Ukraine peace talks: what security guarantees still leave unsettled

For Ukrainians weighing whether to return home or rebuild a business, stopping the fighting would answer only part of the question. What would keep it from starting again? As delegations prepared on November 9 for peace talks in Abu Dhabi, that practical uncertainty sat behind the diplomatic phrase “security guarantees.”

Ukrainian, Russian and U.S. negotiators are scheduled to meet on November 10–11, their first such session since February, according to the Associated Press. The dates were already announced; Monday’s developments concerned who was going and how European partners would participate. No ceasefire or completed security agreement accompanied those preparations.

The central distinction is between preparing to help Ukraine after the war and committing to a particular response if Russia attacks again. Public plans contain concrete details about the first. The second remains unfinished.

Three different jobs

A useful way to understand the proposals is to separate three functions that can disappear inside the word “guarantee”:

These are distinctions for reading the proposals, rather than a description of an agreed three-part settlement. Britain’s current plans illustrate why they matter.

In guidance published November 3, the British Ministry of Defence describes a multinational force commanded jointly by Britain and France. Its principal task would be rebuilding and strengthening Ukraine’s armed forces. Other proposed activities include air operations and clearing mines from the Black Sea.

Those tasks have civilian consequences: the ministry says they could help build confidence for commercial flights and maritime trade to resume. That is the government’s intended benefit, not a demonstrated outcome.

The deployment conditions are explicit. Ukraine must invite the force; hostilities must have ended; and the necessary political and military conditions must be met. The ministry also says it would be neither a peacekeeping force nor a ceasefire-monitoring force, and would have no NATO connection.

So a headquarters and military preparations do not establish that troops have deployed, that they would investigate ceasefire breaches, or that NATO would intervene after another attack.

A separate British-German statement on November 2 likewise described security guarantees as still being developed for implementation after hostilities cease and conditions permit.

Being in Abu Dhabi is not the same as sharing the table

The participation announcements require similar care. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said on November 8 that France would take part, Reuters reported. That established France’s intention to participate, without settling the negotiating format.

On November 9, Ukrainian negotiator Rustem Umerov described separate meetings with representatives from Britain, France, Germany, Italy, NATO and the European Commission, according to Hromadske. The same report attributed to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov the position that Europeans would not join the trilateral negotiations.

Euronews confirmed plans for a joint European Commission–Council team, while reporting that direct engagement with Russia remained uncertain. European consultations and an expanded negotiating table are therefore separate developments.

What would show this is changing?

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has framed Ukraine’s underlying question as which allies would act after another Russian invasion, using what resources and on what timetable, AP reported. Russia rejects a prospective European troop deployment. The sides also remain divided over territory and restrictions on Ukraine’s military.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described the coming negotiations as work on principles for approval at the conclusion of comprehensive settlement talks, according to Interfax. That is Moscow’s stated approach, not evidence of agreement among the participants. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said on November 8 that security arrangements had not been finalized, Reuters reported.

A substantive change would be published terms identifying the trigger for assistance, the governments responsible, the response timetable and any further national authorization required. A promise to consult, a promise to supply equipment and a promise to deploy forces carry different obligations. The Abu Dhabi preparations have yet to settle which of those promises governments will make.