The U.S. approach to resolving the ongoing war in Ukraine has entered a controversial phase as top envoys appear increasingly receptive to Russian positions, raising concerns both within Washington and among international allies. The current diplomatic push, spearheaded by President Trump's special envoys, is drawing criticism for proposing terms that could legitimize Moscow’s territorial claims in Eastern Ukraine.
At the center of this evolving strategy is Steve Witkoff, a real estate executive-turned-special envoy, who has taken an unusually prominent role in the negotiations. Witkoff has proposed a ceasefire agreement that would allow Russia to retain control of four key regions—Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia—territories annexed by Moscow in 2022. These suggestions have alarmed many within the administration and abroad, as they signal a potential break from the long-standing U.S. policy of supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Internal discussions have revealed sharp disagreements between Witkoff and other senior officials. General Keith Kellogg, a former national security adviser and another envoy working closely with Ukraine, has reportedly opposed the proposal, stressing that Ukraine is open to peace negotiations but unwilling to concede sovereignty over its land. The divide highlights the lack of a unified stance within the U.S. government on how to approach a resolution to the war.
Compounding the controversy, Witkoff has held private meetings with high-level Russian figures, including Kirill Dmitriev, a sanctioned businessman believed to have close ties to the Kremlin. These interactions, which took place in locations such as Witkoff’s personal residence and in St. Petersburg, have raised serious concerns about backchannel diplomacy and the legitimacy of engaging with sanctioned individuals in sensitive negotiations.
Internationally, the evolving U.S. position has unsettled European allies, many of whom have been key supporters of Ukraine since the onset of the war. There is growing fear that the U.S. could push for a quick resolution that undermines broader Western interests in deterring future aggression and maintaining the post-World War II security framework.
Critics argue that such concessions could set a dangerous precedent, encouraging authoritarian regimes to use force to alter borders. They also warn that any agreement perceived as capitulating to Russia could demoralize Ukraine’s resistance and fracture the alliance of countries backing Kyiv.
While the Trump administration has not formally adopted Witkoff’s proposal, his growing influence in the peace process suggests a potential shift in U.S. diplomatic posture. As efforts to end the war intensify, the administration now faces mounting pressure to clarify its objectives, reassure allies, and ensure that any agreement does not sacrifice core principles of sovereignty and international law.
With global attention focused on the next moves by Washington, the outcome of these negotiations could reshape not only the future of Ukraine, but also the credibility of U.S. leadership on the world stage.