Будет ли толк от переговоров? @IgorYakovenko

Summary

Political analyst Abbas Gallyamov told host Igor Yakovenko that the Abu Dhabi negotiations might produce limited progress, though he sees no clear path to a settlement. He said Russia is under growing pressure: Ukrainian strikes have again disrupted oil refining, contributing to fuel shortages and restrictions at gas stations. He also believes Ukraine has stronger backing in the US Congress following the midterm elections.

Gallyamov said Putin may resist compromise because he expects winter attacks to weaken Ukraine and hopes political shifts in Europe will reduce support for Kyiv. Putin may also see abandoning his demand for Donbas as a defeat.

Negotiations over Ukraine

Gallyamov was skeptical of the US negotiators’ proposals and credentials but argued that the talks are worth pursuing. He sees a possible shift in their approach: instead of demanding Ukrainian territorial concessions, they may be seeking a way for Putin to claim a symbolic victory without Ukraine surrendering territory.

He suggested that Congress could constrain the Trump administration and that the negotiators may become more cautious amid the prospect of congressional scrutiny. He also said Europeans are right to engage despite being sidelined at the talks, because Europe remains dependent on US intelligence and military support.

Drawing on negotiation theory, Gallyamov argued that discussing other issues could build momentum when parties are stuck on an intractable question such as Donbas, making compromise on the central dispute more thinkable. Yakovenko questioned whether there is a realistic basis for discussing European security with Russian and Trump representatives while the war continues. Gallyamov agreed that prospects are unclear but said engagement can still test the other side’s proposals.

US domestic politics

Gallyamov expects Democrats to oppose Trump firmly while still bargaining with Republicans, since voters also expect Congress to pass legislation and address practical concerns. He said the chances of overriding Trump’s positions may be greater on sanctions than on weapons, though agreements across policy areas could affect the outcome.

He interpreted Trump’s appointment of Stephen Miller as a signal of willingness to fight, possibly intended to influence divisions between progressive and moderate Democrats—not as proof that all compromise is impossible.

Israeli politics

Gallyamov discussed opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot’s efforts to form a government. Possible arrangements could involve Arab parties, ultra-Orthodox parties, or Likud defectors. At that point, he considered cooperation with the ultra-Orthodox the most plausible option.

Such a deal could require compromises over military service, a central issue after years of war and heavy demands on reservists. Gallyamov also noted that Israel’s parliamentary system has historically produced fragile coalitions and frequent government crises.

Russia’s future

Gallyamov argued that a Russian defeat could trigger a domino effect, with separatist sentiment spreading beyond the national republics. He described the existing system as deeply centralized and autocratic.

Yakovenko cautioned against treating the country’s dissolution as inevitable. He said many regions might seek greater autonomy within a federal Russia rather than independence, and pointed to the gap between anti-Moscow sentiment and the formation of actual separatist movements.

They also debated whether a state remaining after potential territorial changes could sustain a parliamentary system. Yakovenko emphasized the instability of coalition politics, while Gallyamov stressed that the organization of power would remain a crucial issue.

Presenters and contributors

• Igor Yakovenko — host
• Abbas Gallyamov — guest and political analyst