Why handing Moscow to Witkoff and Kushner worries me as much as it reassures me

Introduction: a travel offer that speaks volumes

What the Kremlin just announced

Dear reader, let me tell you what unfolded this past weekend, while most of us were enjoying the American Fourth of July. According to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, Donald Trump's special envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, are ready to travel to Moscow "as soon as possible" to continue mediation efforts between Russia and Ukraine. This is not a protocol footnote. It confirms that American diplomacy on this file now runs through two men who are neither career diplomats nor elected officials, but personal friends of the president.

The announcement comes the day after a phone call between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, held over the weekend of July 4 and 5, 2026, just days before the NATO summit in Ankara. According to the Kremlin, the two leaders agreed to "speak again in the near future." Nothing more concrete has leaked out. No date. No public agenda. Just the promise, once again, that dialogue continues.

Why this letter, and why now

I am writing this open letter because I believe you, the reader, deserve to understand what this announcement really means, beyond the Kremlin's dry statement. This is not the first time Witkoff and Kushner have been mentioned as possible envoys to Moscow. But the timing, on the eve of a summit where Zelensky and Trump are set to meet in person, deserves serious attention rather than reflexive outrage.

I do not claim to know the exact content of the call between Putin and Trump. No serious outlet claims that either. What we know, with certainty, comes from verifiable sources: the Kremlin's statements as reported by Reuters, and the diplomatic context analyzed by the Irish Times and CNN. It is on this basis, and this basis only, that I build this letter.

Who Witkoff and Kushner really are in this file

Steve Witkoff, the businessman turned wartime envoy

Steve Witkoff was, only a few years ago, just another New York real estate developer, a longtime friend of Donald Trump. His appointment as special envoy for the Middle East, and then, de facto, for the Russia-Ukraine file, surprised even Washington diplomatic circles accustomed to the quiet career paths of the State Department. Yet he has no formal diplomatic training and no prior experience mediating between warring states.

This choice reflects a precise Trump philosophy: personal trust outweighs institutional expertise. Witkoff has already made repeated trips to Moscow since the start of the second term, meeting Putin directly on several occasions. He embodies a diplomacy of proximity, where direct access to the American president matters more than fine-grained knowledge of the file.

Jared Kushner, the son-in-law turned international negotiator

Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law and former White House adviser during the first term, built his diplomatic reputation on the Abraham Accords in the Middle East. His now-announced involvement in the Ukrainian file further widens the very narrow circle of people whom Trump trusts absolutely to negotiate with foreign heads of state, including those accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

I'll say it plainly: this extreme centralization of American diplomacy around two personal confidants of the president troubles me deeply. It bypasses decades of accumulated State Department expertise. But I also recognize, with an honesty that costs me nothing, that it may have opened channels that traditional diplomacy had long kept closed with Moscow.

The Putin-Trump call this weekend, what we actually know

A timing that is anything but accidental

According to the Irish Times, this phone call took place precisely on the eve of the NATO summit planned in Ankara, where Trump is set to meet Volodymyr Zelensky in person. CNN notes for its part that the conversation happened over the Fourth of July weekend, American Independence Day, a calendar choice that escapes no seasoned observer of presidential diplomacy.

The Kremlin confirmed, via Reuters, that the two leaders had agreed to "speak again in the near future." This deliberately vague phrasing leaves every door open: a quick resumption of dialogue or an indefinite postponement, depending on how the balance of power evolves on the ground and at the negotiating table.

What this call does not tell us

No reliable source confirms a precise timeline for a Witkoff and Kushner trip to Moscow. The phrase "as soon as possible," used by the Kremlin, remains by nature a statement of intent, not a dated commitment. That is an essential nuance that too many sensational headlines will tend to erase.

Nor do we know whether Kyiv was consulted before this announcement, or what concrete place Ukraine will occupy in these bilateral American-Russian exchanges. It is precisely this absence of information that deserves to be named rather than filled in with guesswork.

