Moscow has indicated that European governments will not participate in the next round of negotiations over the war in Ukraine, despite their central role in financing Kyiv, supplying military assistance and shaping the continent’s security arrangements. The Kremlin’s position raises questions about whether any agreement negotiated principally by Washington, Moscow and Kyiv could be implemented without substantial European involvement.

Russia has ruled out European participation in the next round of trilateral talks with Ukraine and the United States, while suggesting that the negotiations could be delayed by developments on the battlefield and the continuing conflict in the Middle East.

Yuri Ushakov, foreign policy adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, said on 29 October that Moscow had not agreed to a specific date for further consultations and that European representatives were not being considered for inclusion.

Ushakov maintained that preparations concerned representatives of Russia, Ukraine and the United States.

His remarks followed statements by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky indicating that the next round could take place in Abu Dhabi between 6 and 10 November.

The Kremlin has not confirmed those dates.

The disagreement comes as European governments seek a more substantial role in diplomatic efforts concerning a conflict whose eventual settlement would have direct consequences for their security, defence expenditure and relations with Russia.

Moscow Sets Its Conditions

Ushakov’s position was particularly explicit when discussing European participation.

Speaking to Russian media on 28 October, he suggested that European representatives were free to travel to the proposed venue but would not be invited to join the negotiations.

His remarks were subsequently reinforced by a statement that European involvement was not under consideration.

The Kremlin adviser also linked the timing of the next meeting to developments in the Middle East, where the US-Israeli conflict with Iran has complicated Washington’s diplomatic and military priorities.

Ushakov said that conditions on the Ukrainian battlefield would also influence when negotiations could resume.

These explanations give Moscow considerable latitude over the timetable while leaving uncertainty about the practical arrangements for the next meeting.

They do not, however, establish that Washington and Kyiv have accepted Russia’s preferred arrangements for every subsequent stage of negotiations.

Technical consultations between three parties and broader discussions over a European security settlement are not necessarily the same diplomatic process.

Europe Wants a Place at the Table

The Russian position contrasts with statements from the leaders of Britain, France and Germany, who have maintained that European governments must participate in discussions concerning Ukraine’s future security.

Their argument rests partly on the responsibilities that European countries would be expected to assume after any agreement.

European states have provided substantial financial, military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.

They have also introduced successive sanctions against Russia, expanded defence expenditure and debated arrangements for security guarantees intended to discourage renewed hostilities.

Any settlement that required changes to European sanctions, military deployments or financial assistance would therefore depend on decisions taken by European governments and institutions.

Neither Moscow nor Washington could independently commit the European Union to lifting sanctions or authorise European states to deploy forces.

This distinction limits the practical significance of excluding European officials from a negotiating session.

An agreement could be discussed without European participation, but implementing provisions that require European action would demand further negotiations.

The Donbas Question Remains Unresolved

The principal obstacle continues to concern territory and the conditions under which military operations would end.

Russia has maintained its demand that Ukraine relinquish territory in the eastern Donbas region, including areas remaining under Ukrainian control.

Kyiv has rejected the surrender of territory as a precondition for ending the war.

The proposed negotiations are consequently expected to concentrate on technical issues where limited agreements may be more achievable.

These include possible arrangements concerning energy infrastructure, maritime security, the exchange of prisoners and the return of Ukrainian children taken to Russia or Russian-controlled territory.

Such measures could produce humanitarian or economic benefits without resolving the central territorial dispute.

However, their implementation would require monitoring arrangements and sufficient confidence that the parties would honour their commitments.

The temporary humanitarian ceasefire around Oleshky, in the Kherson region, offers a narrowly defined example of cooperation between Russian and Ukrainian representatives.

It does not demonstrate that a broader political agreement is within reach.

The American Role

Washington remains the principal external mediator in the current negotiating format.

That position reflects American diplomatic influence and its capacity to engage directly with both Moscow and Kyiv.

However, the United States is simultaneously managing military commitments in the Middle East and domestic political pressures ahead of the 3 November congressional elections.

These competing priorities may affect the pace of diplomatic engagement.

For Russia, a negotiating framework centred on Washington offers the possibility of addressing wider bilateral issues alongside the conflict in Ukraine.

For Ukraine, American participation remains important because US decisions concerning military assistance and security commitments could influence the durability of any settlement.

Europe’s position is more complicated. Its governments possess substantial economic leverage, but their influence over the negotiating agenda depends on coordination with Washington and Kyiv.

Negotiating Without Europe Has Practical Limits

The immediate dispute concerns who participates in the next round of talks.

