What the Witkoff Scandal Means for the Peace Negotiations

Witkoff’s telephone consultations, which has even been called Witkoffgate, with Putin’s adviser turned out to be not a “diplomatic liberty,” but a direct channel through which Russia adjusted the proposals that were later presented to Kyiv as “U.S. pressure” 

After the publication of details of Steven Witkoff’s involvement in communications with the Kremlin, it became clear that the peace negotiations are on the verge of losing trust.This is a direct political risk capable of reshaping the very architecture of the future peace process.

A scandal that in previous years would have been grounds for the immediate resignation of a key negotiator is today turning into an indicator of how deeply Russian influence can penetrate the processes of shaping U.S. S. policy toward Ukraine.

The Disclosure of Contacts with the Kremlin Destroyed Trust in Witkoff's Mediation

Publications by Bloomberg and Sky News confirmed: the peace plan that was presented as an American initiative was developed with the direct participation of the Russian side. The telephone conversation between Steven Witkoff and Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s senior adviser, which became known to journalists, revealed several key points.

First, the American representative provided the Kremlin with tactical recommendations — in particular, he advised Putin to speak with Trump before Zelenskyy’s visit to the White House. Second, he directly voiced Russian interests regarding Donbas and even suggested possible “land swaps,”which fully fits into Russian formulations from 2022. In fact, he demonstrated a willingness to adapt the American position to the wishes of the Russian leadership.

This is not just a violation of diplomatic protocol. This is an undermining of trust in the entire negotiation process. In any other administration, such an official would have been immediately removed, because his contact with the hostile side discredits the country’s position. But Trump did not simply keep Witkoff in his post — he publicly defended him, calling him “a negotiator who is doing his job.”

The result is obvious: Ukraine receives a signal that a channel existed — and most likely still exists — in the American negotiation mechanism that Russia could use to adjust American proposals. This means that any document prepared with the involvement of Witkoff’s team automatically raises doubts about its impartiality. It also explains why the initial versions of the plan so closely resembled Russian demands — and why Kyiv saw them from the very beginning as a threat to its statehood.

The Scandal Undermines the Legitimacy of “American Pressure” on Ukraine Itself and Changes the Rules of the Game

After the leak, it became clear why the Kremlin spoke of the “constructive” role of the United States in the negotiations — and why Moscow so consistently tried to impose the thesis of the “innovative approach of Witkoff.” If the American mediator was effectively helping the Russians build the right tactic for talking to Trump, it means that Russia had an informational and strategic advantage that should not exist in any peace process.

The Witkoff plan itself — a 28-point document that proposed handing over full control of the Donetsk region to Russia, effectively freezing the front in the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, and creating a “demilitarized buffer zone” under Russian control — clearly does not originate from the American school of defense thinking. It reproduced key Russian theses: the legalization of occupations, the division of Ukrainian territory, and the rejection of the forceful return of regions. The scandal only confirmed why this plan looked as if it had been drafted in Moscow.

Now the legitimacy of any American pressure on Kyiv has been significantly weakened. Ukraine has received grounds to clearly state that it cannot accept proposals that were created with the participation of a person who simultaneously consulted the Kremlin. European capitals, in turn, have seen that the American process is not transparent and requires correction. Some EU countries have already developed their own skepticism toward Trump’s “parallel initiatives” and toward the practice of his “personal envoys.”

This changes the geometry of the negotiations: from now on, the Ukrainian position is significantly strengthened. Kyiv can justifiably demand a review of the entire negotiation mechanism, the involvement of official U.S. diplomatic channels, and the rejection of informal negotiators. In practice, this means that similar projects created outside the institutional system cannot serve as the basis for a peace architecture.

The Political Consequences of the Witkoff Scandal Strengthen Ukrainian Arguments and Show that Moscow Is Trying to Take Advantage of the Chaos

The open reaction of American politicians confirms the seriousness of the situation. Don Bacon called Witkoff a person who is “completely playing for Russia.” Democrat Ted Lieu directly used the word “traitor. Even Republicans, traditionally aligned with Trump-era priorities, have come out with criticism.

Such rhetoric shows that Washington understands the scale of the problem. If the peace plan was developed with the participation of a person who simultaneously consulted Ushakov, it raises questions about the true motives behind Russia’s interest in a “ceasefire.” Russia never uses negotiations for de-escalation — only for regrouping. And the scandal has demonstrated that Moscow is testing the weak points of the American political system, using informal intermediaries to gain influence over the future peace settlement.

For Ukraine, this is an opportunity to emphasize the key thesis: any peace document on peace must be created through the official diplomatic institutions of the United States and the EU, and not through private businessmen and negotiators who bear no political responsibility. The scandal has effectively halted the legitimacy of “parallel diplomacy” and cast doubt on any further initiatives received through the Russian channel.

Thus, the Witkoff scandal did not simply create a political crisis — it changed the very context of the peace negotiations. Ukraine has gained a stronger argument in favor of a transparent, multilateral model of peacemaking in which Russian interests cannot be inserted into a document through backroom contacts. And the United States, for its part, is forced to demonstrate that its position remains pro-Ukrainian, institutional, and protected from outside influence.

Bohdan Popov, Head of Digital at the United Ukraine Think Tank, communications specialist and public figure