· · · · ·

Zelenskyy Presses Allies for Clear Guarantees Before Abu Dhabi

Zelenskyy said security guarantees must specify who acts, with what and when if Russia attacks again, ahead of Abu Dhabi talks.

ByPeter
A U.S. Army Patriot launcher fires an interceptor in a burst of flame and smoke
A U.S. Army Patriot launcher fires an interceptor during a live-fire exercise. Photo: U.S. Army / Capt. Frank Spatt, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

KYIV / BRUSSELS, Nov. 6, 2026 — President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Ukraine needs written answers to a short list of questions before next week’s talks in Abu Dhabi: if Russia starts a war again, what will be done, by whom, with what means, and when. He made the remarks in an interview with TSN, excerpts of which were published on his Telegram channel and reported by Ukrinform on Friday.

“It is important that everything is clear on paper,” Zelenskyy said. “If Russia starts again, what will be done, by whom, with what means, and when? The answers should be clear first and foremost to us, Ukrainians.” He said the Brussels meetings, held on several levels with the European Union, NATO and the United States present, were meant to “produce answers to the questions that may arise during the discussions in the Emirates on November 10–11.”

Those discussions would be the first U.S.-mediated trilateral talks among Ukraine, Russia and the United States since February, U.S. special envoy Jared Kushner said in a statement reported by RBC-Ukraine on Friday. Formal talks between Russia and Ukraine had not resumed since U.S. and Israeli operations against Iran began in late February, the Congressional Research Service wrote in its May 22 update on the diplomacy.

What Brussels produced, and what Kyiv asked for

RBC-Ukraine reported that talks on security guarantees were held in Brussels on Nov. 5 among the Ukrainian delegation and representatives of France, the United Kingdom, Germany, the United States and NATO.

Two days earlier, Zelenskyy held a 90-minute call with Kushner and fellow U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff, the Kyiv Independent reported. Zelenskyy said the conversation covered air-defense munitions, the U.S.-Ukraine drone arrangement and postwar security guarantees. “We need interceptors for Patriot systems to protect lives from Russian attacks,” he said. He added: “There is no alternative to peace, and post-war security guarantees must be truly ironclad.”

The Abu Dhabi round is planned at the team level and could lead later to a leaders’ meeting, the Kyiv Independent reported. Both Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin had expressed willingness to negotiate after meeting Witkoff in October, that report said.

Kushner, after the Brussels sessions, listed five objectives under consideration: ongoing security consultations; reliable crisis communication channels; greater military transparency; mutual measures to reduce the risk of escalation; and a permanent framework for long-term European security and stability. He said any agreements “must fully respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independent decision-making of every nation.”

“Each country will retain authority over its own security and alliances, and no country would have a veto over another’s sovereign choices,” Kushner said, according to RBC-Ukraine. “NATO will remain central to European collective defense, and this initiative would build upon existing institutions and commitments.” He said consultations would continue in what he called the Shell Bay format, with Ukraine, NATO, the European Union and European partners, while the United States also engaged Russia, and that a broader multilateral format could follow “if progress is made.”

Three versions of a guarantee

The word is being used for several different things. One is the written, automatic pledge Zelenskyy described. Another is the process-heavy package Kushner outlined. A third is the existing body of U.S.-Ukraine security cooperation, which is real but is not a promise to fight.

On June 13, 2024, Washington and Kyiv signed a Bilateral Security Agreement that entered into force the same day, according to the State Department’s treaty record. It is a cooperation accord, not a mutual-defense treaty. Separately, on Sept. 18, 2026, the State Department notified Congress of a proposed Foreign Military Sale of air-defense upgrades to Ukraine, with an estimated cost of $2.68 billion, to be financed by a mix of European contributions and previously appropriated Foreign Military Financing. That notice is about equipment and support, including missiles, radars and launchers, not about what the United States would do if Russia attacked again after a peace deal.

CRS wrote that Ukrainian officials have sought guarantees against further Russian aggression, “including through the deployment of Western peacekeeping forces and closer integration with NATO and the European Union.” It said President Donald Trump and other administration officials had “expressed the view that NATO membership for Ukraine is unrealistic while indicating support for the provision of European-led security guarantees, potentially with U.S. involvement.” U.S. authorities, CRS added, “reportedly have indicated that Ukraine and Russia should first reach an agreement.” “The precise nature and form of potential guarantees remains uncertain,” the service wrote.

| Question | What Zelenskyy is asking | What Kushner described after Brussels | What CRS recorded as the U.S. approach (as of May 22) | |—|—|—|—| | Who acts? | Named parties, “clear on paper” | Consultations among Ukraine, the United States, NATO and European partners; NATO kept central to European collective defense | European-led guarantees, potentially with U.S. involvement | | With what? | Specified means; he also asked now for Patriot interceptors | “Practical, mutually agreed arrangements” | Previously committed assistance and allied-funded transfers; the form of any postwar pledge left open | | When? | If Russia “starts again,” with timing stated | After work toward a “comprehensive and durable agreement,” with talks set for next week | Ukraine and Russia should first reach an agreement | | Legal form | Written guarantees he called ironclad | Five objectives focused on consultations, communications, transparency and a wider European framework | Uncertain; NATO membership described as unrealistic |

NATO’s Article 5 remains the benchmark many in Kyiv use, even though it applies to allies and to attacks in Europe or North America. Kushner’s formulation keeps NATO at the center of European defense without saying that Ukraine would be brought under that article.

Analysis: why the wording fight matters

Zelenskyy’s four questions are about automaticity. They ask whether a postwar document would name the countries that would act, the tools they would use and the clock they would run if Russia restarted the war. Kushner’s five objectives are about process: talking, communicating, sharing information and lowering the chance of a new clash. Those elements can appear in the same paper. They do not answer the same question.

The May CRS assessment is useful because it records the gap rather than closing it. The Trump administration, CRS wrote, favored European-led guarantees and wanted a Russia-Ukraine agreement first. Kushner’s comment that no country would have a veto over another’s alliances is a reply to a different fear, that Moscow might demand a say over Ukraine’s future ties. It is not, on its face, a pledge that the United States would use force if Russia attacked again.

Two existing U.S. instruments show what Washington is already willing to put in writing. The 2024 bilateral agreement created a structured security relationship. The September air-defense sale, if completed, would add hardware financed in part by Europe. Neither instrument is an Article 5 equivalent, and neither tells Ukrainian society what Zelenskyy said it needs to hear.

That is the test for Abu Dhabi. A successful round, from Kyiv’s point of view, would produce language that can be shown to the public as answers to those questions. A round that stays inside Kushner’s five headings could still be described as productive by Washington and still leave the core issue for later. CRS noted that members of Congress may authorize, appropriate, restrict or oversee further assistance, so any U.S. pledge that required money or new authority would not be finished in the Emirates. The other variable is Russia. CRS wrote that Russian officials have preferred a comprehensive settlement that would, in Moscow’s optimal version, include Ukrainian neutrality, limits on Ukraine’s military power and additional territory. Those aims collide with a guarantee designed to make a new attack too costly. Whether next week’s talks even reach the guarantee file will depend on whether both capitals treat the meeting as a negotiation or as another exchange of opening positions.

Sources

Additional sources

Related coverage

Related on Peter’s World

Recommended articles