The longer-term question is which parties would be responsible for implementing a settlement.

A ceasefire might initially involve arrangements agreed by military and diplomatic representatives of Russia and Ukraine, supported by the United States.

A more comprehensive agreement could involve sanctions, reconstruction finance, security guarantees, troop deployments and Ukraine’s future relationship with European institutions.

Those issues cannot be settled on behalf of European governments without their consent.

Moscow’s attempt to restrict participation may therefore succeed at the level of an initial negotiating format while proving more difficult to sustain during discussions about implementation.

For the moment, neither the date nor the outcome of the proposed Abu Dhabi meeting is certain.

What has become clearer is the divergence between Russia’s preferred negotiating structure and Europe’s determination to influence the security arrangements that would follow the war.

A Russian jet-powered drone struck a crowded railway platform in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro on Thursday, killing at least 14 people and injuring 14 others. The attack has renewed questions about the protection of civilian transport infrastructure and Ukraine’s ability to defend its cities against increasingly varied aerial threats.

At least 14 people were killed when a Russian drone struck the main railway station in Dnipro on 29 October, hitting a platform where passengers were waiting beside two trains.

The attack took place at approximately 11am local time, according to Ukrainian officials, and struck an area occupied by a commuter train and a scheduled passenger service.

Ukraine’s state railway operator, Ukrzaliznytsia, said the drone hit the platform where train No. 866, operating between Dnipro and Zaporizhzhia, was standing.

The number of fatalities was subsequently confirmed by Oleksandr Hanzha, head of the Dnipropetrovsk regional military administration.

Fourteen people were also reported injured, including an 11-year-old boy. Six of the wounded were in serious condition, with medical personnel treating multiple shrapnel injuries.

The attack occurred despite an elevated warning of aerial danger.

Ukrzaliznytsia reported that passengers remained on the platform when the drone struck, raising questions about the practical difficulties of evacuating busy railway stations during air-raid alerts.

A Drone Penetrates Ukraine’s Air Defences

According to Ukraine’s Air Force, Russian forces launched four jet-powered attack drones towards Dnipropetrovsk region.

Three were intercepted by Ukrainian air defences, while the fourth struck the railway platform.

The use of jet-powered unmanned aircraft is significant because these systems present different interception challenges from the slower propeller-driven drones frequently used in Russian attacks.

Their speed can reduce the time available for detection, identification and engagement, particularly when an attack is directed towards an urban area with substantial civilian activity.

The circumstances of the Dnipro strike nevertheless require further investigation, including the precise drone model, its flight path and the conditions under which the aircraft penetrated Ukrainian defences.

The railway operator’s account indicates that the platform was crowded when the attack occurred.

Dnipro Mayor Borys Filatov described the incident as a tragedy and emphasised that the victims were ordinary civilians using public transport.

Emergency services, police and medical teams were deployed to the station, where rescuers treated the injured and recovered the bodies of those killed.

Railways Remain Essential to Ukraine

Ukraine’s railway network has retained considerable importance throughout Russia’s full-scale invasion, which began in February 2022.

With civilian air transport severely restricted, trains provide a principal means of travelling between cities and moving people away from areas exposed to military operations.

Rail services also support the movement of humanitarian supplies, commercial goods and essential equipment.

Dnipro is especially important because of its position in central-eastern Ukraine and its transport connections with areas nearer the front line.

The route towards Zaporizhzhia serves a population that has experienced repeated attacks and displacement during the war.

Disruption to railway services therefore affects more than transport schedules. It can interfere with access to employment, medical treatment, family networks and evacuation routes.

Railway infrastructure may also have military logistical functions, but this does not remove the legal protections afforded to civilians and civilian objects under international humanitarian law.

The law requires parties to distinguish between military objectives and civilians, and prohibits indiscriminate attacks.

Whether a particular strike constitutes a violation depends on evidence concerning the target, intended military advantage, precautions taken and foreseeable civilian harm.

Ukrainian authorities have characterised the Dnipro attack as an assault on civilians. Russia had not provided a substantiated explanation for the specific strike in the reporting available on Thursday.

Further Fatalities Across Ukraine

The attack formed part of a wider series of Russian strikes against Ukrainian cities on 29 October.

In Chernihiv, two teenage girls were killed in an attack on a central street, while an additional strike in Kremenchuk killed three people at a residential building.

The incidents brought the reported death toll from these attacks to at least 19.

They occurred as a temporary localised ceasefire around Russian-occupied Oleshky, in Kherson region, continued to permit preparations for humanitarian assistance.

The contrast illustrates the limited geographical scope of the Oleshky arrangement.

