The second round of trilateral peace negotiations were held in Abu Dhabi on February 4-5, 2026, following initial talks that had occurred on January 23-24, 2026. A week-long U.S.-brokered ceasefire sparing, specifically, energy infrastructure was announced by the Trump administration on January 29 and would be in effect preceding this second round of talks at a time when winter temperatures had fallen dramatically. Moscow’s interpretation of the ceasefire, however, gave it four days at best and would only involve Kyiv whereas Ukraine was seemingly obliged to give consideration for all of Russia. True to form, during the night of February 2-3, Russia launched upwards of 450 drones and more than 70 missiles, 32 of which were ballistic missiles, specifically targeting energy facilities across 27 sites in at least six regions of Ukraine, disrupting water, electricity and heat. More than 1,170 apartment buildings in Kyiv alone lost heat when outside temperatures had fallen to -4 deg F (-20 deg C). The following night saw a similar attack damaging residential buildings and schools with several casualties. That these attacks heralded the second round of “peace talks” speaks to Vladimir Putin’s disregard for attempts to seek a solution to a war in which he and his Kremlin colleagues continue to perpetuate war crimes that have cumulatively amounted to calls of genocide.
To emphasize the matter of intent, the individual Putin chose to lead the Russian delegation was Admiral Igor Kostyukov, the head of Russian military intelligence (GRU) and Chief of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. The well-decorated Russian has a lengthy and varied track record of international criminal activity attributable to the agency over which he had oversight. Only some of the activities carried out in several nations over the years are enumerated here.
Kostyukov was sanctioned in 2020 by the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) for a 2015 cyber-attack upon the German parliament affecting 20,000 accounts and the theft of 16 GB of data. Soon after, he was one of four high-ranking GRU officers sanctioned by the U.S. in 2016 under the Cybersecurity Sanctions Program for attempting to interfere in that year’s U.S. presidential elections and was indicted by the Department of Justice in 2020. A further sanction named Kostyukov in a 2017 malware attack (“NotPetya”) that first infected systems in Ukraine, but then advanced through the global community causing an estimated $10 billion in damage. In 2019, the EU sanctioned Kostyukov for his involvement in the 2018 attempt to poison the Russian double agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter with Novichok, a nerve agent, in Salisbury, England. The bungled escapade led instead to the death of a British citizen. A senior general, Vladimir Alekseyev, first deputy chief of the Russian general staff, and the actual orchestrator of the Skripal plan, was recently shot in Moscow.
The refusal by Putin over the past four years to concede anything of substance in deliberations seeking an end to the war he started in Ukraine raises questions as to just what the purpose is of coming to the table in the first place. He has violated every agreement since the start of the conflict in 2014. The classic mundane response in this argument falls to repeating the oft-mentioned refrain stressing the importance of ongoing exchange of opposing ideas. But what really is achieved for peace when a participant like Russia has only used such efforts to attain its own aims regardless of the stated goals of negotiations? Likewise, why is the U.S. so committed to pursuing such a course while shamelessly promoting a humanitarian purpose regarding the loss of life when such a notion cannot possibly be reconciled with the policies and behavior of the Trump administration?
Previous attempts to bring about a ceasefire by an inexperienced and poorly prepared U.S. Special Envoy has had the expected negative outcome. Was it ever understood by the Trump administration that Russia’s negotiating methods of continuously asserting maximalist and unrealistic demands while stalling for time to optimize military gains on the frontlines was actually its central mission? Adding color into such negotiations has been Putin’s constant lamentations regarding the global neglect of Russia’s national pride, lack of respect for its power, and its victimization by the global community among other grievances as if there was need of special compensation for this alone. Those who deal solely by transactional exchanges of material importance as a means of solving this conflict will fail to realize that Russian intransigence remains deeply rooted in argumentation that leads nowhere. As a consequence, U.S. negotiators are routinely maneuvered into forcing Ukraine to capitulate while Russia carries on destroying civilian infrastructure. In essence, the Trump administration requires Ukraine to make territorial concessions to the aggressor as if somehow it was to blame for the invasion. In the end, it should not be surprising that the ongoing Abu Dhabi peace negotiations will conclude without a settlement that sees an end to Russian aggression.
Ukraine’s desire is to retain its language and culture, preserve its unique history, and to function as an independent, self-sustaining democratic state, free to associate with like-minded nations. It is likewise, ready to participate in a collaborative security framework that provides it the guarantee it needs to exist free of the repressive influence of its malignant neighbor, Russia. Something of this sort of language exists in the United Nations Charter which Russia openly chooses to ignore. Ukraine has sacrificed too much of its best people in this war to accept less and, by the same token, is committed to honor the thousands of foreign fighters who have come to defend it against the Russian intruder. The country has endured relentless attacks upon its civilian population and its institutions, witnessed the atrocities of the invader including the abduction of its children, suffered the displacement of millions of its people and, coped with the extremities of winter and yet it resists. Moreover, Ukraine has a president who has not backed down from the challenge and remains the engine that drives its destiny. And, notably, there are others like him who have captured the same spirit. Ukrainians have purpose in this fight unlike the Russian who has some vague notions of superiority bolstered by an assemblage of quotes cobbled together from a pervasive Kremlin propaganda machine. Ukrainians will fight to exist first and foremost. It’s not something readily appreciated by a transactionalist who sees business opportunities as a means to an end in this fight. Forever hopeful, the approach still remains viable in the minds of those negotiating on behalf of the U.S. and Russia in Miami.
So, the war will continue. Several authors have speculated a variety of ways by which it may end, many acknowledging Putin’s desire to keep what he feels he possesses in the occupied territories of Ukraine and then more. But such an outcome is not a certainty. Quite a number of permutations and combinations of factors can bring about a result somewhat sooner than expected in the fluid environment of this conflict whether it be on the field of battle, extrinsic to it, or both. What matters for Ukraine in the present is the constancy of sufficient support to sustain the fight. It is very apparent that Ukrainians are certainly capable of inflicting great damage upon both Russia’s military and its economy. What that may do to Russia’s will to perpetuate this war – and still afford itself a future – may soon be determined.
Copyright @Kost Elisevich, MD, PhD 2026. All rights reserved. Any illegal reproduction of this content will result in immediate legal action.
