Trump Backs Envoy Steve Witkoff After Leaked Calls With Kremlin Over Ukraine Peace Plan
A pair of leaked phone calls has thrown Washington’s already fraught Ukraine peace effort into turmoil. Transcripts show Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump’s special envoy, coaching a top Kremlin aide on how Vladimir Putin should flatter the U.S. president and frame a proposed peace deal for Ukraine. Trump’s response was not outrage but a shrug: this, he said, was “standard negotiation.” Financial Times+1
The leak lands at a delicate moment. Russian missiles are still striking Ukrainian cities. European governments are trying to rally around Kyiv. The White House is pushing a controversial peace blueprint that many allies saw as tilted toward Moscow, then hurriedly rewrote after a backlash. Now, the revelation that Trump’s envoy appeared to help the Kremlin shape its pitch deepens questions about whose interests the plan really serves.
This article explains what was in the leaked calls, how they fit into the wider diplomacy around Trump’s Ukraine peace plan, why the episode has rattled Ukraine and its allies, and what it could mean for the next phase of the war and the search for an eventual settlement.
Key Points
Leaked transcripts show envoy Steve Witkoff advising Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov on how Putin should praise Trump and introduce a Ukraine peace proposal.
The calls coincided with a U.S.-drafted 28-point peace plan that asked Ukraine to give up territory, cap its army, and drop NATO ambitions, prompting alarm in Kyiv and European capitals.
After European pushback, Washington and Ukraine rewrote the proposal into a shorter 19-point plan that removed the most pro-Russian demands, which Moscow now says it does not accept.
Trump has defended Witkoff’s conduct as normal dealmaking, even as some Republicans accuse the envoy of siding with Russia and European leaders warn against forcing Ukraine into concessions.
The episode underscores a core tension: the desire for a rapid end to the war versus the risk of cementing Russian gains and weakening the broader rules-based order.
Background
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 triggered Europe’s bloodiest conflict in decades. Ukraine, backed by Western military and financial support, has sought to reclaim occupied territory and secure long-term security guarantees, including the option of NATO membership. Russia has aimed to lock in its gains and keep Kyiv out of Western alliances.
Donald Trump returned to the White House promising to “end the war quickly.” His administration signaled it would push for a negotiated settlement rather than an open-ended military support strategy. To that end, Trump appointed Steve Witkoff, a New York real estate developer with long-standing personal ties to him but no traditional diplomatic background, as a special envoy on Ukraine and Russia. AP News+1
Over recent weeks, the administration floated a 28-point U.S. peace plan. According to multiple reports, the draft asked Ukraine to hand over significant territory, including parts of Donbas and Crimea, limit the size of its armed forces, and formally abandon any bid to join NATO or pursue Russian officials for war crimes. European analysts and officials noted that the document appeared to align closely with Moscow’s wish-list. Chatham House+1
Ukraine publicly acknowledged it faced a “very difficult choice”, but privately pushed back. European governments, already uneasy about Washington’s shifting posture, warned that forcing Kyiv into sweeping concessions could reward aggression and undermine security across the continent. Under pressure, U.S. and Ukrainian officials worked together to strip out the most contentious points and produced a shorter, 19-point proposal. That revised plan was then taken to talks in Geneva and Abu Dhabi, where U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll has been leading discussions with both Ukrainian and Russian delegations.
It is against this backdrop that Bloomberg’s leaked transcripts appeared—revealing how tightly Witkoff had been working with senior Kremlin figures as the original plan took shape.
Analysis
What the Leaked Calls Show
The first leaked call, on October 14, was between Witkoff and Yuri Ushakov, a seasoned foreign policy adviser to Vladimir Putin. In the five-minute conversation, Witkoff suggested that Putin should call Trump ahead of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to the White House. He urged Ushakov to have Putin open by congratulating Trump for brokering a Gaza ceasefire and to praise him as a “man of peace,” arguing this would put the U.S. president in a receptive mood. AP News+1
Witkoff floated the idea of a joint “20-point peace plan” for Ukraine, echoing the structure of the Gaza deal. He told Ushakov he believed Russia had “always wanted a peace deal” and said he had conveyed that belief directly to Trump. In other comments reported elsewhere, he expressed “deep respect” for Putin and emphasized how much discretion he enjoyed in talks. www.ndtv.com+1
A second leaked call, this time between Ushakov and Kremlin negotiator Kirill Dmitriev on October 29, painted the Russian side’s strategy in blunt terms. Dmitriev suggested drafting a paper entirely from Moscow’s position and informally passing it to the Americans, knowing they would not accept it wholesale but hoping the final result would be “as close to it as possible.”
Taken together, the transcripts offer a rare window into how the early versions of the U.S. peace plan may have been shaped—through back-channel coordination between Trump’s envoy and Kremlin insiders, with limited involvement by Ukraine or European partners.
Political and Geopolitical Dimensions
Politically, the leak reinforces a familiar narrative: Trump and his inner circle are unusually comfortable working with Moscow, even amid an ongoing war launched by Russia. In the past, that perception stemmed from rhetoric. This time, it is rooted in direct evidence of an envoy apparently coaching the Kremlin on how best to influence the U.S. president’s thinking on a live conflict.