Although the ceasefire offers an opportunity to deliver supplies to civilians trapped by the fighting, it does not represent a general cessation of hostilities.

Zelensky Calls for Continued Pressure on Russia

President Volodymyr Zelensky condemned the Dnipro attack and urged Ukraine’s international partners to maintain pressure on Moscow.

He argued that easing sanctions while Russian forces continued striking civilian areas would undermine efforts to secure a reduction in hostilities.

The attack also adds urgency to Ukraine’s continuing requests for air-defence assistance, particularly systems and interceptors capable of addressing multiple categories of aerial threat.

European governments face difficult decisions about supplying additional equipment while maintaining sufficient stocks for their own security requirements.

For Ukraine, the immediate priority remains the treatment of the injured, investigation of the strike and restoration of safe railway operations.

For its international partners, the incident raises a question extending beyond Dnipro: how to protect the civilian infrastructure upon which daily life depends while Russia retains the capacity to launch repeated aerial attacks across the country.

On Wednesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “Varney & Co.,” former Trump Deputy National Security Adviser KT McFarland said that she believes that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is ready to make a deal, but “The tough part will be,

The post McFarland: ‘Zelensky’s Ready to Make a Deal,’ ‘Tough’ to Get Putin to Make One appeared first on Breitbart.

Le forze armate russe hanno attaccato con droni la banchina della stazione ferroviaria di Dnipro, sulla quale si trovava il treno Dnipro-Zaporizhzhya. Almeno “13 persone sono state uccise nell’attacco russo a Dnipro. Almeno cinque i feriti”, ha reso noto il capo dell’amministrazione militare regionale di Dnipropetrovsk, Oleksandr Ganzha. L’attacco è l’ultima di una serie di raid russi nella regione, dove, nelle ultime settimane, attacchi condotti con droni e aerei da guerra hanno danneggiato edifici residenziali e infrastrutture critiche. La città di Dnipro è stata più volte presa di mira nel corso del conflitto: l’ultima il 25 ottobre, quando le autorità avevano riferito della morte di quattro persone.

“Un orribile attacco russo ha colpito la stazione ferroviaria di Dnipro – ha scritto su X Volodymyr Zelensky -. I russi hanno lanciato un’incursione con droni contro un binario dove si trovavano un treno per pendolari e un treno passeggeri. Purtroppo, al momento, si contano 13 vittime accertate”. “Quanti attacchi terroristici ha sferrato la Russia contro il nostro popolo da quando le sanzioni contro alcuni oligarchi russi e il settore energetico russo sono state revocate, anziché portare a una de-escalation?”, domanda il presidente ucraino riferendosi a Alisher Usmanov e Mikhail Fridman, rimossi dall’Unione europea dalla lista dei miliardari il 22 settembre. Secondo Zelensky “è giunto il momento di adottare nuove e più severe misure sanzionatorie da parte dell’Ue, degli Stati Uniti e del G7”.

(Foto di DSNS Ukrayiny, l’autorità governativa responsabile per la protezione civile)

L'articolo Ucraina, droni russi contro una banchina del treno a Dnipro: “Almeno 13 morti” proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

“La Russia vuole negoziare qualcosa di nuovo. Non so bene a cosa si riferiscano; si parla di una sorta di architettura di sicurezza in Europa“, scrive il presidente ucraino Volodymyr Zelensky su Telegram. “Come si può negoziare un’architettura di sicurezza in Europa senza l’Europa? Cosa intendono negoziare? E con chi? Con la Cina? Interessante“.

Gli europei non sono stati né invitati né consultati in vista dei colloqui a tre tra Russia, Ucraina e Usa previsti a metà novembre. Lo ha dichiarato all’agenzia Vesti il consigliere diplomatico del Cremlino, Yuri Ushakov. “Gli europei potrebbero presentarsi se comprano i biglietti ma nessuno li invitera’ al tavolo negoziale“, ha affermato Ushakov, secondo il quale il tema della loro partecipazione non è stato “nemmeno sollevato” durante l’ultima conversazione tra i presidenti di Usa e Russia, Donald Trump e Vladimir Putin.

La Russia conferma che i colloqui a tre con Usa e Ucraina si svolgeranno a metà novembre ma specifica che non è ancora stata fissata una data, laddove Kiev aveva indicato il 10 novembre come possibile giorno dell’incontro. “Non abbiamo ancora fissato la data. Abbiamo detto che si terrà a metà novembre, dopo il 10 novembre, ma non abbiamo ancora indicato la data esatta”, ha dichiarato il consigliere del Cremlino, Yuri Ushakov in un’intervista all’agenzia di stampa Vesti. La data dell’incontro sarà annunciata “presto”, ha aggiunto Ushakov, secondo il quale il 10 novembre è stato discusso come uno dei probabili giorni del summit ma non è stato confermato.

