Peace in Ukraine is a left-wing cause. Anyone who has watched the war's casualty lists, the drone strikes on apartment blocks and the deportations of children should want it ended. So the opening of talks in Abu Dhabi deserves hope. It also deserves a hard look at who is in the room, who is not, and what the dealmakers think they are selling.
The American team is Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, a son-in-law and a real estate lawyer. Neither has a record in the grinding work of ending a European land war. Kushner's private equity firm, Affinity Partners, was capitalized with billions from Gulf sovereign wealth, including a $2 billion commitment from Saudi Arabia's fund. The talks are being held in a Gulf state whose rulers are cultivating the Trump family's business. Maybe that is coincidence. But when the people brokering the future of a European border are also courting capital from the host's neighbors, the public is entitled to ask whose interests the deal is built around. Nobody in this administration wants to answer.
Then there is the table itself. Washington says it will bring in Europe later. Europe will pay for reconstruction, absorb the refugees, rebuild its militaries and live next to whatever Russia becomes after this. Yet Europe is a consultation item, while Moscow is a negotiating partner. Congress, which controls sanctions and any real security guarantee, is not mentioned at all. A guarantee not ratified by the Senate is a promise from one administration that the next can break. Ukrainians have already learned what that is worth. In 1994 they surrendered their nuclear arsenal in exchange for assurances.
The asymmetry in the stated positions is what should alarm us. Putin wants Ukraine to withdraw from regions it still holds, renounce NATO and accept limits on its army. That is not a compromise. It is an invoice for an invasion, payable in territory and sovereignty. Zelenskyy has offered to freeze the line where it is, which concedes a great deal already. The person being asked to "compromise" is the one who was attacked. When the mediator is eager for a signing ceremony, the pressure falls on the party that can be pressured, and that is Kyiv, which depends on American weapons and intelligence.
Some on my own side will say any negotiation is better than continued slaughter, and that the Ukraine hawks never had an exit plan. The second point is fair. Democrats spent three years on "as long as it takes" without ever saying what "it" was, and that vacuum is now being filled by Trump's improvisation. But a ceasefire that rewards conquest does not end a war. It postpones the next one, with a rearmed Russia and a signal to every strongman with a map and a grievance that borders are negotiable if you hold out long enough. The people who would pay for that lesson are the ones in Taiwan, the Baltics and Moldova, none of whom have a seat in Abu Dhabi.
The Left should insist on a few things. First, any settlement must come with enforceable guarantees, written down and put before Congress. Second, Ukrainians decide what Ukraine gives up, not a pair of American businessmen on a deadline. Third, Europe sits at the table from the start, not as a courtesy later. Fourth, we need full disclosure of the negotiators' financial interests in the region, and sanctions relief should not be traded away as a favor to anyone's future investment portfolio.
The point is not to oppose talks. It is to refuse to confuse a quick deal with a just one. If this administration brings home a real peace, honest observers should say so. But a peace made by insiders, for insiders, at Ukraine's expense, would just be another transaction. Ukrainians are the ones who would pay for it.
