Donald Trump and J.D. Vance
Photo. Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok
Copy link
Send email
Donald Trump’s policy towards Russia and Ukraine is far from coherent. The American president has changed his stance multiple times – in part as a negotiation technique, in part because of the clashing blocs around him. Understanding the complex approach of the current administration isn’t possible without learning more about the key players – and their influence on the president’s decision-making process.
War in Ukraine was heralded as the easiest conflict to resolve by the new administration. Donald Trump boldly stated that it would be done even before his inauguration. He counted on his personal relationship with Vladimir Putin – and – as he wrote in The Art of the Deal: always believe in negotiating in good faith. That’s what he thought about his Russian counterpart in terms of ending the war – that he was actually willing to stop killing.
But the reality turned out to be much more complex. And Donald Trump isn’t a leader who always chooses a traditional diplomatic approach. On the contrary – he is convinced that old-school, Kissinger-like diplomacy is outdated and ineffective. Believing in the power of informal relations as a vital part of successful dealmaking, the American president opted for an alternative path, tapping Steve Witkoff as his special envoy to Putin.
Witkoff was his longtime friend, fellow developer, and golf partner, who already had his hands full as a special envoy to the Middle East. The nominal envoy to Russia and Ukraine was General Keith Kellogg – who received a warm welcome among European allies. But Trump needed someone he could trust and who presented a similar approach – business-like and transactional rather than focusing on the military and geopolitical game.
What’s more, Witkoff – a prominent figure in the Gulf states – had already established relations with Kirill Dmitriev, Stanford-educated Putin’s representative for investment and economic cooperation. Their meeting was fostered by the Gulf states – and it was an opportunity for Putin to re-enter the world stage and cease being a pariah state through economic cooperation. And suddenly Witkoff – who didn’t know anything about Russia (as Trump himself said during his Knesset address) – turned out to be successful in achieving the release of the American teacher, Mark Fogel, from a Russian prison. He also brought back direct dialogue between the U.S. and Russia – in line with Trump’s personal diplomacy approach.
Steve Witkoff has become the president’s number one trustee in terms of dealing with Russia. But obviously – there were other groups that had a say in shaping the American response to the war in Ukraine. The most prominent one was Marco Rubio – as the secretary of state, he was the nominal lead of foreign policy – of course, under the leadership of Donald Trump – as he usually likes to remind. Rubio had a hawkish history in the Republican Party. He has changed his stances towards dealing with Russia and Ukraine several times but remained a firm anti-communist of Cuban origin – meaning he distrusts Putin and isn’t convinced that the Russian leader negotiates in good faith.
Being the secretary of state isn’t the sole function of Rubio’s. He also has become the administrator of USAID and National Security Adviser – after Michael Waltz was reassigned from that role following Signalgate. Rubio has a lot on his plate, including running a shrunk Department of State after DOGE layoffs, but he represents the more traditional diplomacy: he is risk-averse, careful with words, and not in a rush when declaring a success. And he is popular with European allies – for them he represents stability and predictability – two aspects that the current American administration lacks in its foreign policy, especially towards the war in Ukraine.
Has Marco Rubio become a buzzkill in Trump’s administration? For some, he’s the voice of reason, focusing on longer-range goals instead of eyeing quick wins. For others – he’s not that into the business-dealmaking style Trump has introduced to international relations.
Rubio has grown in prominence during recent months. Trump regularly speaks about him as his potential successor – that’s the best proof Rubio has a say in this administration and has become an important member of the president’s inner circle. Especially because the Witkoff way has failed – and failed big after the Trump–Putin summit in Alaska. Trump left empty-handed. And for the renowned winner and dealmaker, it was a serious blow.
Even though the president decided to give the Witkoff approach a chance, heralding the Budapest summit with Putin, it was Rubio who influenced Trump to cancel the meeting. Sanctions on Russian Lukoil and Rosneft followed the communiqué about the failed summit. Even Kirill Dmitiev’s visit to Washington and meeting with Steve Witkoff didn’t help – the summit was off – mostly because of Rubio’s exchange with Lavrov.
Steve Witkoff has said in60 Minutes, after brokering the ceasefire in Gaza, that peace is infectious. But – as Trump likes to say – it takes two to tango – and for Putin, peace is possible only on his terms – as for now. Is Witkoff naive when dealing with Russia? Some say he is – like when he didn’t bring his own interpreter for the meeting with Putin. For some – it’s a new style of diplomacy, that’s first of all effective.
But effectiveness is what has decided – for now – that Rubio’s circle is winning. As a businessman that he is, Donald Trump won’t stick to a losing strategy. The Witkoff way was too ineffective for results-oriented Trump, and the president needed something new, which – hopefully – would grant him his ninth resolved conflict.
To have a complete picture of the president’s men working on the war in Ukraine, one cannot omit General Keith Kellogg. In Europe, he’s viewed as an advocate of the Ukraine cause; in the U.S. – he’s vocal about his disillusionment with the Russian president. Kellogg is probably more often viewed publicly in Europe than in the U.S. – where the face of Trump’s administration’s approach to the conflict is still Steve Witkoff. Maybe General Kellogg’s role is behind-the-scenes, but it’s vital in moments when other blocs gain ground. Like when Trump’s administration temporarily stopped shipping weapons to Ukraine because of assessing the Pentagon’s stockpiles – it was Kellogg whose intervention – among the president’s people – was crucial to reestablish the supplies.
Apart from Witkoff, Rubio, Kellogg – the list goes on. The views of Vice President JD Vance are often entirely different – he’s more of an „America First” devotee, who doesn’t hold back in presenting a quasi-isolationist stance. Especially regarding regions that are not listed as key to American supremacy. His now-famous speech at the Munich Security Conference was a clear indication of this worldview — one portraying Europe not as an equal partner, but as a client to be reminded of its place and urged to take care of its own problems. A similar approach is evident in what the president’s son, Donald Jr., chooses to share publicly — he has a personal dislike for Zelensky, whom he routinely mocks in every possible way, all while steering clear of any criticism of Russia.
This amalgam of opinions and factions surrounding the president strongly shapes Donald Trump’s actions toward the war in Ukraine. What will come next? For now, the Rubio approach appears to be prevailing. The only open question is – for how long?