IN ABU DHABI, A HUMANITARIAN OPENING AMID AN UNENDED WAR

After two days of closed-door meetings in the capital of the United Arab Emirates, Russia and Ukraine have agreed to prepare a new, large-scale exchange of prisoners of war. The announcement, made on Wednesday after the first direct negotiations between the two sides in nine months, did not end the war. It did, however, restore something that has been in short supply through nearly five years of full-scale conflict: a functioning channel for negotiation.

The talks in Abu Dhabi were mediated by the United States and hosted by the UAE. They brought together Russian and Ukrainian officials for discussions that both sides described as difficult but substantive. The prisoner exchange was the one concrete outcome. Its final numbers were to be settled the following day, but officials on all sides suggested that it could be the largest such release since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

For the families waiting for news of captured soldiers, the significance of such an agreement is immediate and personal. For diplomats, it is more tentative: a test of whether humanitarian cooperation can create momentum for wider political talks, or whether it will remain an isolated achievement while the central disputes over territory, security, and sovereignty remain unresolved.

A familiar mechanism, at a larger scale

Prisoner exchanges have been one of the few consistently working mechanisms of the war. According to analysts cited during the Abu Dhabi talks, exchanges of 100 to 300 prisoners have taken place every two or three months, often with little public diplomacy attached.

Larger swaps have tended to follow periods of direct negotiation. Ukraine and Russia each freed 200 prisoners in March after talks in Geneva in February, and large exchanges followed three rounds of talks in Istanbul from May to July last year. In 2025, they each exchanged 146 prisoners after mediation by the UAE.

The benchmark for scale remains the 1,000-for-1,000 exchange in May last year. To be described as the largest of the war, any new swap would need to surpass that figure. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had earlier indicated that discussions included the possibility of returning 1,000 to 1,500 people from each side, while U.S. envoy Jared Kushner described the prospective release as the “biggest humanitarian release of prisoners” in the war.

Russian state media reported that the exchange could take place within two to three weeks. That timetable, if met, would make the Abu Dhabi agreement more than a statement of intent. It would require verification of lists, medical examinations, logistical coordination, and agreement on the place and conditions of transfer  the unglamorous but essential work that determines whether diplomatic announcements become homecomings.

What was  and was not  agreed

Beyond the prisoner exchange, officials were careful not to overstate progress. Russia’s chief negotiator, Vladimir Medinsky, said mutual understanding had been achieved on some issues. Kushner said the meeting had been “very tough” but “productive,” and that progress had been made on a post-war security framework, even as territorial questions remained the hardest to settle.

That framing matters. In negotiations over this war, humanitarian agreements have often been easier to reach than political ones because they do not require either side to concede its core war aims. A prisoner exchange does not settle who controls territory, what security guarantees Ukraine would receive, how European security would be restructured, or what Russia would accept as a durable end to hostilities. It does demonstrate that both sides can still agree on procedures, timelines, and verification when the incentive is strong enough.

The American role was central to the Abu Dhabi format. Kushner and U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff mediated the talks and were scheduled to travel to Moscow on Thursday to brief Russian President Vladimir Putin, before flying to Dublin to meet Zelenskyy. The sequence  trilateral talks followed by separate consultations with each president  underscored both the promise and the limits of mediation: the United States could bring the delegations together, but any final settlement would require decisions at the presidential level.

Neither Putin nor Zelenskyy attended the Abu Dhabi sessions. That absence was not unusual for this stage of diplomacy, but it meant that the negotiators in the room were exploring openings rather than signing a settlement.

The question of Europe

One of the most consequential discussions in Abu Dhabi concerned not just who was in the room, but who should join future rounds.

Ukraine’s negotiator, David Arakhamia, said there was “good momentum” toward reaching a solution before the end of the year and argued that the next talks should be multilateral rather than trilateral, with Europe represented. Zelenskyy echoed that point, saying he did not think it was possible to think about European security “without Europe.”

Medinsky said Moscow was not opposed to participation from the European Union, but questioned what Russia and the EU had to discuss in the absence of proposals from the European side. Kushner said future discussions with both presidents would address whether Europeans could be brought into the format and turned into a multilateral process.

The debate reflects a structural tension that has shaped diplomacy throughout the war. The United States has the leverage and direct channels to both Moscow and Kyiv that make it an indispensable mediator. The European Union and European states, however, would bear many of the long-term consequences of any settlement  from security guarantees and reconstruction to sanctions policy and relations with Russia. A settlement negotiated without them risks lacking legitimacy and durability; a settlement that includes them risks becoming more complex and harder to conclude.

For Ukraine, European participation is also a matter of political assurance. Kyiv has consistently sought to anchor any peace in broader Western security structures, rather than in a bilateral arrangement that could leave it exposed. For Russia, the question is whether European involvement would broaden the agenda or harden positions on issues Moscow considers bilateral.

Why Abu Dhabi, why now

The choice of Abu Dhabi as host was itself significant. The UAE has cultivated a role as a neutral convenor, maintaining working relations with Moscow, Kyiv, and Washington. It has previously mediated prisoner exchanges and has positioned itself as a venue where adversaries can meet without the symbolism of meeting on either side’s territory or in a Western capital.

The timing also matters. With the war approaching its fifth year, the costs  human, economic, and political  continue to accumulate. Front lines have shifted slowly and at great cost. Civilian infrastructure has been repeatedly targeted. Millions of Ukrainians remain displaced. International attention, while still substantial, competes with other crises. In that context, even a limited agreement can serve as a signal to domestic audiences and international partners that diplomacy has not been abandoned.

Yet diplomats and analysts caution against reading too much into a single round. The history of negotiations in this war includes moments of apparent momentum followed by renewed fighting, disagreement over terms, and breakdowns in implementation. A prisoner exchange, however welcome, does not by itself indicate convergence on the issues that have prevented a ceasefire, let alone a comprehensive peace.

The central obstacle remains trust  or its absence. The U.S. mediators acknowledged that differences remained on major issues, including territory, and that the lack of trust continues to hold back talks. Without mechanisms to verify compliance, enforce commitments, and manage violations, any broader agreement would remain fragile.

What to watch next

In the coming days and weeks, three indicators will show whether Abu Dhabi marked a turning point or a brief pause in a grinding war.

The first is implementation. Will the prisoner lists be finalized, and will the exchange take place within the reported two-to-three-week window? A delay or dispute over numbers could erode confidence quickly. A smooth, large-scale exchange would strengthen the credibility of the negotiating channel.

The second is the follow-up diplomacy. Will the U.S. envoys’ meetings in Moscow and Dublin produce a date and format for the next round? Will Europe be included, and in what capacity? The move from trilateral to multilateral talks, if it happens, would signal a new phase.

The third is the battlefield. Negotiations have often continued alongside fighting, and a humanitarian agreement does not imply a ceasefire. Whether military activity changes in the weeks after Abu Dhabi  and whether either side frames the talks as a reason for restraint  will shape public perception of their seriousness.

For now, the Abu Dhabi talks have produced what diplomacy in wartime most often produces: not peace, but a narrow opening. Hundreds, perhaps more than a thousand, families may soon learn the fate of loved ones. Negotiators have a reason to meet again. Mediators have a process to build on. Whether that opening widens will depend on decisions that were not made in Abu Dhabi  in Moscow, in Kyiv, in European capitals, and in Washington  about what each side is prepared to accept to end a war that has already lasted far too long.