The extreme personalization of wartime diplomacy

A precedent that upends the usual practice

Handing a file as heavy as the war in Ukraine to personal envoys rather than the traditional American diplomatic apparatus marks a break with decades of practice. Previous administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, relied on career ambassadors, specialized undersecretaries of state, and National Security Council teams trained specifically on Eurasian affairs.

Trump has chosen a different path since returning to power: personal loyalty elevated to the status of diplomatic competence. This method has its defenders, who point to the speed of decision-making it allows, and its critics, who see in it a dangerous weakening of institutions.

The risks of diplomacy without institutional guardrails

The main danger of this approach lies in the absence of institutional memory and structured accountability. A career ambassador answers to a hierarchy, to procedures, to a Congress that can demand answers. A personal envoy of the president answers, in practice, almost exclusively to the president himself.

Here is my conviction, stated without hedging: I trust this method only under constant scrutiny. It can produce fast results, I won't deny that. But it also deprives the American Congress and public opinion of normal democratic oversight over decisions that affect the security of an entire continent.

What Kyiv risks losing in this configuration

Ukraine, a spectator at its own negotiations

The most concrete risk for Ukraine lies in its structural absence from this direct line between Washington and Moscow. When two personal envoys of the American president negotiate directly with the Kremlin, without systematic Ukrainian presence at the table, Kyiv finds itself reacting to decisions made elsewhere rather than helping shape them.

Volodymyr Zelensky has repeated, many times since this war began, that nothing about his country's future could be decided without his country. This demand, legitimate and grounded in international law, nonetheless collides with the reality of a balance of power in which great powers negotiate primarily among themselves.

The historical precedent that worries Ukrainians

Regional analysts regularly recall precedents in which great powers negotiated the fate of smaller nations without fully including them at the table. This historical specter explains the extreme vigilance of Ukrainian diplomacy toward any bilateral American-Russian negotiation conducted on the margins of channels that include Kyiv.

It is precisely for this reason that the NATO summit in Ankara takes on disproportionate importance: it is Zelensky's chance to ensure the Ukrainian voice remains audible at the very moment Witkoff and Kushner may be preparing to speak directly with Moscow.

The new player: Erdogan's Turkey as host and go-between

Ankara, an unlikely but useful diplomatic platform

The choice of Ankara as the venue for the NATO summit is not incidental. Turkey occupies a unique position in this conflict: a member of the Atlantic Alliance, it simultaneously maintains active economic and diplomatic relations with Moscow. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has already hosted several rounds of Russian-Ukrainian negotiations since 2022, positioning himself as an indispensable intermediary despite criticism of his own authoritarian drift at home.

This balancing act allows Turkey to play a role that neither Washington nor European capitals can occupy alone: that of a bridge, imperfect but functional, between two camps that have not spoken directly since the invasion.

The limits of Turkish neutrality

This neutrality displayed by Ankara nonetheless has a price: Turkey continues to maintain substantial trade with Russia, including in sensitive sectors, which fuels criticism from some European allies who consider this posture too accommodating toward Moscow.

Still, without this Turkish platform, it is far from certain that Witkoff and Kushner would today have such a favorable diplomatic setting to announce their readiness to travel to Moscow.

Trump's ambiguous role in this sequence

A president playing several boards at once

Donald Trump has built his diplomatic method on calculated ambiguity: talking to Putin, talking to Zelensky, sending his envoys to one and then the other, never publicly locking in a definitive position before the moment he deems opportune. This approach, which his supporters call pragmatic, worries those who see in it a lack of strategic clarity harmful to Ukraine.

On the strictly military front, however, it must be acknowledged that the Trump administration has, so far, maintained the core architecture of support for Kyiv, even though criticism over the slowness or insufficiency of certain deliveries remains well-founded and documented.

The red line the West cannot cross

Whatever diplomatic method is chosen, one red line must remain non-negotiable: no agreement can legitimize territorial gains obtained by force by Russia since the 2022 invasion. This is a fundamental principle of international law, and it is also a matter of credibility for the entire Western security architecture.

On Trump, I reject both caricature and blind indulgence. I credit him when his administration maintains military support for Ukraine. I criticize him firmly the moment he flirts with rewarding Russian aggression through territorial concessions. We judge by actions, never by personal sympathy.