L'articolo Ucraina, Zelensky: “La Russia vuole negoziare un’architettura di sicurezza in Europa ma senza l’Europa. Ecco come” proviene da Affaritaliani.it.

Key developments on Oct. 28:

• Putin 'wanted very much' for Melania Trump to broker Oleshky ceasefire, first lady adviser says
• Ukraine reportedly strikes chemical, metallurgical plants in Russia
• Russia building new drone launch site near Millerovo airfield in Rostov Oblast, HUR says
• Netherlands announces 500 million euro military

O presidente Volodymyr Zelensky afirmou que discutiu, nesta quarta-feira (28), com o primeiro-ministro britânico Andy Burnham um pacote de apoio adicional para a Ucrânia, bem como a política de sanções.

“Um passo verdadeiramente forte e muito oportuno — que chega justamente no momento em que a Rússia precisa ver e sentir que a Ucrânia não será deixada sozinha para lidar com os problemas que a Rússia está tão empenhada em intensificar”, disse Zelensky na rede social X, ao comentar um apoio adicional de 10 bilhões de libras (cerca de 71,4 bilhões de reais) anunciado mais cedo, nesta quarta-feira.

Zelensky vai ao Reino Unido para reunião com Burnham sobre apoio na guerra

O presidente ucraniano, Volodymyr Zelensky, chegou ao Reino Unido na quarta-feira (14) para se reunir com o primeiro-ministro britânico, Andy Burnham, em Londres, num momento em que o Reino Unido busca reafirmar seu apoio à Ucrânia, inclusive com a promessa de um novo pacote de mísseis terra-ar.

A reunião ocorre em um momento difícil para Zelenskiy.

O presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, disse no fim de semana que ele deveria ser substituído na liderança da Ucrânia, dias depois de fechar um acordo com Moscou para suspender as sanções sobre as exportações russas de diesel.

O Reino Unido afirmou não apoiar o acordo EUA-Rússia sobre o diesel e pediu aos aliados que mantenham a pressão econômica sobre Moscou.

Burnham declarou que o apoio à Ucrânia é vital para garantir a segurança da população britânica e prometeu mais apoio militar.

Entenda como protestos levaram Zelensky a trocar comando militar da Ucrânia

A planned meeting between Ukraine, Russia, and the U.S. in Abu Dhabi will focus on de-escalating Russia's war, President Volodymyr Zelensky told reporters on Oct. 27, as Moscow seemingly agreed to resume talks with Kyiv after a pause of more than eight months.

Although Ukrainian officials do

Finland and Norway are hinting at the need for a new approach to the continent`s relationship with Russia

By Matthew Blackburn

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The Trump administration’s latest initiative to end the war is creating heartburn in Europe.

“We have to pressure the aggressor to stop the war, not the victim to surrender,” said European Union High Representative Kaja Kallas. “Squeezing Ukraine is not the right approach, and that’s why Europe is standing by Ukraine.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, meanwhile, insists Russia has no genuine desire for peace, pointing in particular to Russian strikes on Ukrainian civilians.

This moral language frames the conflict as a zero-sum, good-versus-evil struggle. In this light, Europeans have no choice but to unite behind Ukraine to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But not all European leaders are talking this way. The press conference in Oslo on Oct. 20 featuring Zelenskyy, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and Finnish President Alexander Stubb was full of constructive language about ending the conflict. Stubb said the Oslo summit was the result of “substantive progress” made “under the radar.” Støre emphasised that “Europe has to be at the table” to secure a “lasting peace.” Europe, it seems, is not united on a negotiated end to the conflict.

Then on Tuesday, the two met with Putin unofficially, in an effort at de-escalation, according to reports. “We are neighboring countries to Russia,” Stubb said in a statement afterwards. “The outcome of this war will have a direct impact on our and the broader European security. Ending the war requires direct discussions.”

The Oslo summit was no bolt from the blue; Finnish and Norwegian representatives have been preparing the ground for several months. At last week’s Warsaw Security Forum, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide avoided the usual binary of Ukraine’s victory or capitulation. He stressed that since the Europeans are now paying for the war, they should also lead the diplomacy to end it. Eide noted that a peace agreement could secure a democratic, independent Ukraine integrated into the EU with 80% of its original territory. Advancing this point among more hawkish European colleagues, Eide struck a tone of hope rather than fear. In an interview last Saturday, Eide noted that Europe must contribute concrete proposals for a post-war security architecture: “in the long run, we need to return to a normal relationship with Russia after the war (….) some kind of order must be restored.”

