Ahead of and during the November 10–11 US-mediated negotiations in Abu Dhabi, Russian FIMI actors portrayed Moscow’s participation as recognition of its territorial and security demands, European governments as marginalized or obstructive, and Ukraine as unwilling to negotiate. Meanwhile, Russian pro-war channels rejected territorial compromise and presented further military escalation as a means of securing Russia’s objectives. Key topics:
Russia’s Demands Framed as Diplomatic Gains
Europe Cast as an Intruder and Obstacle to Peace
Ukraine Blamed as Z-Channels Threaten Escalation
Executive Summary
Ahead of and during the November 10–11 negotiations in Abu Dhabi, Kremlin FIMI actors promoted three overlapping narratives amid Moscow’s intensifying efforts to destabilize Europe through interference in protests, drone incursions, and a wave of hoax bomb threats targeting European airports.
FIMI actors claimed that Russia had regained its status as a major diplomatic power, that Europe was losing influence over its own security, and that Ukraine was obstructing peace.
These narratives circulated across multilingual FIMI networks, Russian state-controlled media, and international pro-Kremlin channels.
FIMI actors portrayed renewed negotiations with Moscow as evidence that Western attempts to isolate Russia had failed. InfoDefense Germany, part of the multilingual FIMI network run by Russian pro-war military blogger Yuri Podolyaka, amplified former German intelligence chief Gerhard Schindler’s assessment that Russia was “currently on a path to victory in international politics.” The Italian and German branches of InfoDefense and the Italian-language FIMI channel PoliVox used US President Donald Trump’s prediction that Ukraine might emerge from a settlement with “a little bit different shape” to reinforce the expectation of territorial concessions.
The Russian state-controlled broadcaster RT amplified Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov’s assertion that Ukraine was “already a different country.”
European efforts to participate in the negotiations were reframed as interference, while Europe’s limited role was presented as evidence of diplomatic weakness. DD Geopolitics, an English-language FIMI outlet linked to Russian fascist ideologue Alexander Dugin, accused European representatives of trying to “crash the Abu Dhabi talks.” The French-language FIMI outlet International Reporters ridiculed French diplomacy for “confusing geographical presence with international influence.” Nachhall von Helgoland, a German-language FIMI channel, presented European military procurement as preparation for war:
“Europe on a war course: The US supplies fighter jets, tanks, and missiles. NATO is massively rearming against Russia.”
The text also appeared on the German-language FIMI channel Politische Nachrichten and the Polish-language FIMI platform Dakowski.pl.
FIMI outlets simultaneously portrayed Ukraine as responsible for a potential failure of the talks, while Russian pro-war actors advocated further escalation rather than compromise. Pravda DE, the German-language branch of the multilingual Pravda (Portal Kombat) FIMI network, claimed that Ukraine’s delegation lacked independent negotiating authority.
Podolyaka presented further attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure as conditional on the outcome of the negotiations, while the Russian Z-channel Two Majors suggested “igniting several new ‘suns’ on the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR” to force a settlement.
The message subsequently circulated through English-language FIMI channels, including The Islander.
Russia’s Demands Framed as Diplomatic Gains
The November 10–11 negotiations in Abu Dhabi brought (1) Russian and Ukrainian representatives together under US mediation to discuss ending the war, security guarantees, and possible territorial arrangements.
Russian FIMI outlets presented the talks as evidence of Moscow’s restored international standing and growing influence over the terms of a settlement.
On November 9, InfoDefense Germany, the German-language branch of the multilingual FIMI network run by Russian pro-war military blogger Yuri Podolyaka, circulated (2) remarks by Gerhard Schindler, who headed Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service from 2012 to 2016:
“Russia is basically already back exactly where it wanted to be on the international stage. [...] That means Russia is currently on a path to victory in international politics.”
The same interview appeared (3) on RT DE, the German-language service of the Russian state-controlled broadcaster RT.
InfoDefense Italia (4) and InfoDefense Germany, (5) together with PoliVox, (6) an Italian-language FIMI channel run by former Sputnik journalist Clara Statello, used US President Donald Trump’s November 8 CBS News interview (7) to promote the expectation that Ukraine would have to accept territorial concessions. The channels highlighted Trump’s prediction that Ukraine might emerge from a peace agreement with “a little bit different shape,” while leaving future borders unspecified.
