5 minute read
Political analyst Armen Petrosyan said the trilateral talks between Russia, the United States and Ukraine in Abu Dhabi were an attempt to resume contacts that had been interrupted since the beginning of the year. He said it would be unrealistic to expect the talks to make substantial progress towards resolving the Russia–Ukraine conflict.
Speaking to Armenpress, Petrosyan discussed the trilateral talks in the capital of the United Arab Emirates and what they might mean for the prospects of resolving the conflict.
“The conflict has deepened and its consequences have become so entrenched that we cannot expect significant results from a single round of talks, especially at this level. The most we could have expected was for the parties to reach agreements on humanitarian issues or, at best, to ensure that the talks continue. I do not think it is reasonable to expect more,” Petrosyan said.
He disagreed with the view that the United States stood to benefit most from a settlement, arguing that an end to the conflict would benefit everyone.
“The continuation of the conflict is in no one’s interests, so many actors stand to benefit from its end, including the parties directly involved, the US and the European Union. The question is on what terms the conflict ends. If it ends on terms that run counter to one side’s interests, there will clearly be resistance, as we can see from the positions of Ukraine and the European Union. The EU has already said that negotiations and the settlement process cannot take place without European participation. It is no coincidence that representatives of the EU, the United Kingdom and NATO had an indirect presence at the Abu Dhabi talks and were kept informed of their progress through separate contacts with the Ukrainian side,” he said.
Petrosyan added that the negotiating format concerned both an end to the Russia–Ukraine conflict and Europe’s future security architecture. It was therefore logical, he said, for the EU to take part in the process at some stage.
“Both Russia and the US are currently resisting an expansion of the format, and objectively that is the right approach. At this stage, when the talks are still focused on the principles of a settlement, bringing more parties into the process could make it much less effective,” the analyst said.
Asked about the absence of national leaders from the Abu Dhabi talks, Petrosyan said it would have been naive to expect them to meet in the UAE straight away. In conflicts of this kind, he said, leaders sit down together at the final stage of negotiations, when a document is ready and the parties need to agree the final details and sign it.
“That possibility is still a long way off, and it is hard even to predict whether it could happen in the short term. In conflicts like these, there are usually talks. The problem arises when there is no active channel for negotiations while the conflict continues. Such a channel is needed at least to discuss humanitarian issues, agree a ceasefire in a particular area or find quick solutions to tactical problems. We should not expect these talks to produce results quickly, but keeping them going is very important if we are to achieve even modest, tangible results,” Petrosyan concluded.
Russia, the United States and Ukraine held talks in Abu Dhabi aimed at resolving the Russia–Ukraine conflict. The trilateral meeting also addressed key questions about establishing a new security system in Europe after the conflict.
Participants focused on developing mechanisms to prevent threats and strengthen regional stability.
The Russian delegation was led by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, and the Ukrainian delegation by Rustem Umerov, head of Ukraine’s Foreign Intelligence Service. The United States was represented by presidential envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.