Are "Ending the War" and "Making Peace" the Same? — The Core of Ukraine Peace Negotiations

The Resumption of Negotiations is a Sign of Hope, But It Alone Won't Bring Peace

What Should Be Decided First to End the War?

Is it to stop the shelling, address territorial issues, or establish a security mechanism to prevent future conflicts?

On November 10, 2026, in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, consultations between representatives from the United States, Ukraine, and Russia resumed. After the first day of talks, the Ukrainian side explained that discussions were held on humanitarian measures and tension reduction. However, the start of negotiations and the establishment of peace conditions are separate matters.

A commentary in the German newspaper "junge Welt" dated November 11 argued that mere superficial adjustments over territory would not end the war and that a political solution to restructure security across Europe is necessary.

While it includes points to consider, this is not a typical news report conveying negotiation results. It is a commentary with a clear stance centered on Russia's demands.

When viewing this issue from Japan, it is also necessary to distinguish between verifiable events and the solutions the author deems desirable.

What Does the Proposal to "Change State Borders" Resolve?

What stands out in the original article is the concept of altering the administrative boundaries of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in eastern Ukraine.

According to Ukrainian media introducing a report by the British magazine "The Economist," the proposal reportedly considered by U.S. negotiators involved changing administrative divisions to allow Russia to claim it had secured its target areas while allowing Ukraine to retain cities it currently holds.

However, this is a reported proposal under consideration and not an agreed-upon peace condition. It has not been confirmed whether Ukraine accepted it or how it would be implemented.

In diplomacy, there are times when both sides seek expressions they can explain domestically. The naming of agreements and wording adjustments may sometimes break deadlocks.

However, the names on a map and the lives of the people living there are not the same.

Who will be responsible for administration? Can displaced residents return? How will housing and land rights be handled? Will freedom of movement and safety be protected? Such issues cannot be resolved merely by redrawing administrative boundaries.

Furthermore, the line to stop fighting and the officially recognized borders between nations must be distinguished. Deciding where to halt military actions does not necessarily determine the final territorial ownership.

A proposal where "both sides can declare victory" does not automatically become a proposal where "residents can live in peace."

The Core of the Conflict is "What to Decide First"

The central claim of the original article is that to end the war, security arrangements in Europe, including Russia, are indispensable.

Reuters also reported that the Russian side views the current talks as addressing the security of not only Ukraine but the whole of Europe, seeking a more comprehensive resolution rather than a mere temporary ceasefire.

This raises the issue of the order of resolution.

From the perspective of prioritizing a ceasefire, as long as political negotiations drag on and lives are lost, stopping attacks first is necessary. Waiting for final answers to all problems may lose the opportunity to reduce damage.

On the other hand, those prioritizing a comprehensive political agreement believe that a ceasefire without mechanisms to prevent resumption becomes a pause until the next war.

Both arguments include issues that need consideration. However, the assertion that a comprehensive solution is necessary cannot be directly linked to the conclusion that "it is acceptable to continue fighting until resolved."

A conceivable approach is to proceed with measures to reduce damage and long-term political negotiations in parallel. Explore parts that can be implemented first, such as prisoner release, civilian protection, and halting attacks on critical infrastructure. Meanwhile, work out more difficult security conditions.

This is not an already agreed-upon process. However, it is a design choice in negotiations that cannot be captured by the dichotomy of ceasefire or political resolution.

Is Europe Really "Left Out"?

The original article strongly presents the view that Western Europe has been excluded from the Abu Dhabi negotiations and placed on the sidelines.

Here, supplementation with official information is indispensable.

According to a joint European statement dated November 10, prior to the trilateral talks with Russia, consultations were held with representatives from the EU, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, the United States, and NATO.

In other words, "Europe not being part of the trilateral framework directly negotiating with Russia" is different from "Europe not being involved in the local diplomatic consultations."

The joint statement indicated the need to respect sovereignty, territorial integrity, and autonomous decision-making, and to provide reliable security for Ukraine. It also aimed for broader multilateral consultations involving Europe.

However, being able to participate in preliminary coordination is not the same as being able to influence the final conditions.

To evaluate Europe's role, it is necessary to look not only at whether representatives are present at the venue but also whether their opinions are reflected in the content of the agreement and whether they have the responsibility and authority necessary for its implementation.

On Social Media, It's More About "What to Achieve" Than Optimism

On social media, posts about the negotiations show a mix of positive evaluations and demands for concrete outcomes.

President Zelensky is reported to have expressed on social media that the first day's talks were constructive and substantive. At the same time, he prioritized prisoner release and explained that the foundation for long-term functioning security was discussed.

What is noteworthy is that the focus of the evaluation is not merely on the fact that "talks were held." It emphasizes concrete results, such as whether prisoners can return to their families and whether promises to protect safety will continue to function.

U.S. Special Envoy Witkoff is also reported to have posted a joint statement on X regarding the U.S.-European and Ukrainian consultations. The stance shown there is to move towards broader consultations, not the establishment of a final agreement.

However, these are political communications by the negotiating parties. They cannot be equated with the reactions of the general public or the overall public opinion on social media.

