Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
Russia-Ukraine War 2026
13MAY

Trilateral loses venue, keeps deadlock

3 min read
20:00UTC

The third US-Russia-Ukraine trilateral cannot meet in Abu Dhabi and may relocate to Istanbul, but the harder problem — Russia's demand that Ukraine cede four oblasts before talks continue — has not moved.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Istanbul hosted a near-deal in 2022 that collapsed; its symbolic freight complicates its neutrality as a venue.

The third round of US-Russia-Ukraine trilateral negotiations, scheduled for 5–6 March, cannot proceed in Abu Dhabi because of the wider Middle East conflict. President Zelenskyy confirmed on 2 March that the talks are not cancelled — only the venue is unresolved 1. Bloomberg sources identified Istanbul as the front-runner replacement 2, and Turkey's Anadolu Agency separately reported that Russia confirmed the city 3. No final announcement had been made as of 5 March.

The venue disruption matters less than what awaits any table they sit around. Russia's precondition — that Ukraine formally cede Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson before talks continue — remains on the table. Moscow has issued structurally similar ultimatums before every round since 2022 and attended regardless, a pattern that suggests the demand functions as a negotiating anchor rather than a genuine walk-away trigger. The second Abu Dhabi round in February achieved technical progress on ceasefire monitoring mechanics but deadlocked on territory, security guarantees, and the composition of any monitoring force . None of those positions have shifted.

Three constraints define the negotiating space regardless of city. Trump told Zelenskyy on 25 February he wanted the war ended "in a month" ; Russia's stated position remains "no deadlines." The trilateral format excludes all 27 EU member states despite Europe having funded more of Ukraine's war effort than the United States — a gap Germany's chancellor addressed directly in Washington on 3 March. And the substantive deadlock is circular: Ukraine will not concede territory in advance, Russia will not negotiate without that concession, and Washington has not indicated which side's position it considers more negotiable.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Peace talks between the US, Russia, and Ukraine were due in Abu Dhabi but had to move because of unrelated Middle East tensions. Istanbul is the replacement. Turkey has maintained relationships with both sides throughout the war — selling weapons to Ukraine while buying gas from Russia — which makes it acceptable to both parties as a host. The venue matters less than the substance. Russia still insists Ukraine formally hand over four regions before talks can proceed. Crucially, Ukraine's constitution prohibits surrendering territory without a national referendum — a legal barrier that no Ukrainian president can waive by executive decision, regardless of US pressure. Russia has made similar demands before every previous round and attended anyway, which suggests the precondition serves a domestic audience rather than being a genuine deal-breaker.

Deep Analysis
Synthesis

Ukraine's constitution (Article 157) bars altering state territory without a national referendum — a legal constraint Zelensky cannot waive by executive decision regardless of pressure from Washington. Russia's four-oblast precondition is therefore structurally incompatible with Ukrainian constitutional law, not merely with Ukrainian political will. This suggests the precondition functions as a procedural legitimisation device for Russian domestic audiences rather than a genuine negotiating position — which would explain why Russia consistently attends talks regardless of unmet demands.

What could happen next?
  • Risk

    Venue uncertainty delaying the 5–6 March meeting risks dissipating technical momentum from the second round's progress on ceasefire monitoring.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Consequence

    A framework agreed before European observer status is secured gives Merz's implementation veto immediate practical teeth, creating post-agreement deadlock between the US-brokered text and European non-endorsement.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Precedent

    A deal concluded in trilateral format without European participation sets a structural template for US-Russia bilateralism that excludes EU institutional role in European security architecture.

    Medium term · Assessed
First Reported In

Update #2 · Shadow fleet tanker sunk, talks seek venue

Ukrainska Pravda· 5 Mar 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
NATO eastern flank (B9 + Nordics)
NATO eastern flank (B9 + Nordics)
The B9+Nordic Bucharest joint statement on 13 May reaffirmed Ukraine's sovereignty within internationally recognised borders and backed NATO eastern flank reinforcement; the summit accepted Zelenskyy's bilateral drone deal proposal as a structural alternative to the stalled US export approval pathway, treating it as a European defence architecture question rather than aid delivery.
IAEA / Rafael Grossi
IAEA / Rafael Grossi
Grossi is still negotiating a sixth ZNPP repair ceasefire with no agreement after 50 days of 750 kV line disconnection; the 3 May ERCL drone strike that destroyed environmental monitoring equipment represents a qualitative escalation in infrastructure degradation that the IAEA has documented but cannot compel either party to halt.
Péter Magyar / Hungary
Péter Magyar / Hungary
Magyar's incoming foreign minister pledged on 12 May that Hungary will stop abusing EU veto rights; the pledge is a statement of intent rather than a binding legal commitment, and Magyar's MEPs voted against the €90 billion loan as recently as April, while a planned referendum on Ukraine's EU accession preserves a downstream blocking lever.
EU Council and European Commission
EU Council and European Commission
The Magyar cabinet formation on 12 May removes the Hungary veto that had blocked the €9.1 billion first tranche since February; the Commission is now coordinating the three-document disbursement package for an early-June vote. The structural blocker is gone; the disbursement question is now scheduling, not politics.
Donald Trump / White House
Donald Trump / White House
Trump announced a 9-11 May three-day ceasefire with a 1,000-for-1,000 prisoner exchange attached, then called peace 'getting very close' on 11-13 May while Russia's 800-drone barrage was under way; his public framing adopted Russian diplomatic language without securing any Russian operational concession or verifying the exchange was agreed.
Vladimir Putin / Kremlin
Vladimir Putin / Kremlin
Putin told reporters on 9 May the war is 'coming to an end' while Peskov confirmed on 13 May that territorial demands are unchanged and Russia requires full Ukrainian withdrawal from all four annexed regions; the verbal accommodation costs Moscow nothing and conditions any summit on a pre-finalised treaty Kyiv cannot accept.