What the State Department's silence reveals

A parallel diplomacy that raises questions

What stands out in this sequence is the relative absence of public communication from the American State Department on these developments, compared with the visibility given to announcements involving Witkoff and Kushner. This communication asymmetry reinforces the impression of a two-speed diplomacy, in which the traditional institutional apparatus finds itself relegated to the background.

This configuration is not unique to the Ukrainian file: it reflects a broader tendency of the Trump administration to favor personal channels over institutional processes, including on other sensitive foreign policy files.

The questions this letter cannot settle

I must be honest with you: I do not know whether this trip to Moscow will actually happen in the coming days, nor what will be said if it does. No reliable source allows me, as I write these lines, to predict the outcome of this diplomatic sequence. What I can say is that the method being used deserves your vigilance as much as your attention.

The Ankara summit as a test of Western coherence

A meeting under heavy symbolic tension

The NATO summit in Ankara arrives at a pivotal moment: just days after the Putin-Trump call, and potentially before any first trip by Witkoff and Kushner to Moscow. This calendar proximity turns the summit into a coherence test for the entire Atlantic Alliance.

Zelensky will have to demonstrate there that Trump's personal diplomacy with Moscow does not come at the expense of his country's vital interests. Other NATO members, for their part, will need to clarify whether this American mediation carries a collective mandate or remains a strictly bilateral initiative between Washington and Moscow.

Western unity put to the test

The recent history of this war has shown, time and again, that Western unity remains the most effective weapon against Russian attempts to divide the allies. Any perception of a deal negotiated behind closed doors, without sufficient consultation of European partners and Kyiv, would risk weakening this unity so patiently built since 2022.

I believe deeply that Western unity remains our best asset against Moscow. That is why I watch this Ankara summit with almost anxious attention: if Trump's personal diplomacy were to crack that unity, even unintentionally, the price would be paid by Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, not by the negotiators themselves.

What Witkoff's track record teaches us

The Middle East as the laboratory of his method

Steve Witkoff first proved himself, in Trump's eyes, on the Middle East file, where his direct, transactional method produced certain concrete results, notably in negotiations related to Gaza. This relative success explains why Trump chose to also entrust him with the Russia-Ukraine file, despite the radical difference in complexity and stakes between the two regions.

Transposing a real estate-style transactional negotiating method to a conflict involving the territorial integrity of a European state, Article 5 of NATO, and the credibility of the post-1945 international order carries risks that the Middle East precedents do not necessarily allow one to anticipate.

Kushner and the legacy of the Abraham Accords

Jared Kushner remains associated, in the American public mind, with the Abraham Accords normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab countries during Trump's first term. This real and documented diplomatic success fuels the trust Trump places in him for matters of an entirely different geopolitical nature.

But negotiating normalization between states that were not in open war differs fundamentally from mediating an active armed conflict, with daily human losses documented on Ukrainian soil.

The voice of European allies in this equation

A Europe watching with caution

European capitals are following this diplomatic sequence with caution tinged with concern. No major European government has publicly criticized the Witkoff-Kushner initiative, but several diplomats, cited anonymously by specialized press, express a wish to be consulted before any substantial progress with Moscow.

This European caution reflects a hard-learned lesson since 2022: the continent's security can no longer depend solely on decisions made in Washington, however well-intentioned they may be.

European rearmament, an indispensable backdrop

It is in this context that the accelerated rearmament of European NATO member states takes on its full strategic meaning. The more Europe invests in its own deterrence capability, the less it depends solely on bilateral American-Russian decisions to guarantee its collective security.

I believe Europe is paying today for decades of military under-investment, finding itself hoping that Trump's personal diplomacy serves its interests without always being able to influence it directly. That lesson should remain etched long after this war ends.

Possible scenarios for the coming weeks

A trip to Moscow that could accelerate everything

If Witkoff and Kushner do travel to Moscow in the coming days or weeks, as the Kremlin's statement suggests, this trip could mark a notable acceleration of the diplomatic timeline, potentially synchronized with the aftermath of the Ankara summit.

