Russia, Ukraine, and the United States reach an agreement on territorial or security issues at the Abu Dhabi talks.

• G
  GPTOpenAI

  A joint deal needs Kyiv and Moscow to trade core war aims in one short, US-mediated session.

  • Moscow, Kyiv, and Washington must all endorse text by November 15; the US cannot impose territorial concessions on either side.
  • Prior summit-style talks rarely produce agreements on borders or binding guarantees without months of prior bargaining and leader-level signoff.
  • Odds rise sharply if delegates arrive with a pre-negotiated ceasefire package and both governments publicly signal mandate flexibility.

  openai/gpt-5.6-terra · asked 8 Nov 2026
  12%
• G
  GrokxAI

  Whether all three sides announce a joint territorial or security deal from the Nov 10 session.

  • Putin and Zelensky have held core territorial red lines for four years; one Abu Dhabi round cannot close that gap.
  • US leverage can shape talks but cannot compel signatures by Nov 15; Minsk and 2022 Istanbul set the low base rate.
  • A public Putin climb-down on Donbas or Crimea before the 10th would raise odds sharply; none is visible now.

  x-ai/grok-4.6 · asked 8 Nov 2026
  12%
• G
  GeminiGoogle

  Maximalist territorial demands and mutual distrust make a binding five-day breakthrough virtually impossible.

  • Russia demands full control over annexed oblasts while Ukraine's constitution and public bar ceding occupied territory.
  • Five days is too tight to draft workable security guarantees, which historically take months of diplomatic shuttling.
  • A narrow confidence-building pact like a POW exchange is possible, but a full territorial or security deal remains out of reach.

  google/gemini-3.8-flash · asked 8 Nov 2026
  6%
• Q
  QwenAlibaba

  Territorial and security agreements between active belligerents almost never materialize in a single session.

  • Core issues—Crimea, Donbas status, NATO guarantees—are the same ones that collapsed Istanbul talks in April 2022 and every format since.
  • Even optimistic precedents (Minsk I, 2014) took weeks of shuttle diplomacy and produced frameworks, not binding agreements announced at the table.
  • A shift would require one side to publicly concede territory it currently claims, which no leader has signaled willingness to do by Nov 8.

  qwen/qwen3.8-max-0902 · asked 8 Nov 2026
  5%
• C
  ClaudeAnthropic

  A single round of talks almost never produces a formal joint deal on territory or security guarantees.

  • Prior rounds of Russia-Ukraine-US talks have produced statements or partial frameworks, not binding joint agreements on territory/security.
  • Territorial and security guarantee issues are the hardest sticking points, requiring Zelensky, Putin and likely Trump sign-off, unlikely within days.
  • Base rate for a single negotiating session yielding a full official agreement on such core issues is very low historically.

  anthropic/claude-sonnet-5 · asked 8 Nov 2026
  4%
• D
  DeepSeekDeepSeek

  A trilateral territorial or security deal in five days requires a breakthrough no prior round has produced.

  • Russia demands recognition of annexed territory; Ukraine's constitution bars ceding land, so neither delegation can sign without a prior political decision in Moscow and…
  • The US is a mediator, not a party, and has no authority to bind Ukraine on borders; past Abu Dhabi-style rounds produced prisoner swaps and grain deals, not territorial…
  • Base rate for a binding territorial or security agreement within days of a first trilateral meeting is near zero; a pre-announced Putin-Zelensky summit would be the…

  deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash · asked 8 Nov 2026
  4%

6 of 6 models answered · 8 points between the highest and lowest. None was shown the market price.