Geopolitically, the timing is sensitive. Ukraine’s battlefield position has stalled, European publics are fatigued, and many governments worry about maintaining support in the face of economic pressures. A peace proposal that appears to validate Russian annexations and curtail Ukraine’s sovereignty risks signaling that, in the end, force pays. For countries on NATO’s eastern flank, that is a dangerous precedent. Chatham House+1
Russia, meanwhile, has played a careful game. Officials close to the Kremlin have welcomed elements of the original U.S. plan, especially territorial concessions and limits on Ukraine’s military, while pushing for “maximum” gains in private. At the same time, aides like Ushakov have dismissed parts of the leaked transcripts as “fake” and framed the leak itself as an attempt to sabotage diplomacy. Moscow now says it is dissatisfied with the revised, less pro-Russian 19-point plan. Reuters+2IntelliNews+2
Domestic and Alliance Fallout
Inside the United States, the Witkoff episode has sparked rare criticism from within Trump’s own party. Republican Representative Don Bacon and others have questioned why a U.S. envoy appears to be echoing Russian narratives and suggested Witkoff should be removed from his role. Senior Republican voices in the Senate have also warned against any agreement that forces Ukraine into “humiliating” concessions. AP News+1
Trump has pushed back hard. Speaking aboard Air Force One, he described Witkoff’s conduct as the work of a “dealmaker,” insisting it is normal for a mediator to speak frankly with both sides. He announced that Witkoff would continue in his role and even flagged a potential trip to Moscow, possibly alongside his son-in-law Jared Kushner, to keep talks moving. At the same time, Trump has pulled back from his earlier public deadline demanding a peace deal by Thanksgiving, now delegating more of the process to envoys and postponing direct meetings with Zelenskyy and Putin until a framework is nearly complete. Financial Times+2The Washington Post+2
For U.S. allies, the story deepens long-running worries about being sidelined. European officials were already scrambling to draft their own alternative peace proposal, one that re-centers Ukrainian sovereignty and avoids endorsing Russian gains. The fact that major steps in the U.S. process were being negotiated via informal calls and private dinners, with limited European or even Ukrainian input, has only sharpened those concerns. Chatham House+2Sky News+2
Security and Negotiating Implications
From a security standpoint, the core question is whether any U.S.-brokered agreement would make Ukraine and its neighbors safer or simply freeze the conflict on Russian terms. Provisions that cap Ukraine’s army, restrict its alliances, or discourage prosecution of war crimes could lock in vulnerability and weaken deterrence.
At the negotiating table, the leaks may paradoxically narrow room for compromise in the short term. Kyiv cannot easily accept a plan that its own public sees as written in Moscow. European governments cannot be seen rubber-stamping an agreement that contradicts years of promises to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” Russia, for its part, may now hold out for concessions closer to those in the original 28-point plan, calculating that the leak proves how far the U.S. was once willing to go. The Indian Express+2IntelliNews+2
The risk is stalemate: a weakened, war-torn Ukraine; a Russia still shelling cities and probing for leverage; and Western alliances strained by divergent red lines over what “peace” should look like.
Why This Matters
The Witkoff leak is more than a political embarrassment. It goes to the heart of how wars end—and who gets to decide the terms.
For Ukrainians, the stakes are existential. Territorial concessions are not abstractions; they mean surrendering cities, villages, and citizens to an occupying force that has already been accused of widespread abuses. Limits on the country’s army and alliances would shape its security for decades.
For Europe, the outcome will help determine whether pledges to defend a rules-based order have real weight. If a nuclear-armed power can invade a neighbor, hold occupied land, and then secure international blessing for a settlement that reflects its initial war aims, that sends a powerful signal to other would-be aggressors.
For the United States, the episode raises questions about process and influence. When peace plans are drafted through informal channels, with commercial associates playing central roles and allies kept at arm’s length, confidence in the final product erodes—whatever its actual content.
In the near term, the world will be watching several things: whether Witkoff still travels to Moscow, how Ukraine and the U.S. refine the 19-point plan, whether Europe coalesces around a common alternative, and how Russia responds on the battlefield as diplomacy drags on. The Washington Post+1
Real-World Impact
On the front line in eastern Ukraine, talk of peace plans feels distant. What matters there is whether artillery shells arrive, whether drones can be kept in the air, and whether the next Russian offensive can be stopped. If a deal eventually enshrines current front lines as permanent borders, communities that have held out for years could find themselves formally ceded to Russian control.
In a small town in Poland or the Baltics, the details of Witkoff’s calls may be obscure, but the direction of travel is not. Residents watch both the fighting over Ukraine and the bargaining over its future as a proxy for their own security. A settlement that appears to reward aggression could heighten anxiety, fuel calls for higher defense spending, and deepen skepticism about U.S. reliability.
In European capitals, policymakers are already grappling with budgets stretched by energy transitions, social spending, and debt. A peace that leaves Ukraine dependent and vulnerable could mean a long-term commitment to reconstruction aid, security guarantees, and forward deployment of forces—costs that will show up in national accounts and domestic politics.
In the United States, the episode may deepen divisions over foreign policy priorities. Voters facing inflation and domestic challenges are split between those who want a quick end to the war at almost any price and those who see standing by Ukraine as a test of American leadership. The Witkoff leak feeds both narratives: critics see appeasement, supporters see tough bargaining to stop the bloodshed.
Conclusion
At the center of the Witkoff controversy lies a stark choice. On one side is the promise of a rapid peace, crafted through hard-nosed dealmaking and back-channel diplomacy. On the other is the risk of a settlement that locks in battlefield gains, weakens an invaded country, and erodes the principles meant to keep similar wars in check.
Whether Steve Witkoff’s calls were simply clumsy shuttle diplomacy or evidence of a deeper tilt toward Moscow, the fallout has made one thing clear: any Ukraine peace plan that looks as though it was written more in Moscow than in Kyiv will struggle to gain legitimacy.
What happens next will depend on how the revised 19-point plan evolves, whether Europe can speak with one voice, how Russia plays its hand, and how long Ukraine can hold out on the ground. The signals to watch are not just new leaks or headlines but concrete moves—troop deployments, missile strikes, formal proposals—that show whether the war is inching toward a compromise or settling into a frozen conflict with no easy way out.
