Abu Dhabi Talks: Prisoner Exchange, Ceasefire Discussions, and a War That Did Not Pause
Time for Action analyzed the course of the trilateral consultations in Abu Dhabi and the public signals that emerged after two days of talks. The picture turned out to be contradictory: on the one hand, an organized negotiation process and a concrete humanitarian result; on the other, drone attacks the same night and a direct acknowledgment that no agreement to end the war was reached.
According to the Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, Rustem Umerov, the working process was structured so that the sides could move along parallel tracks. In public descriptions, this looked like three levels of engagement:
- direct trilateral consultations;
- work in specialized groups;
- synchronization of positions among participants.
This detail matters because it shows that the talks were not limited to a single “big table” meeting, but were broken down into thematic nodes where some issues could be discussed technically, without political declarations.
The U.S. side also offered a formula that explains why, after two days of meetings, the public saw little concrete detail. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said there had been a “reduction in the list of open issues between Ukraine and Russia that hinder reaching a peace agreement.” He separately explained that progress might remain non-public due to the sensitivity of the process and stressed that the United States continues to invest significant resources in attempts “to achieve a breakthrough.” This “list” thesis is important for another reason: Rubio immediately set limits on optimism. In his words, the good news is that the list of contentious points has shrunk, but the warning was explicit: “The bad news is that the issues that remain are the hardest, and the war continues in the meantime.”
What the sides called a practical outcome
The most tangible result of these two days was an agreement on a prisoner exchange. U.S. Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff stated: “This result was achieved thanks to peaceful negotiations that were detailed and productive. Discussions will continue, and further progress is expected in the coming weeks.” His statement referred to an agreement on the exchange of 314 prisoners. The Ukrainian side, in Umerov’s summary communiqué, also confirmed the exchange that took place on February 5 and specified its figure: Ukraine returned 157 prisoners military personnel and civilians. The same message included another telling emphasis: the delegations “plan to continue trilateral meetings in the near future” and expressed gratitude to the UAE for organizing the talks. It is important not to conflate these two information blocks. Different figures were voiced publicly, which creates room for unnecessary speculation. The only careful and accurate conclusion based on available data is this: the exchange took place, and the numbers appeared in statements by different sides and in different formulations.
The paradox of these talks: diplomacy alongside air raid sirens
While delegations were working in Abu Dhabi, the war in Ukraine continued in its daily form. On the night of February 5, Russia attacked Ukrainian cities with drones. In Kyiv, debris damaged the facade of a kindergarten and an office building. At least two women were reported injured. The situation in the capital was described as follows:
- two injured in Kyiv: one woman was hospitalized, another received medical assistance on site;
- in the Solomianskyi district broken windows, damaged building facades and parked cars, without fire;
- debris fell near a shopping center, and at another address damaged facades and shattered windows in a kindergarten and a residential building;
- in the Shevchenkivskyi district, debris fell on the roof of a four-story office building the roof caught fire;
- in the Darnytskyi district, debris fell near a café in a residential building no damage to the building;
- in the Obolonskyi district, debris fell on a parking area and cars caught fire.
Against this background came a statement by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that sharply grounded any inflated expectations. He said: “If the siren is sounding right now, it means that we did not agree on ending the war. I think that is clear to all of us.” This was not an emotional remark. It was a political frame: the negotiations did not become a stop button for hostilities, at least on those dates. Therefore, any talk of “quick results” inevitably collides with the reality of sirens and falling debris.
What was discussed in Abu Dhabi: ceasefire and monitoring
In his summary communiqué, Rustem Umerov described the substance of the talks more concretely. According to him, over two days the sides discussed methods of implementing a ceasefire and monitoring the cessation of hostilities. The wording was as follows: “Over two days, the delegations held broad discussions on the remaining unresolved issues, including methods of implementing a ceasefire and monitoring the cessation of hostilities.” This is one of the key markers of the entire process. A ceasefire without a monitoring mechanism is an empty declaration. If the sides truly moved to discussing monitoring, it means they at least touched on the question that always becomes critical: who records violations, under what rules, and what follows after a violation is recorded. No details were made public, but the very framing shows that the talks went beyond general statements.
Why so few public details emerged
The American explanation centers on the “sensitivity of the process” and the non-public nature of part of the progress. The Ukrainian explanation is similar. Zelenskyy said: “They believe the information is very sensitive. They want to come back and brief me in detail. Then I will communicate with you, understanding where we are.” At the same time, he acknowledged that the delegations “talked about everything” and added a human but precise line: “It is important that the process is moving; we want faster results.” This is perhaps the most honest description of the situation the public sees: something is moving, but the pace does not match the expectations of a country living under attack.
According to Zelenskyy, another meeting will take place: “As for the next meeting, yes, it will happen. We agreed that there will be another meeting in the near future.” An update on February 5 added that the next meetings may take place in the United States. This is not a guarantee of an outcome, but it means the sides did not walk away with a broken channel. After two days, they fixed at least one agreement that was implemented and agreed to continue meeting.
Post List
What this means for Ukraine right now
At the level of facts confirmed by public statements, the picture looks like this:
- the talks lasted two days, including trilateral consultations and work in groups;
- ceasefire implementation and monitoring of the cessation of hostilities were discussed in substance;
- a prisoner exchange took place;
- the war did not pause, and on the night of February 5 Kyiv was attacked, with injuries and damage;
- the sides are preparing another meeting.
The question that remains open and that society has the right to ask is how long diplomatic meetings can coexist with strikes on cities without eroding trust in the process itself, and what exactly must change for words about “methods of implementing a ceasefire” to stop being merely an item on a negotiation agenda.
About the Author
Related posts:
Talks in Abu Dhabi: what is known so far and what the parties are really discussing 
Putin, Trump, and the Peace Plan: What Lies Behind the New Negotiations and Why Kyiv Responded with a Firm “No” 
No Peace in Istanbul: What Really Happened at the Ukraine-Russia TalksAnalysis | Time for Action 
Rustem Umerov Appointed Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council: strategy, negotiations, and technology
