Three reports describe the same conflict unfolding on several levels: efforts to negotiate an end to the war are running up against disagreements over who has the right to negotiate and what issues should be on the agenda at all. According to sources, in Abu Dhabi the Russian side steered the discussion away from a ceasefire and territorial issues toward the structure of European security. At the same time, Ukraine and several European leaders insist that the continent’s future cannot be discussed without the continent itself—and that Moscow should not get to choose who represents Europe. Against this backdrop, a Ukrainian drone strike on a Russian vessel in the Gulf of Finland is a reminder that diplomatic contacts are taking place alongside, not instead of, military operations.
On the second day of talks in Abu Dhabi, the Russian delegation refused to discuss territorial issues, a ceasefire, energy, or security in the Black Sea, according to sources cited by RBC-Ukraine and relayed by Meduza. Instead, the sources said, Moscow proposed focusing on the strategic architecture of European security and returning to its proposals presented to the West in December 2021. The participants in the talks have not officially confirmed these reports; in public, they have spoken only of “good momentum” and said the meetings had brought peace closer.
This shift in the agenda is significant in itself. A ceasefire and territorial issues relate directly to ending Russia’s war against Ukraine. “The architecture of European security” is a broader topic: it could encompass Russia’s relations with NATO, the alliance’s military presence, and security arrangements for countries in the region. According to the report, Moscow is seeking to link a settlement to the war with this wider set of demands. That changes not only the substance of the talks but also the pool of potential participants: decisions on the security of the entire continent would affect countries that are not at war with Russia but are directly feeling the consequences of its policies.
Axios reports that the United States intends to raise the issue separately: according to the outlet, U.S. representatives asked Moscow to restate its views on European security because the situation has changed considerably since 2021. Special envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff were reportedly planning to discuss the issue with Vladimir Putin on November 12 and propose expanding the talks to include representatives of European countries. This creates a potential divide between two approaches: focusing first on ending the war and the terms of peace for Ukraine, or adding a separate, broader dispute over European security to the process.
In Europe, the dispute is not only about the agenda but also about representation. Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal rejected the idea that Moscow could influence the choice of a European negotiator: “Putin does not choose Europe’s negotiators.” The EU already has authorized representatives, he said: European Council President António Costa and the EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas. Michal stressed that Europe should be represented by people accountable to European countries, not by those who suit the Russian president. His position is outlined in a Kyiv Post report.
Disagreements within Europe stem not only from the candidates’ personal qualities, but also from questions about which negotiating format would be most effective. Kallas, a former prime minister of Estonia, advocates tough sanctions on Russia and continued military support for Ukraine; some governments worry that her hard-line position could complicate direct contact with Moscow. Other options under discussion have included Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, or a format involving France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Behind this choice lies a more fundamental dilemma: whether to speak on behalf of EU institutions, seek a leader with direct channels of communication to Putin, or coordinate Europe’s position primarily with Washington.
During meetings in Dublin, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky demanded that Europeans decide on their representatives by the end of November. He said that ending the war without Europe’s involvement would be “unfair and, frankly, impossible,” since the war is being fought in Europe and its consequences affect the security of the entire region. Kyiv is calling not for a symbolic European presence, but for equal participation in decisions that will shape postwar security. This is especially important if the talks do indeed extend beyond a bilateral Russian-Ukrainian settlement.
Michal’s position echoes Kallas’s warning: “Putin has no veto over European security.” The point is not to refuse discussion of relations between Russia and NATO, but to reject Moscow’s right to decide unilaterally which alliances and defense arrangements are available to other countries. For the Baltic states and Russia’s other neighbors, discussions of military restrictions or alliance expansion are not abstract diplomatic matters: they directly affect their sovereignty. They therefore fear that an agreement ostensibly aimed at ending the war in Ukraine could turn into a broader security deal concluded without the consent of the countries affected.
The military dimension of the conflict underscores how limited the diplomatic easing of tensions remains. Ukraine’s Security Service said that Ukrainian drones struck the Russian Buyan-M-class small missile ship Naro-Fominsk in the Gulf of Finland. A Finnish official confirmed to Yle that the country had recorded an attack near Gogland Island; Estonian Defense Minister Martin Herem told the Estonian broadcaster ERR that an explosion had occurred aboard the Russian ship and said it headed for St. Petersburg after the attack. According to reports, Finnish forces temporarily restricted movement in part of the gulf’s waters and airspace as a precaution. The Exilenova+ channel claimed that crew members may have been killed or injured, but the article cited here does not officially confirm this information.
The strike took place in an area of strategic importance to Russia, Finland, and Estonia. It shows that military operations are affecting waters near NATO countries’ borders, increasing the need for surveillance and security measures even where states are not parties to the war. This does not directly prove that the diplomatic talks have failed or that the attack was connected to them, but it creates an obvious contrast: in Abu Dhabi, possible terms for peace are under discussion, while military operations continue in areas sensitive to the region.
The main conclusion from these reports is that the talks are not yet limited to finding terms for a ceasefire. A struggle is also underway over how to define the scope of a future agreement and who has the right to shape it. If Moscow is seeking to discuss European security as a whole, while Ukraine and European states demand an equal voice, the process’s success will depend not only on agreement between Russia and Ukraine, but also on how clearly the end of the war is distinguished from broader security arrangements. Without that distinction, there is a risk that the question of peace for Ukraine will be used to pressure other European countries. But excluding those countries from discussions of decisions affecting their defense is unlikely to create a durable security system either.
Several key terms in this debate need explanation. “The architecture of European security” is a general term for the rules, institutions, and military agreements governing the security of countries in the region; in this context, it may refer in particular to Russia’s relations with NATO and the alliance’s military presence. A “negotiator” or “envoy” is a representative authorized to conduct talks on behalf of a state or organization, but their powers and mandate must be agreed upon by those they represent. And the “equal participation” Kyiv is calling for means that European countries do not simply learn the results of U.S.-Russian or Russian-Ukrainian contacts after the fact, but take part in discussing issues that directly affect their security.