The information confirmed this time did not allow for sufficient verification of posts by general users. Therefore, evaluations such as "many welcome voices on social media" or "criticism is pouring in" should be avoided.

What can be read from the posts of the parties involved is the expectation for the resumption of negotiations and, at the same time, a cautious stance in explaining the outcomes. It is premature to judge that peace is near based solely on the positive expressions in the posts.

The Overlooked Risks of the Term "Yalta 2.0"

The original article ends by questioning what is wrong with a "Yalta 2.0" where major powers determine the order in Europe.

This expression suggests the idea that major powers like the U.S. and Russia could settle the war by organizing spheres of influence and security frameworks.

Agreements between major powers can be crucial in stopping a war. If countries capable of influencing military support and diplomatic pressure do not align, it may become difficult to implement the agreement.

However, whose will is reflected in that agreement is another issue.

Can Ukraine choose its future on its own? Is it acceptable to decide the security of European countries without their consent? Is it justifiable to limit the diplomatic and defense options of other countries for the stability of relations between major powers?

There can be a gap between "an order agreed upon by major powers" and "an order that the countries living there can accept."

The necessity to understand Russia's demands emphasized by the original article must be considered separately from whether those demands should be accepted. Analyzing the objectives of the negotiating partner is necessary, but it does not automatically justify their demands.

If considering the sustainability of peace, the consent of the parties involved is not a formal condition but the foundation for maintaining the agreement.

For Japan, It's Not Just a "Distant Regional Deal"

From Japan's perspective, the reorganization of European security might seem like a distant issue.

However, the question of how far major powers can decide the future of another country also concerns countries like Japan, which live within alliances and regional security environments.

Ending the war through negotiations is important. At the same time, how to protect the consent and autonomous choices of the parties involved is also crucial.

Another point Japanese readers should focus on is the content of "security promises."

There is a difference between declaring support and being able to provide actual support in times of crisis. In what situations, by whom, through what procedures, and what will be executed? Are there funds and systems to support the promises?

Even if strong words are lined up in the agreement document, if the mechanism for implementation is vague, people's anxiety will not disappear.

The perspective of reading the Ukraine peace process also directs attention to "the conditions under which promises function" when considering Japan's security.

Measuring Success by the Day After, Not Just the Signing Photos

The outcomes of peace negotiations are often discussed through the handshakes of leaders and joint statements.

However, what should actually be observed is much more concrete.

Can prisoners return to their families? Will civilian casualties decrease? Is there a mechanism to verify ceasefire violations? Who will respond if violations occur? Can displaced people choose their future of their own volition?

The necessity of a major political agreement and the urgency of each individual improvement can coexist.

The "junge Welt" commentary raised the issue that addressing only territorial matters does not resolve the political conflicts underlying the war. This question is worth examining.

However, the answer derived from that does not need to be the reorganization of spheres of influence by major powers. The challenge is how to reconcile discussions on security, including Russia, with the protection of autonomous decision-making by Ukraine and European countries.

An agreement to end the war needs the power to stop weapons. And an agreement to build peace needs a mechanism where people living there can believe in their safety the next day and the next year.

Sources and References

※Based on information confirmed as of November 11, 2026.

1. junge Welt: Commentary that served as the starting point for the article
   Reinhard Lauterbach "Wird es ernst?". The author's views on political concessions to Russia, the reorganization of European security, and "Yalta 2.0".
   https://www.jungewelt.de/artikel/533163.wird-es-ernst.html

2. European Council: Official statement on U.S.-European and Ukrainian consultations in Abu Dhabi
   Confirmation of European participation in local consultations, sovereignty and autonomous decision-making, security guarantees, and a policy toward multilateral consultations.
   https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/11/10/statement-on-today-s-meeting-in-abu-dhabi-between-the-eu-france-germany-italy-united-kingdom-ukraine-united-states-and-nato/Consilium

3. hromadske: Report on the proposal to change administrative boundaries
   Introduction of The Economist report. Reference to the content of the proposal under consideration and the unconfirmed acceptance or implementation method by Ukraine.
   https://hromadske.ua/en/amp/war/274118-us-floated-redrawing-ukraines-regional-borders-to-let-russia-claim-donbas-victory-the-economistEconomist

4. Reuters: The European security framework emphasized by the Russian side
   Report on the order of ceasefire and comprehensive political resolution, and the Russian side's positioning in negotiations.
   https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-sees-new-security-framework-europe-main-thrust-ukraine-talks-delegation-2026-11-10/reuters.com

5. The Kyiv Independent: First day of talks and President Zelensky's social media posts
   Confirmation of the end of talks, humanitarian measures, prisoner release, and security explanations.
   https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-russia-us-resume-trilateral-peace-talks-in-abu-dhabi-after-9-month-pause/kyivindependent.com

6. President Zelensky's X post
   URL of the post referenced in the above report. The content was confirmed through the above report as the text on X could not be directly obtained.
   https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/2120172358426042607

7. Yeni Şafak/Anadolu Agency: Statement by Special Envoy Witkoff on X
   Confirmation that the joint statement by the U.S., Europe, and Ukraine was also posted on X and its content.
   https://en.yenisafak.com/world/us-ukraine-and-european-partners-agree-to-broader-multilateral-talks-3725408