BThe first real US-Russia-Ukraine talks since February just wrapped in Abu Dhabi, and the headline is... a prisoner swap. That's it.
BTwo days of negotiations, and the big win is exchanging prisoners. Not a ceasefire. Not territory. Prisoners.
BWhich, don't get me wrong, matters for those families. But it tells you how far apart these sides still are.
BAnd here's the part that should worry Europe: they weren't in the room. EU, NATO, UK, Germany, France, Italy—all in separate discussions.
BThe US asked Russia to draft a new security proposal for Europe. That's a big ask, and it's happening without European officials at the main table.
BThis is exactly what Rasmussen warned about. Europe's begging for a seat instead of bringing something to the table.
BHe said Europe should make itself indispensable. But von der Leyen says Europe won't discuss security architecture until after the war ends.
BWhich is a great way to get left out of the conversation entirely. You can't negotiate after the deal's already cut.
BBut here's the thing—the US says no deal without Europe and Ukraine on board. So maybe this is just pressure to get them to engage.
BOr it's the Trump administration doing what it does: cutting the big players out, then telling them to accept the result.
BI think it's more complicated. Russia's wanted NATO pushed back in Eastern Europe for years. That's not new.
BAnd the US is now asking Russia to put that in writing. That's a real shift—actually engaging on Russia's security demands.
BWhich is why Europe's nervous. If Washington and Moscow start sketching a new security map, Europe wants veto power.
BThey should have been in the room from day one. This is their continent, their borders, their future.
BBut let's be honest—Europe's spent decades underfunding defense and hoping America would handle it. Now they're surprised they're not leading?
BThat's not fair. Europe's given Ukraine billions, taken refugees, imposed sanctions. They've paid a real price.
BThey have. But paying a price isn't the same as having a strategy. Rasmussen's right—they need assets, not complaints.
BAnd what assets? They don't have the air defense systems, the long-range missiles, the logistics. America does.
BWhich is exactly why the US can set the terms. That's not arrogance, that's reality.
BSo Europe just has to accept whatever Washington and Moscow cook up? That's a terrible position for the continent.
BNo, they need to get serious. Build the capability, then demand the seat. Until then, they're spectators.
BI think you're underestimating how much this could blow up. If Russia gets security guarantees without Ukraine's consent, this war never really ends.
BAnd if Europe blocks every conversation, the war drags on forever. Somebody has to talk to Moscow.
BTalking's fine. But the prisoner swap is the only concrete result after two days. That's not a peace process, that's a photo op.
BIt's a start. You don't solve a three-year war in one meeting.
BNo, but you'd hope for something more than exchanging people who should never have been captured in the first place.
BMeanwhile, on X, people are already picking sides. One Ukrainian account says the US is pressuring only Ukraine—the victim, not the aggressor.
BKate from Kharkiv posted that on Bluesky. She's furious about Starshield being throttled during the talks.
BAnd she's not alone. There's a claim going around that Ukraine's military investigated and found the disruptions were systematic, not random.
BThat's unverified. We don't have confirmation on that. But the anger is real, and it's not just from Ukraine.
BRight. If the US is squeezing Ukraine's satellite access while asking them to negotiate, that's a terrible look.
BIt's also exactly the kind of thing that makes allies wonder if they can trust American promises.
BBut let's be careful—we don't know if Starshield was actually throttled. That's a claim, not a confirmed fact.
BFair. But the perception matters. If Ukraine thinks they're being squeezed, they'll dig in harder, not compromise.
BAnd that's the real risk here. The US wants a deal, but if it looks like bullying, Ukraine walks away.
BThen Russia wins by default. No deal, no ceasefire, just a frozen conflict that bleeds everyone dry.
BSpeaking of frozen conflicts, there's another story brewing—Jared Kushner's name is in the mix now.
BA Washington Post column claims Kushner wants to revive the NATO-Russia Council model for post-war security.
BThat's unverified too. Axios reports Kushner and Witkoff told Russia they must include European reps in future talks.
BSo the son-in-law is now a peace negotiator? That's... something.
BHe's been involved in Middle East deals. This is a different beast entirely.
BThe NATO-Russia Council was basically dead after 2014. Reviving it would be a huge concession to Moscow.
BAnd it's exactly the kind of thing that would make Eastern Europe lose their minds. Poland, the Baltics—they remember what that council didn't prevent.
BBut if it's just a forum for talking, not a security guarantee, maybe it's harmless. The question is what Russia gets out of it.
BRussia gets legitimacy. A seat at the table with NATO again. That's worth a lot to Putin.
BAnd Ukraine gets... a prisoner swap. Maybe. If it happens.
BThat's the grim math of this whole thing. Everyone's negotiating, but nobody's winning.
BExcept the arms dealers and the propagandists. They're having a great war.
BBack to Starlink, where the anger is spreading fast.
BJorge Liboreiro on Bluesky says Ukraine is facing Starlink speed limits. That's unverified, but it's spreading fast.
BAnd Mark Chadbourn is quoting that same claim, that the restrictions were systematic, not random errors.
BAgain, unverified. But if true, that's a serious accusation—using satellite access as leverage in peace talks.
BSpaceX got into trouble for this before. If it's happening again, Congress is going to have questions.
BCongress has been asked this kind of question before, and it's a fair one.
BThe problem is, Starlink is a private company. The US government can't just order them to keep speeds up.
BBut when a private company's decisions affect a war zone, that's not just business. That's foreign policy.
BAnd that's the tension. Elon Musk has his own views on this war, and he's not shy about them.
BWhich is fine for a citizen, but when you control the satellites, your views become policy.
BThat's a dangerous concentration of power. One guy's opinion shouldn't decide whether Ukrainian drones can fly.
BBut it's also the reality of modern warfare. Private tech is now as important as tanks and artillery.
BAnd that's a conversation we're going to keep having, because this isn't going away.
BNo, it's not. And the next time Starlink blinks, Ukraine will feel it immediately.
BWe'll be watching. For now, that's the state of play—talks in Abu Dhabi, anger in Kyiv, and a lot of unanswered questions.