But nothing, at this stage, guarantees that this acceleration will produce tangible results on the ground. The recent history of this conflict is full of moments of diplomatic optimism that were not followed by concrete effects on the fighting.

The scenario of a prolonged status quo

Conversely, it is just as possible that this announcement remains, like others before it, a statement of intent with no immediate follow-up, while Russian and American positions evolve according to military developments on the ground and the outcomes of the NATO summit.

Why this open letter matters beyond the Witkoff-Kushner file

A test for American democracy itself

Beyond Ukraine's fate, this sequence raises a broader question about the nature of contemporary American diplomacy: can it continue to function effectively when it rests on personal relationships rather than solid institutions accountable to Congress and public opinion?

This is a question that far outlasts the scope of this war, and one that deserves to be asked independently of the outcome of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

What history will remember of this method

If this personalized diplomacy leads to a just peace for Ukraine, history will likely judge the method more indulgently than if it fails or, worse, results in a deal perceived as disguised capitulation. Historical judgment, here as elsewhere, will be based on results, not declared intentions.

I close this section with a firm conviction: method matters, but outcome matters more. If Witkoff and Kushner return from Moscow with a ceasefire that protects Ukrainian territorial integrity, I will be the first to applaud this unconventional diplomacy. If not, history will forgive neither the choice of envoys nor the absence of institutional guardrails.

What I ask, as a columnist, of the leaders involved

To Washington

Mr. President, I write this open letter to remind you of what is at stake: every additional week of war is paid for in Ukrainian lives. If your personal envoys can truly accelerate a just peace, then let them leave for Moscow without delay. But let that speed never come at the cost of excluding Kyiv from decisions that concern its own future.

Transparency toward Congress and European allies is not an obstacle to effective diplomacy; it is a condition of its lasting legitimacy.

To Kyiv and its allies

To Volodymyr Zelensky and his European counterparts, I say simply this: your vigilance toward this personalized diplomacy is legitimate and necessary. Keep demanding a seat at the table, keep documenting every advance and every setback, because it is this transparency that ultimately protects the interests of the Ukrainian people.

Conclusion: between cautious hope and necessary vigilance

A double-edged diplomacy

This open letter does not claim to settle definitively whether the Witkoff-Kushner method represents good or bad news for Ukraine. It seeks instead to name precisely what we know, what we do not know, and what deserves renewed vigilance in the coming days, between this weekend's Putin-Trump call and the NATO summit in Ankara.

Wartime diplomacy has never been a simple exercise. It is even less so when it rests on personal envoys rather than proven institutions. This is the tension to keep in mind in the weeks ahead.

The only criterion that should matter

In the end, only one criterion should guide our collective judgment on this diplomatic sequence: does Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity emerge stronger or weaker from it? However unconventional the method, it must be judged by that standard, and that standard alone.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my declared biases

I sign this open letter as an engaged columnist, not as a neutral journalist. I support without reservation the Ukrainian resistance, I consider Volodymyr Zelensky a figure of rare political courage, and I believe the West must remain the strategic center of gravity of the free world against the axis formed by Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. On Donald Trump, my treatment varies by file: I credit his posture when it strengthens Western military deterrence; I criticize it firmly when it risks weakening Kyiv.

What I do not know and my method

I do not claim to know the exact content of the call between Putin and Trump, nor whether Witkoff and Kushner will actually travel to Moscow in the coming days. This letter relies exclusively on verifiable journalistic sources, cited and dated, without invention or fabricated testimony. Where uncertainty remains, I say so explicitly rather than speculating as if it were established fact.

Sources

Primary sources

Irish Times — Putin and Trump discuss Ukraine in call ahead of NATO summit, July 5, 2026

Reuters — Kremlin says Putin, Trump agreed during weekend call to talk again in near future, July 6, 2026

Ukraine's Ministry of Defence — official statements

Secondary sources

CNN — Putin, Trump hold call on US Independence Day, July 5, 2026

Foreign Policy — coverage of the NATO summit in Ankara

Army Inform — Ukrainian defense news