During his recent visit to the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Stubb presented a complementary argument. Restating his case for a “value-based realism,” he argued that European states should be faithful to their values but would not resolve the conflict by rigidly clinging to the moral high ground. Stubb urged the audience to keep “cooler heads”; fostering a “war mentality” would make it near impossible to conceive of peace.

Eide and Stubb are moving in a different direction from those who claim “victory” over Russia – however defined – is a prerequisite for future European security. They reject the mantra of ex-NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg that “weapons are the way to peace” and emphasize the military reality that neither side has the resources to win decisively.

This is a noble recognition of reality. Offensive actions from both sides have repeatedly failed to produce a breakthrough. Costs keep rising for both warring parties, while gains have become increasingly meagre. Europe, Ukraine, and Russia are stuck in a war that cannot be won on the terms set by either side.

Continuing the current course brings problems for all sides. Putin faces an overheating economy and increasing social fatigue and anxiety. Even if Russia destroys more and more Ukrainian infrastructure from the air, land offensives are likely to incur heavy losses. Ukraine’s situation is even tougher. Its chronic manpower shortages have led to intensified forced mobilization and increased social strains. Blockaded at sea and bombarded from the air, Ukraine is also short of money and weapons, constantly appealing to Western allies to plug the gaps.

The European coalition behind Ukraine faces serious problems of its own. Many European states are facing a sovereign debt crisis as war costs mount. The EU has been unable to persuade Belgium to make use of Russia’s frozen assets to fund the war. All the while, the dirty reality is that, since the war began, Europe has spent more on Russian energy imports than on weapons for Ukraine.

Tuesday’s meeting in Oslo provides a way out of this mess. As Stubb said at Tuesday’s press conference: “Peace requires patience. But unfortunately, war does not wait. People are dying each and every day. Our job is to do what we can to end it.” Norway and Finland are communicating the urgency of ending a senseless war. Referring to the recent spat between Trump and Zelensky, Støre advised against dwelling on past disagreements: “What matters now is what lies ahead of us.”

On the same day, Kaja Kallas looked back in anger. She accused the Trump administration of trying to “push Ukraine into surrender” on “Putin’s terms.” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, for her part, presented Ukraine as Europe’s only protection: “If we allow Ukraine to fall, we will open the way for Russia to advance into other parts of Europe.”

One can understand fears that, if Ukraine is rendered neutral with limits on its armed forces, Russia would hold the whip hand over Europe. Nobody wants to let Moscow dictate the terms of the European security architecture through violence. But at this point, Europe’s rejection of a “dirty deal” could mean impotently watching Ukraine’s destruction over the next six months. How would this outcome improve European security or prestige?

Norway and Finland have offered the most constructive European response to U.S. diplomacy since Trump returned to the White House. They offer Europe a new language of patient diplomacy to replace maximalist rhetoric. This is in line with both countries’ previous experience mediating and building bridges with Russia. It also recognizes a basic fact: all protracted wars not settled decisively on the battlefield — which is to say, the vast majority of wars — end in negotiated settlements between the aggressor and the defender. America’s signature is absolutely necessary to secure such an outcome.

Mainstream analysis seems unable to accept these realities. It is stuck in moral posturing or fearmongering. There is still little serious discussion of what compromises might be struck. The 28-point plan that U.S.-Russian diplomacy developed in 2025 should not be equated with Ukraine’s capitulation, nor is it a recipe for turning Ukraine into Belarus. Ukraine would enter the EU, receive reconstruction assistance, and retain armed forces on a level comparable to Finland’s. It is time to return to the core points on which a deal must be struck.

Russia has responded positively to the proposals sent from Oslo. Ukraine, Russia, and the U.S. have agreed to a three-way summit in November, according to Zelensky. The key question now is whether other European governments will take the Oslo initiative seriously and agree on who can represent Europe in these talks. Dmitri Peskov, Putin’s press secretary, has cautiously welcomed the idea that Alexander Stubb could represent Europe in the negotiations.

Finland and Norway’s more moderate language is a crucial first step toward a shared European understanding that continuing the war in its current form is self-defeating. As Eide observed at the U.N. last month, “diplomacy can work – if we allow it to.”

But first, Europe must decide: will it support or sabotage the U.S. effort to build a diplomatic off-ramp?

Original article: responsiblestatecraft.org