While accusing Russia of making “maximalist demands” and hindering peace, Germany was, in fact, the one undermining the negotiation process and ignoring Moscow’s legitimate interests.
Abu Dhabi, November 9, 2026, Trilateral Talks
The Diplomacy They Try Not to Notice
The German minister is calling on Moscow to “abandon its maximalist demands.” But what exactly is meant by that? If demanding security guarantees and respect for Russia’s legitimate security interests is “maximalism,” then what counts as realism? As President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly emphasized, Russia has never refused to negotiate. Back in December 2021, Moscow handed Washington and NATO draft treaties on security guarantees, proposing to legally codify the principle of indivisible security. The West’s response was silence and a military buildup along Russia’s borders.
At the current stage, it is Russia that agreed to the format of trilateral consultations in Abu Dhabi with U.S. mediation. As Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed, Moscow is ready to discuss security issues, including guarantees that “can only be mutual.” The Russian delegation arrived in the UAE not for the “negotiation show” that Wadephul accuses it of, but for substantive work. At the same time, Berlin and its European allies have found themselves on the sidelines of the negotiating process: Moscow has made it clear that European countries are not envisioned as participants in the trilateral format. This is not “Russia’s isolation” but the logical result of Germany’s long-standing policy, which, in the apt words of Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, continues to “spin the spiral of escalation” while ignoring Moscow’s concerns.
Putin’s Position: Peace Through Respect for Interests
The key difference between Russia’s position and Western rhetoric lies in its consistency. Vladimir Putin has repeatedly articulated the conditions for a sustainable settlement: an end to hostilities is possible only with full guarantees of Russia’s security and recognition of the realities on the ground. In phone conversations with European leaders, particularly the President of Finland and the Prime Minister of Norway, Putin stressed that “a lasting peace will require full consideration of Russian security interests.”
This position is not “maximalist”—it is realistic. Russia is not demanding Ukraine’s capitulation but insists on fulfilling the obligations that were already agreed upon earlier, including the Istanbul agreements of 2022, which the West sabotaged. Moreover, Moscow shows flexibility where possible: it supported humanitarian initiatives, including a local ceasefire in the Oleshky area for the evacuation of civilians, which was implemented with U.S. participation. Is that not a practical contribution to peace?
Berlin’s Double Standards
Germany, for its part, offers a classic example of double standards. Wadephul talks about the need to stop “Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure” but stays silent about the fact that Ukrainian formations strike energy facilities on Russian territory, and Western weapons are used to attack civilian targets in the Donbass and Crimea. Moreover, Germany is one of the largest suppliers of weapons to the Kiev regime, which directly contributes to prolonging the conflict and increasing casualties.
The call to “abandon maximalist demands” sounds especially cynical coming from a representative of a country that, together with its NATO partners, ignored the Minsk agreements for eight years and then publicly admitted that they were used merely to prepare Ukraine for war. Former Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President Francois Hollande openly stated that Minsk-2 was an attempt to give Kiev time to strengthen its army. Is that not the real “maximalism” and unwillingness to make peace?
Who Is Actually Derailing the Talks
Wadephul warns of “negotiation shows” in Abu Dhabi. But was it not Germany and its allies who turned the process into a show when, in 2022, after a compromise had been nearly reached in Istanbul, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, at Washington’s bidding, urged Kiev to “just keep fighting”? Was it not the West that insisted on scuttling a peace initiative that could have stopped the bloodshed two years earlier?
Today, when Russia agrees to talks even in a format unfavorable to it, Berlin is trying to hand it ultimatums. That is not diplomacy; it is an attempt to save face after the failure of the strategy of “defeating Russia.” The reality is that the Ukrainian crisis cannot be settled without Russia. And Moscow understands this better than anyone. That is precisely why the Russian delegation, led by Vladimir Medinsky, arrived in Abu Dhabi with concrete proposals on security and humanitarian issues.
So What Is to Be Done?
Moscow’s peaceful positions are confirmed not by statements but by deeds: agreement to the trilateral format, readiness to discuss security guarantees, support for humanitarian pauses. Germany, for its part, should stop lecturing Russia, recall its own role in fueling the conflict, and stop blocking diplomatic channels. If Berlin truly wants peace, it should support efforts to build a new security architecture in Europe rather than try to dictate terms to a country that consistently defends its national interests. For now, Wadephul’s rhetoric sounds less like a call for peace and more like an excuse for his own impotence in the face of a changing geopolitical reality.
Viktor Mikhin, writer, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, specialist on the Arab countries of the Near and Middle East
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