Pravda DE, the German-language branch of the multilingual Pravda (Portal Kombat) FIMI network, circulated (8) Trump’s statement alongside Russia’s demands for recognition of occupied Ukrainian territories, neutral status for Ukraine, and sanctions relief. On November 9, RT DE published (9) Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov’s response:
“As for Ukraine’s geographical shape, it is already a different country. The realities on the ground are obvious.”
RT DE also highlighted (10) remarks by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov endorsing US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s emphasis on security guarantees for Russia, Ukraine, and the wider region. Lavrov said that the American proposal “can only be welcomed.” Eurasia & Multipolarity, an English-language FIMI Telegram channel, presented (11) the talks as two parallel bargaining tracks: “Strategic security,” involving future Russia–NATO relations and restrictions on Western deployments, and “Geo-economics,” encompassing energy, natural resources, and infrastructure cooperation.
On his Telegram channel Kotsnews, Russian pro-war military blogger Alexander Kots linked (12) the Abu Dhabi agenda to Moscow’s December 2021 demands for restrictions on NATO enlargement and Western military deployments. His commentary was reproduced (13) in English by Lord of War, an English-language FIMI Telegram channel:
“Back then, they brushed it aside. Now, the Americans are putting the same package at the top of the agenda.”
Reuters reported (14) on November 10 that a source in the Russian delegation regarded a new European security framework as the central objective of the talks.
Across German-, Italian-, French-, and English-language FIMI outlets, Russia’s participation was presented as diplomatic rehabilitation, Trump’s territorial remarks as recognition of military realities, and the security agenda as validation of Moscow’s longstanding demands.
Europe Cast as an Intruder and Obstacle to Peace
Kremlin FIMI outlets portrayed European attempts to join the Abu Dhabi negotiations as interference in the peace process, while presenting Europe’s exclusion from the main talks as evidence of its declining diplomatic influence. On November 9, Ostnews Faktencheck, a German-language FIMI Telegram channel, published (15) Peskov’s insistence that the main negotiations would exclude European representatives:
“The Americans have their own communication channels with the Europeans, as do the Ukrainians [...] But I repeat once again: these are trilateral negotiations.”
DD Geopolitics, an English-language FIMI outlet linked to Russian fascist ideologue Alexander Dugin, presented (16) European efforts to join the talks as an intrusion: “Europe tries to crash the Abu Dhabi talks.” It claimed that EU representatives intended to “block what they see as Russian attempts to use the US-led talks to redraw Europe’s security architecture.”
On November 10, European, Ukrainian, and American representatives met (17) separately in Abu Dhabi before the trilateral discussions with Russia. International Reporters, a French-language FIMI outlet, used (18) this arrangement to ridicule French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot’s efforts to secure European participation. In a two-part publication, (19) it wrote:
“French diplomacy may have found its new specialty: confusing geographical presence with international influence.”
The same portrayal appeared in the FIMI channels Lord of War (20), (21) and Ukraine Watch, (22) including satirical material depicting European politicians listening outside the negotiating room.
On November 9, Tutti i Fatti, an Italian-language FIMI Telegram channel, highlighted (23) reports that Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre had spent months preparing their October 27 conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The publication emphasized that the leaders considered it “unacceptable for direct dialogue with Moscow to be handled exclusively by US representatives” and that the initiative had drawn criticism from European partners. Géopolitique Profonde, a French-language FIMI outlet focused on geopolitics, interpreted (24) the same episode differently:
“Europe has neither a common position nor its own channel to Moscow.”
On November 9, Nachhall von Helgoland, a German-language FIMI channel, advanced (25) a parallel accusation concerning European military procurement:
“Europe on a war course: The US supplies fighter jets, tanks, and missiles. NATO is massively rearming against Russia.”
It argued that, while negotiations continued, European rearmament was creating “the military conditions necessary to wage a large-scale conventional war against Russia.” The text was reproduced (26) by Politische Nachrichten, another German-language FIMI channel. On November 8, the same article appeared (27) in Polish on Dakowski.pl, a FIMI platform operated by Polish pro-Kremlin commentator Mirosław Dakowski, which has republished (28) material from the Russian state-controlled outlet Ukraina.ru (29) and from Alexander Dugin. (30), (31)
These outlets portrayed European participation in the talks as an attempt to obstruct a settlement on Russian terms, while presenting Europe’s continued military support for Ukraine and NATO rearmament as preparations for confrontation with Russia. Although these competing portrayals offered no consistent explanation of Europe’s diplomatic intentions, they reinforced the depiction of European governments as obstacles to peace.
