Listen to the article
Recorded conversations reveal that Steve Witkoff, Trump’s top negotiator, advised Russian officials on how to approach the U.S. president with a plan to end the Ukraine conflict, according to a transcript published Tuesday by Bloomberg News.
During a five-minute call on October 14 with Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s senior foreign policy advisor, Witkoff suggested flattering Trump and proposed creating “a 20-point peace proposal, just like we did in Gaza.” He even coached the Russians on specific language: “Maybe [Putin] says to President Trump: you know, Steve and Yuri discussed a very similar 20-point plan to peace and that could be something that we think might move the needle a little bit.”
More controversially, Witkoff addressed territorial concessions, telling Ushakov, “Now, me to you, I know what it’s going to take to get a peace deal done: Donetsk and maybe a land swap somewhere.” Such concessions would violate Ukrainian law, which forbids the government from ceding territory.
The resulting 28-point proposal, which became public last week, heavily favors Russian demands. According to the Associated Press, it calls for Ukraine to surrender the entire Donbas region to Russia, significantly reduce its military, and accept a European agreement preventing Ukraine from joining NATO.
Reuters reported Wednesday that the plan drew extensively from a Russian-authored document submitted to the Trump administration in October, raising further questions about impartiality in the negotiations.
Concerns about conflicts of interest have also emerged. The newsletter Counteroffensive noted that “Witkoff maintains active business partnerships with Leonard Blavatnik, a billionaire sanctioned by Ukraine for his alleged links to Kremlin-aligned oligarchs.”
Trump responded to the revelations on Tuesday, telling reporters aboard Air Force One that Witkoff needs to “sell this to Ukraine” and “sell Ukraine to Russia.” Earlier that day, Trump claimed on social media that his Ukraine plan requires only “a few remaining points of disagreement” between the U.S. and Ukrainian sides.
Despite these controversies, the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War reported Tuesday that “Ukrainian officials continue to express support for the latest 19-point peace plan and demonstrate Ukraine’s willingness to engage in further talks.” The institute added that President Zelensky “wants to negotiate territorial concessions with Trump directly” in the coming days.
The proposed peace plan has sparked strong criticism from within Trump’s own party. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska), a retired Air Force brigadier general, stated bluntly on social media that “it is clear that Witkoff fully favors the Russians. He cannot be trusted to lead these negotiations. Would a Russian paid agent do less than he? He should be fired.”
In a call with reporters Wednesday, Bacon described the 28-point plan as “a recipe for Russian domination of Ukraine for decades to come” and one that “would have been an avenue for Russia to renew its invasion at any time.”
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pennsylvania) raised similar concerns: “Why is Ukraine giving up territory to Russia, and Russia is not giving up territory to Ukraine? Why is Ukraine limiting and capping the size of their military when Russia is not doing the same?” Fitzpatrick called the plan “utterly ridiculous” and compared it to the Munich Agreement of 1938, which allowed Nazi Germany to annex parts of Czechoslovakia.
Fitzpatrick warned that congressional action is imminent: “I can promise you, the day we get back on Monday, you are going to see a large tranche of members in the House and the Senate—Democrat and Republican—that are waiting online to start to take action here.”
Meanwhile, Witkoff is expected to meet with Putin in early December to continue negotiations.
The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, offered a stark assessment of Russia’s position: “If Russia could conquer Ukraine militarily, it would have already done so by now. Putin cannot achieve his goals on the battlefield, so he will try to negotiate his way there.”
Questions have also emerged about the role of U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who was tasked with presenting Witkoff’s plan to Ukrainian officials and meeting with Russian officials in Abu Dhabi this week. Axios reports that Vice President JD Vance selected Driscoll, a fellow Yale alumnus, for this sensitive diplomatic mission despite his limited experience in international diplomacy.
As the Associated Press noted, “It’s an unlikely assignment for the Army’s top civilian leader, who got the job in February at age 38,” and whose Senate confirmation focused on military modernization rather than diplomatic negotiations.
The choice of Driscoll over Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has also raised eyebrows. Tom Nichols, a former Naval War College professor, suggested in The Atlantic that Hegseth “is unqualified to do anything but push-ups” and that “the administration also seems to be taking care not to let Hegseth near anything breakable or dangerous.”
As negotiations continue, their outcome will significantly impact not only Ukraine’s future but also the stability of European security and the international order.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
7 Comments
This story highlights the delicate balance of diplomacy and the challenges of resolving major international conflicts. I hope the negotiators can find a path forward that protects Ukraine’s interests while also considering Russia’s security concerns. Maintaining an objective, fact-based approach will be key.
Wow, this appears to be quite a complex diplomatic situation. It’s concerning to hear about potential concessions on Ukrainian territory, which could set a troubling precedent. I hope the negotiators can find a path forward that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and international law.
Interesting behind-the-scenes details on the U.S. negotiator’s involvement in the Russia-Ukraine peace proposal. Seems like some controversial suggestions were made, though the specifics of the 20-point plan aren’t entirely clear. I wonder how this will impact the ongoing conflict.
The news of the U.S. Navy canceling a frigate program and the Air Force extending tanker operations is a bit surprising. I wonder what the strategic rationale is behind these decisions, and how they might impact military readiness and capabilities in the long run.
The news about the U.S. Navy and Air Force program changes is interesting from a military/defense industry perspective. I wonder if these decisions are part of a broader strategic shift or simply operational adjustments. Either way, it will be worth monitoring how these changes impact military capabilities and readiness.
This story touches on some high-stakes geopolitical issues, with potential territorial concessions and military program changes. It will be important to follow the developments closely and assess the implications for regional stability, international law, and the broader security landscape.
The reported details on the U.S. negotiator’s involvement are quite intriguing. While the specific peace proposal details aren’t fully clear, the potential concessions on Ukrainian territory are certainly concerning from a legal and geopolitical standpoint. I’ll be following this story closely to see how it develops.