WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has revived its diplomatic drive to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, as US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner traveled from Moscow to Kyiv in a high-profile effort to lay the groundwork for another round of negotiations.
But after separate meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the central question remains unanswered: Has Moscow changed its position enough to make a settlement possible?
Three former US ambassadors to Ukraine interviewed by RFE/RL on September 6 said the answer, for now, appears to be no.
The weekend marked the first time Witkoff and Kushner traveled to Kyiv together for talks with Zelenskyy, after meeting Putin in Moscow the previous day. Witkoff described discussions in both capitals as constructive and said Washington had heard “new ideas” from Moscow. Kushner said the United States was working on a broader “peace package.”
Zelenskyy, for his part, called his discussions with the Americans “very substantial” and said Ukraine was prepared to move toward trilateral talks involving Kyiv, Washington, and Moscow. National security advisers from Britain, France, and Germany also joined part of the Kyiv discussions.
The diplomatic activity is significant. But the former ambassadors cautioned against confusing movement with progress.
Former US Ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor Jr.
William B. Taylor Jr., who served twice as US ambassador to Ukraine, said the Kyiv visit was “good news” but argued that the crucial test lies elsewhere.
“The real problem in diplomacy is not Kyiv. The real problem in diplomacy is not Washington. The real problem in diplomacy is Moscow,” Taylor told RFE/RL.
He said he had heard nothing from the Kremlin suggesting that Putin had moved away from his maximalist demands.
John E. Herbst, who preceded Taylor as ambassador under President George W. Bush, offered a similar assessment. He said the current effort is arguably the most substantial US diplomatic initiative in months simply because there had been little comparable activity since January.
But, he added, “The question is: Is there something serious here? And the answer is: We don’t know.”
That uncertainty is likely to dominate the next phase of the diplomacy.
Geoffrey Pyatt, who served as US ambassador to Ukraine from 2013-16, also welcomed the renewed American engagement while warning that the fundamental obstacle remains Russia’s willingness to de-escalate.
The Missing Piece
The most intriguing claim emerging from the weekend is Witkoff’s assertion that the Americans heard “new ideas” in Moscow. Neither he nor Kushner has publicly explained what those ideas are. That leaves a crucial distinction between new language and a new Russian position.
John Herbst, former US ambassador to Ukraine.
For Taylor, the test would be concrete military de-escalation.
A Russian agreement to a cease-fire along the current lines, a halt to long-range strikes, an end to attacks on energy infrastructure, and an understanding covering shipping would represent a genuine departure from Moscow’s current position, he said.
Without such steps, the word “new” risks describing proposals that merely repackage existing Russian demands.
Herbst also pointed to a history of unfulfilled expectations. American officials have previously suggested that Moscow was prepared to compromise, only for the substance of those supposed compromises to remain unclear or fail to materialize.
That history makes the details of this weekend’s meetings particularly important.
Geoffrey Pyatt, former top US diplomat in Kyiv.
A senior US administration official briefed on the visit told RFE/RL that Washington remains ready and optimistic about the possibility of another round of negotiations involving Moscow and Kyiv.
The official said the administration will assess the outcome of the envoys’ meetings before determining concrete next steps, while the coming weeks will be important for developing a more detailed roadmap.
The official also pointed to the upcoming UN General Assembly as a potentially useful opportunity to continue the work, saying it could allow the sides to “pick up from where Jared and Steve have left off” over the weekend.
Territory, Security Remain Key
Kushner’s reference to a broader “peace package” raises the question of what such a package would actually contain. The former ambassadors’ answers converge around two fundamental issues: territory and Ukraine’s future security.
Russia and Ukraine remain far apart over territory. Moscow has demanded Ukrainian concessions that Kyiv has rejected, while Ukraine continues to regard Russian-occupied land as sovereign Ukrainian territory.
Taylor outlined one possible way of separating the immediate reality on the ground from the unresolved legal dispute.
Ukraine and its Western partners, he suggested, could acknowledge the fact that Russia controls roughly 19 percent of Ukrainian territory without recognizing that control as legally legitimate or permanent.
In such a framework, the territorial dispute would effectively be frozen rather than settled. Russia would retain de facto control while abandoning demands for international recognition of permanent Russian sovereignty over the occupied areas.
But Taylor stressed that there is no indication Putin is prepared to accept it.
Zelenskyy himself has said the territorial question remains unresolved and ultimately requires decisions at the highest political level.
Herbst takes the broader view that Putin’s objectives extend beyond territory.
In his assessment, the Kremlin seeks substantial control over Ukraine’s territory and political direction — objectives that would be incompatible with a durable settlement based on Ukrainian sovereignty and independence.
Cease-Fire Still Far From Peace
The distinction between ending the fighting and resolving the war is becoming increasingly important. Taylor said the first step toward a lasting settlement should be a comprehensive cease-fire covering land, air, and sea.
Herbst similarly argued for a cease-fire along the existing lines, combined with security guarantees and a reconstruction effort designed to leave Ukraine economically and militarily capable of defending itself.
The security question may ultimately prove even more consequential than territory.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and US envoy Jared Kushner visit St. Sofia Cathedral in Kyiv on September 6.
Kyiv has repeatedly sought guarantees strong enough to deter Russia from attacking again after any agreement. Taylor said a credible arrangement could involve European troops deployed in Ukraine under a coalition of willing countries, supported by the United States through air power, intelligence, and other capabilities.
He also pointed to Ukraine’s eventual integration into the European Union and, ultimately, NATO as longer-term elements of its security.
That would require substantial Western commitments at a moment when Washington has shown reluctance to undertake open-ended military obligations.
For Ukraine, therefore, a cease-fire without credible deterrence could simply create a pause before another war. For Russia, meanwhile, such Western guarantees could be precisely what Moscow seeks to prevent.
Europe Moves Closer To The Table
The participation of British, French, and German national security advisers in the Kyiv talks was one of the more consequential developments of the weekend.
Witkoff said their presence demonstrated that “collaboration is critical” to reaching a settlement.
Taylor went further, arguing that European involvement is essential because European countries would likely be the principal providers of any security arrangement for Ukraine. Europe is also a major source of financial and military assistance to Kyiv.
For now, the Europeans appear to have been brought into consultations rather than given a formal negotiating role. Whether that will change depends in large part on what Washington eventually puts on the table and what Moscow is prepared to accept.
The diplomacy is also taking place against a backdrop of continued and, in some respects, intensified fighting. That gap between diplomatic engagement and battlefield behavior is revealing.
If Moscow and Kyiv cannot sustain even limited military restraint while talks are under way, reaching agreement on a comprehensive cease-fire will be considerably harder. It also provides a practical test for the claimed diplomatic momentum.
The Test Is Moscow
Ukraine has already signaled it is prepared for another trilateral meeting. Zelenskyy said Kyiv wants to do everything possible to make such talks involving Ukraine, the US, and Russia happen. But there is still no clear public indication that Putin has agreed to such a meeting.
For Taylor, that is the immediate benchmark. “What we need to hear is ‘yes,’” he said — a clear indication from Putin or the Kremlin that Moscow is prepared to meet with Zelenskyy and the US president.
Herbst said the first test over the coming days will be whether details of what was discussed in Moscow and Kyiv begin to emerge, and how Washington, Kyiv, and Moscow respond to them.
As Pyatt, the former US ambassador who served in Kyiv during the opening years of Russia’s war, put it, renewed American diplomatic engagement is welcome, but the fundamental problem remains Putin’s willingness to de-escalate and his understanding of what Ukrainians want for their country’s future.