As negotiations between Russia and Ukraine continue, disagreements over the occupied territories and Ukraine’s future security remain one of the most significant obstacles to a peace agreement. The recent talks in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, mediated by the United States of America, once again showed that the gap between the two sides is not limited to halting the fighting. The future of Europe’s security order has also become one of the central points of dispute.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine, stresses the need to end the war and to reach an agreement that also guarantees his country’s future security. In contrast, Russia has opposed a temporary ceasefire, arguing that halting the fighting could allow Ukraine to rebuild and strengthen its military capacity. Instead of a temporary halt to the war, Moscow seeks a comprehensive agreement that, in addition to issues related to Ukraine, would also cover Europe’s security structure.
However, the Abu Dhabi talks did not lead to an agreement on the main issues. The most significant announced achievement was the two sides’ understanding on carrying out a large-scale exchange of prisoners of war, an issue that could signal the possibility of progress on humanitarian matters, although fundamental disagreements persist.
One notable point in Russia’s position is its emphasis on the need to change the security structure of the whole of Europe. Moscow believes the Ukraine issue is only part of a broader debate about the security of the European continent. Nevertheless, Russia showed no willingness to allow European representatives to participate directly in the Abu Dhabi talks. This position raises an important question: how can the future of Europe’s security be negotiated while European countries are to be excluded from a direct role in these discussions? On the other hand, European countries are concerned that an agreement between Washington and Moscow, reached without their effective participation, could affect their security and interests.
Alongside the security disputes, the issue of the occupied territories, particularly the Donbas region, is one of the most complicated obstacles in the negotiations. Russia demands that Ukraine cede Donbas entirely, a demand that Kyiv has rejected. Donbas, located in eastern Ukraine, is of considerable importance because of its industrial history and economic resources, as well as its geographic and military position.
However, the issue is not only the economic and geographic importance of this region. From the perspective of international law, Donbas is part of Ukrainian territory, and the military seizure of land does not mean that ownership of it is recognized. From this perspective, when Russia demands negotiations over the cession of areas that belong to Ukraine under international law, a question arises about the nature of the concessions being demanded in the negotiations.
In reality, if Russia were to retreat from part of its territorial claims, could that retreat be considered a concession equivalent to Ukraine giving up part of its sovereign powers and security choices? This is particularly relevant given that, if Ukraine is deprived of membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), it will need credible alternative security guarantees.
This issue becomes even more significant when we consider Ukraine’s concern about a recurrence of the war. If an agreement is reached but no reliable mechanism exists to prevent another Russian attack, the end of hostilities will not necessarily mean the end of security threats.
Here, the concept of the “security dilemma” in international relations can be helpful. A security dilemma arises when one country takes measures to increase its own security, but another country perceives those same measures as a threat to its own security. As a result, the second country’s reaction makes the first country feel even less secure, and a cycle of tension and military competition takes shape.
The central issue of the Ukraine negotiations also largely comes down to this cycle: Russia regards the expansion of NATO’s military presence near its borders as a security threat, while Ukraine, facing Russia’s military threat, seeks guarantees to protect its independence and territorial integrity.
Therefore, the main challenge of the negotiations is not only reaching an agreement to stop the war, but also finding arrangements that can reduce security concerns without undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and its right to determine its own future. An agreement that merely halts the fighting but offers no clear answer on Ukraine’s future security may, instead of resolving the crisis, lay the ground for its continuation.
You can read the Persian version of this article here:
اوکراین و روسیه در ابوظبی؛ تفاهم بر سر اسرا، اختلاف بر سر صلح
