ABU DHABI — When Jared Kushner walked into the briefing room to announce the results of two days of peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, he didn’t try to conceal how hard it had been. 

“The reality is there’s no trust right now between the sides,” Donald Trump’s son-in-law and trusted envoy told POLITICO during a post-talks briefing. “There were some pretty tough discussions.” 

The two sides, one led by a Kremlin aide and the other by Ukraine’s spy chief, discussed all the most difficult topics including the toughest — what happens to disputed territory — and fought hard for their own objectives, according to those in the room. 

The mood cooled from the first day to the second. On Tuesday, with negotiations lasting four and a half hours, officials on the ground in Abu Dhabi who were familiar with the talks described them as “constructive.” The best they could muster on Wednesday, when the session broke up after just two hours, was that the exchange had been “neutral.” 

In truth, few on the Ukrainian side ever believed this week’s resumption of face-to-face negotiations would deliver a breakthrough. The biggest announcement concerned the non-trivial matter of a planned prisoner exchange — which Kushner said would be the biggest in the war so far, but on even this they failed to announce the final agreed numbers. 

Yet despite the muted rhetoric, the meeting in the air-conditioned environs of a secure government guest house — where staff were constantly on hand to provide coffee, sandwiches and even pizza — was nevertheless a significant moment in the stop-start journey toward peace after nearly five years of war. 

Here’s what you need to know about where things stand.

What did they discuss?  

Everything. According to Kushner, there was no significant topic that was not raised over the two days. The question of territory, he said, would clearly be “the hardest” to resolve. According to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Kyiv’s negotiators scored a major win on day one by convincing the Americans to accept their analysis of where the front line stands, and just how much less Ukrainian territory Russia has conquered than Moscow claims. 

It’s hard to see a quick resolution on that issue, although privately U.S. officials say both sides have shown some flexibility on how to settle territorial claims. Zelenskyy still insists, and it seems the American mediators agree, that matters relating to the fate of Ukrainian land can only be discussed at the level of leaders. That kind of meeting is still very far away. “Clearly, there’s not great trust or love between the leaders,” Kushner said. 

What did they agree? 

A big prisoner exchange — potentially the largest since the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022. But even this isn’t yet final: Kushner made it clear that it would depend on approval from Vladimir Putin, and that he’d try to obtain that on Thursday on a visit to Moscow . 

“One of the positives was that we agreed that we’re going to have the biggest humanitarian release of prisoners — we’re gonna finalize the numbers tomorrow,” Kushner said. He said he would be traveling with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s other envoy, “to Moscow tomorrow to meet with President Putin, to go over what was discussed today, and try to make more progress on some of the issues.” 

Ukraine’s negotiators said “strict directives” from Moscow had limited the scope of their Russian counterparts to reach agreements this week, making the talks harder. 

What happens next? 

The Moscow trip is key. Kushner said his other big goal in speaking to Putin would be to get him to allow Europeans to join the next round of negotiations. “I believe that hopefully tomorrow in Moscow, Steve and I will be successful and President Putin will give the blessing for that to occur. I think that if he agrees to that we will be able to make a lot more progress,” Kushner said in response to a question from POLITICO. 

Then the Americans plan to head to Dublin to meet Zelenskyy in person and try to push the agenda forward. The Ukrainians want to get the next date in their diary for more talks because they hope to have a deal before the end of the year, with Russia ramping up strikes on Ukraine’s power grids and energy facilities and another winter looming. 

The big shift 

Arguably, the biggest change in recent days has been in America’s attitude. This was never simply a negotiation between Russia and Ukraine, after all; ever since Trump returned to power nearly two years ago, Kyiv and Brussels have been trying to persuade Washington to take their arguments more seriously. For Ukraine’s European allies, that lobbying has paid off. 

Kushner and Witkoff now want European officials to join the next round of negotiations — so they can move on to discussing one of Putin’s most totemic obsessions: Relations with NATO, and the future system of European security. 

“We need to have the Europeans at the table,” Kushner said, answering a question from POLITICO at the briefing. “We have relayed to President Putin directly several times and to his team that the only way to get this done is to have them by our side, and I think they are receptive to it.”

Ukrainian negotiators said Russian attitudes only started to soften — and open to dialogue — once the U.S. moved to discuss postwar settlements for both sides.

On Ukraine, too, American attitudes have changed. Only a few weeks ago Trump was angrily demanding that Zelenskyy be replaced amid a bust-up over Ukraine’s criticism of the U.S. president’s diesel deal with Putin. Russia, Trump said, had been “fine” on Ukraine. 

Now, however, Kushner is careful to praise the Ukrainian negotiating team and “the great efforts” they made in Abu Dhabi. “I think they fought very, very hard for their issues, were very constructive, and I think it was a very productive session.” The Ukrainians also expressed gratitude to the U.S. side. 

Europe’s big question 

It’s one thing to be invited to take part in real talks with Russia and Ukraine — and Europeans have yet to be given even this chance. But it’s another to participate and then influence the conversation when it finally happens. For that, Europe needs to choose its representatives wisely. 