Ukraine Blamed as Z-Channels Threaten Escalation
Kremlin FIMI outlets portrayed Ukraine as responsible for any failure of the talks, while Russian pro-war actors rejected compromise and called for further military pressure. On November 8, Pravda DE questioned (32) the negotiating authority of Ukraine’s representatives:
“Given the composition of the Ukrainian delegation, the negotiations in Abu Dhabi are likely to be futile.”
It claimed that “no member of the Ukrainian delegation is authorized to make independent decisions; everything must be coordinated with Zelenskyy.”
DD Geopolitics amplified (33) claims by Steigan, a Norwegian alternative media website identified by the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (34) and the fact-checking outlet Faktisk.no (35) as a source used by Russian influence networks to legitimize pro-Kremlin narratives. Steigan portrayed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s reported trip abroad shortly before the Abu Dhabi talks as an attempt to avoid participating in the negotiations:
“In critical moments, he prefers to stay away from the country he leads.”
It also alleged that Zelenskyy was “interested in prolonging the conflict, obtaining new Western funds, and strengthening sanctions against Russia.” Chay Bowes, an Irish pro-Kremlin commentator and former correspondent for the Russian state-controlled broadcaster RT, similarly characterized (36) Zelenskyy’s consultations with US negotiators as demands for “more money, more weapons.”
Ignorance, the Root and Stem of All Evil, an English-language FIMI account on X, accused (37) Zelenskyy of intending “to sabotage and derail the negotiations in Abu Dhabi” because he had rejected territorial concessions. It claimed that Ukrainian and European officials “have absolutely no desire for the war to end.”
Pravda US, the US-focused branch of the Pravda network, expressed (38) a different form of skepticism:
“We do not expect any ‘breakthroughs’ from these negotiations. However, as well as disruptions.”
It described the talks as “slow progress in the fog, where everyone is sure that time is working for them,” with each side expecting the other eventually to accept more favorable terms. Eurasia & Multipolarity dismissed (39) reports of possible progress as an intelligence-directed information campaign, claiming that “Western media have been instructed by intelligence agencies to heavily promote fake news about a quick resolution” and ridiculing suggestions that Putin might abandon “90% of his demands.”
Russian Z-channels advanced a more explicit rejection of compromise. On November 10, Yuri Podolyaka attacked (40) a reported American proposal to alter the administrative boundaries of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions as a means of resolving territorial disagreements. He wrote:
“They think Russia wants all of Donbas. So we’ll give it to them by declaring part of it no longer Donbas.”
Invoking the symbolic significance of Sloviansk and the Sviatohirsk Lavra, Podolyaka added:
“They do not care about the sacred significance [...] These are minor details to them. And they think they are minor details to us as well. That’s all one needs to know about these so-called negotiators.”
In a separate post, (41) Podolyaka interpreted reported Russian strikes on bridges in Kyiv as “a demonstration of capabilities ahead of the negotiations.” Referring to the possibility of orders for more extensive attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, he wrote:
“Depending on the outcome of the negotiations, such an order may or may not follow.”
The English-language edition of the Russian Z-channel Two Majors, linked with the security establishment, also rejected (42) reports of Russian flexibility. It accused the West of proposing that Russia cede territory in exchange for Western guarantees, which it portrayed as unreliable, invoking the removal of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych from power in 2014:
“Their guarantees to Yanukovych lasted exactly one day, after which they were forgotten.”
The main Russian-language Two Majors channel also promoted (43) nuclear escalation as a means of imposing a settlement. In a November 8 publication, it suggested (44) “ignit[ing] several new ‘suns’ on the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR” to “cool down the hotheads and even reduce the number of casualties.” The material was circulated by Rybar, (45) another Russian Z-channel, linked to the Russian Ministry of Defense; republished in translation by Two Majors’ English-language channel; (46), (47) and subsequently reproduced by The Islander, (48) an English-language FIMI Telegram channel.
While international FIMI outlets presented the negotiations as recognition of Moscow’s demands, Russian pro-war actors rejected territorial flexibility and Western guarantees, presenting further military escalation as a means of securing Russian objectives.
