylo Budanov faced off against Russian military intelligence and army representatives, with US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner facilitating.

The UAE government called the talks "constructive and positive," addressing "outstanding elements" of Washington's peace framework through rare "direct engagement" between the adversaries.

But Russia's core demands remain unchanged. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov made clear Friday that Moscow hasn't dropped its insistence on Ukraine withdrawing from the eastern Donbas region—the industrial heartland comprising Donetsk and Luhansk. While Russia controls all of Luhansk, Vladimir Putin wants Ukraine to surrender the remaining 20 percent it still holds in Donetsk.

The initial US draft drew heavy criticism in Kyiv and Western Europe for appearing to accommodate Moscow's maximalist territorial ambitions, while Russia rejected revised versions over proposals for European peacekeepers in Ukraine.

The Cynical Timing of Warfare

Even as negotiators discussed potential ceasefires, Russia launched a massive attack on Ukraine's energy infrastructure on the eve of the second day of talks. The strikes cut power to approximately 1.2 million people in sub-zero temperatures, according to Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Kuleba.

In Kyiv, drone attacks killed one person and wounded four others. Ukraine's second-largest city, Kharkiv, saw 27 people wounded in similar strikes.

Andrii Sybiha, Ukraine's Foreign Minister who wasn't at the talks, accused Putin of acting "cynically." "His missiles hit not only our people, but also the negotiation table," he wrote on X. "This barbaric attack once again proves that Putin's place is not at [Donald Trump's] Board of Peace, but in the dock of the special tribunal."

Ukrainian opposition MP Kira Rudik called the timing "not a coincidence," noting this has been "Putin's strategy many times in the past. This is why a ceasefire was such a crucial prerequisite to any real talks."

America's New Diplomatic Gambit

The talks represent a significant shift in US approach under the Trump administration. Intriguingly, it emerged Monday that Trump's team had invited Putin to join a board purportedly aimed at resolving global conflicts and overseeing governance and reconstruction in Gaza—a move that would have been unthinkable under previous administrations.

Zelenskyy emphasized his appreciation for "the understanding of the need for American monitoring and oversight of the process of ending the war and ensuring genuine security"—suggesting Ukraine sees continued US involvement as essential to any sustainable peace.

Yet the fundamental contradictions remain stark. How do you negotiate peace while one party continues bombing civilian infrastructure? Can meaningful dialogue occur when basic trust has been shattered by nearly four years of warfare?

The Global Stakes

For international observers, these talks represent more than just another diplomatic attempt. They're a test case for whether traditional conflict resolution mechanisms can work in an era of hybrid warfare, where military action and diplomatic engagement occur simultaneously.

The energy sector attacks during negotiations send a clear message about Russia's negotiating strategy—maintain maximum pressure while talking. For global energy markets and supply chains, this approach creates continued uncertainty about when, or if, stability might return to this critical region.