Zelenskyy says he wants to be consulted on who should get the role of speaking for Europe — and that it should be a single person. He also wants Europe to decide by the end of this month. 

So far, however, Europe’s approach has been anything but streamlined. Attending the talks on the sidelines in Abu Dhabi were representatives of the European Commission, the European Council, NATO, the U.K., France, Germany and Italy. 

Wearing his diplomatic hat, Kushner described this arrangement as “strong” — but added that “If Europe could identify one person to speak on their behalf, that would be a bigger achievement than getting the Russians to include them in the negotiation.”

Europe’s danger moment 

If the latest negotiations have achieved nothing else, after months of worrying about being left on the sidelines, Europe now finds itself — subject to Putin’s approval, of course — in the thick of the most perilous negotiations in the continent’s recent history. 

One critical question is how far talks about changing the continental security framework, which is underpinned by NATO, will be tied to the peace negotiations regarding Ukraine. Europeans have long campaigned for Ukraine to get the strongest possible security guarantees to prevent Russia from attacking again when the war ends. And U.S. officials want to explore the idea of providing a NATO-like collective defense agreement with Ukraine that could even involve NATO itself as a guarantor. 

Officials in European capitals say the sequencing of these talks will be critical. The European side has signaled its willingness to explore the continent’s wider security system to allay Russia’s concerns — in parallel with the Ukraine peace process. But they don’t want to sign up to any wider reforms until peace has been achieved. 

‘Trying to survive’

Kushner said the aim was to discuss all the issues and then “find a pathway to settle them all at the same time.” 

“I think that having these discussions is very important,” he said. “But the implementation of postwar security will not occur until there’s an agreement on territory and on all other bilateral issues.” 

If that position holds, it could work for Europe. But in the end, anything agreed among officials in the negotiating room is always provisional. All it would take is a phone call from Putin to Trump. 

Some Europeans are wary. German officials involved in the Abu Dhabi talks see very little potential upside and view the process as a “Russian trap” to give a false impression that Moscow is willing to make peace, said one German official with knowledge of talks, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly. 

“The Europeans are only trying to survive this,” the official said.

James Angelos and Veronika Melkozerova contributed reporting.

LONDON — The U.S. has evacuated refueling aircraft from an RAF base in Britain after registering an alleged threat from Iran.

At least 10 U.S. planes left RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk on Monday, according to the BBC, and landed at other American bases in Europe and at Prestwick Airport in Scotland.

The operation was first reported by the Wall Street Journal and confirmed by two U.K. officials briefed on the matter.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “We do not routinely comment on the activity of other nations. Aircraft and other assets move regularly ​according to operational ​requirements.”

It comes weeks after an Iran-linked security incident at RAF Fairford, which saw the U.S. pull its bombers out of the base and return them to America.

A major incident was declared after three suspicious vans were seen near Fairford, which led to eight arrests. Two British nationals appeared in court in October in connection with an alleged plot connected to Iran.

U.K. Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s spokesman said: “The U.S. is one of our top security partners. We’re in constant communication with them, sharing intelligence and accessing threats together. Aircraft and other assets move regularly according to operational requirements… The protection of our bases, both in the U.K. and across the world, is a top priority.”

Conservative Party Leader Kemi Badenoch said on Tuesday that the latest U.S. withdrawal of assets is “very concerning, and our government’s got absolutely nothing to say about it.”

Head of the MI5 intelligence service Ken McCallum said last month that threats from foreign adversaries against the U.K. had quadrupled in the last decade, including an increase in Iran-sponsored aggression against Jewish sites and military bases.

This story was updated to include a comment from the U.K. prime minister’s spokesperson.

Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre is already unpopular with Donald Trump, who blames his government for not giving him the Nobel Peace Prize, and recently dismissed Norway as a “shithouse country.” 

Now Støre is casting doubt on the U.S. president’s bullish prediction that a “big, beautiful” peace deal is close to being signed to end nearly five years of Russia’s full-scale war with Ukraine. 

In an interview with POLITICO ahead of the restart of talks in Abu Dhabi, Støre gave a sober assessment of Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s mindset and the chances of an imminent ceasefire. 

And as the White House touts plans to overhaul the established security order in Europe, Støre bluntly warned that the continent’s defenses must not become a bargaining chip in the negotiation to end the war in Ukraine.

“I would be cautious,” Støre said, when asked what he expected to come out of the latest talks scheduled for the United Arab Emirates. “Abu Dhabi is a stepping stone, and one output of it should be a follow-up quite soon after.”

According to Støre, the Abu Dhabi agenda will potentially include talks about a ceasefire for the Black Sea to allow grain to be safely transported, a ceasefire on energy infrastructure, a front-line freeze in the conflict, and other “confidence building measures” such as prisoner swaps. There has also been work on the question of security guarantees to ensure Putin does not attack again, he said.

Negotiating teams from Moscow and Kyiv are due to sit down with the United States in Abu Dhabi on Nov. 10-11. It is the first three-way meeting the sides have had since February, and comes after a month of intensifying diplomacy and increasingly impatient demands from Trump to deliver a deal. 

Norway’s leader has found himself at the center of the storm more than once in that time. Working with his close friend and regional ally, Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, Støre tried to rescue the faltering peace process last month by hosting a meeting with Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Oslo. 

That got Ukraine and America back on the same page and prepared the ground for the Abu Dhabi discussion. But a day after the Oslo meeting, Witkoff was in St. Petersburg praising Putin to his face as a “humanitarian,” a statement that horrified many of Ukraine’s European allies. 

Støre said he is too diplomatic to reveal how the remark made him feel. But he added: “It would not have been part of my vocabulary.”

Given Witkoff’s pivotal role in the negotiations, as well as Trump’s own recent declaration that Russia has been “fine” in Ukraine, does Støre trust these individuals as guardians of a fair peace process for Ukraine? Should Europe trust them, or not? 

For all his tact and experience as a foreign minister, the 66-year-old Norwegian’s reply is not a straightforward yes. “I trust that the U.S. is seeking a way to end this war,” he said. 

Hotline to the Kremlin

On Oct. 27, Støre and Stubb took matters into their own hands. Rather than wait for the U.S. to negotiate a deal with Putin that would have vast ramifications for Europe, they picked up the phone to call the Kremlin directly. 

It was a rare outreach from pro-Ukraine leaders to Putin, who has been frozen out by Europe since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in 2022. Their 90-minute call stunned and dismayed some of the Nordics’ neighbors in countries such as Denmark and Latvia, who believed Europe should continue to isolate the Russian aggressor.

Støre rejected that idea and defended their decision to open up a line of communication directly to the Kremlin. “Let’s admit it. He is not isolated,” he said. “The only voice reaching Moscow comes from Washington.”

While Norway and Finland have good relations with the American negotiators, the war is happening in Europe, he said. “Living month by month … thinking that this war will end by Europe not talking to Moscow, I think, is an illusion … We believe that there should be European voices reaching Putin, with the message of why and how we support Ukraine.” 

Rational. Not a peacemaker

Having spoken to Putin, how would Støre characterize his state of mind? Did he seem rational in the conversation?

“I would describe it as professional. I would describe it as rational,” he said. “It was a conversation where we agreed the principles — we would not interrupt, we will keep [to] statements. His arguments were perfectly clearly transmitted.”

Some reports suggested that Putin used the call to lecture the two Nordic leaders on Slavic history as his justification for the war, an impression the Norwegian wants to correct: “I just have to say, you know, I was present. He didn’t.”

Does Støre believe Putin wants peace? “Well, if he had wanted peace, there would have been no war at the outset. If he had wanted peace during these five years, when he sees that his country is regressing, that neighboring countries are becoming members of NATO, that his people are being killed, and all these terrible things, the war would have ended. So that is one side to that.”

But at the same time, “the fact that he picks up that phone” to talk “I think that signals, at least that there’s a readiness to sit down.” And while Støre has not seen signs “so far” that Putin is genuinely open to a deal, sending a team to Abu Dhabi and being responsible for “not delivering anything” also has “a price.”  

Later this week, European leaders are due to debate who should represent them in Ukraine negotiations when they meet for an informal summit in Dublin. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is particularly frustrated that the EU has so far failed to make a plan for how to make sure its voice is fully heard when decisions are made. 

Støre said he had followed the debate about whether somebody should be “talking on behalf of a larger group” in Europe — “and I think there should be.”

It could be one individual, or a different arrangement, he said. Crucially, Europe needs to decide on its core collective messages and goals and then appoint a person or people to deliver those to Trump and Putin, he said. Increasingly, Støre said he had been looking to the so-called E3 to play this role — Europe’s biggest three economic powers, Germany, France and the U.K.

Whoever ends up speaking for European interests, one urgent task facing the region is how to stop Trump and Putin carving up a new security plan, raising fears in Europe over cuts to the U.S. troop presence, or weakening NATO’s role — a longtime goal of Russia’s leader. 

Last week, Trump and his team suggested the U.S. was working on a major overhaul of European security that the president said might involve “the whole of Europe.” 

Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner said the goal was “to develop practical arrangements that address the security concerns of all sides.”

But rolling the future of America’s role in European security into a negotiation about ending Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not acceptable to Norway, or Støre says, to other Nordic-Baltic countries. 

“Any issues relating to European architecture on security will have to be dealt with after the end of the war,” Støre said. “Russia keeps floating the ideas they had in the end of [2021] about where there could be NATO and where there could not be NATO. That is not for Russia to decide. This has nothing to do with this point in the negotiations.” 

In private, some European officials are resigned to the fact that Trump’s recurrent bashing of NATO allies has already weakened the effectiveness of the alliance as a deterrent against Russian aggression.

Støre insisted NATO remains in good shape. “We can discuss whether this or that statement helps,” he said. “I think sometimes it’s hard to say yes, they do help.”