The recent visit of Steve Witkoff, special envoy of United States President Donald Trump, to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has drawn considerable attention as an indicator of American diplomatic intentions concerning the war in Ukraine, Iran’s nuclear programme, and broader Middle East stability.
Witkoff’s meeting with Putin, reportedly the fourth of its kind, coincides with significant geopolitical manoeuvring. Although official statements remain sparse, Yuri Ushakov, adviser to the Russian president on foreign policy, stated that the meeting touched upon the potential resumption of Russian-Ukrainian negotiations and broader international matters. These remarks, however, offer little clarity beyond standard diplomatic phrasing.
Following the meeting in Moscow, Witkoff travelled to Oman for discussions with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Sources indicate that Saturday’s negotiations will focus on reviving arrangements concerning Iran’s nuclear activities, including the contentious proposal to transfer Iran’s enriched nuclear materials into Russian custody as a safeguard in the event of any future collapse of agreements.
The linkage between Ukraine and Iran in the context of US-Russia relations has become increasingly evident. Observers argue that Trump’s administration is seeking to leverage Russia’s influence over Iran to achieve outcomes beneficial to American interests in the Middle East, particularly in efforts to secure the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas and to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
In parallel, drafts of peace proposals concerning Ukraine have surfaced, reportedly shared among key stakeholders, including the United States and European powers. One proposal advocates an immediate ceasefire and the provision of security guarantees to Ukraine. However, the nature of these guarantees remains undefined, and their credibility is questioned given the reluctance of nuclear powers such as the United States to engage directly in the conflict.
Complicating matters further is the legal barrier in the United States to recognising Russian sovereignty over occupied Ukrainian territories, notably Crimea. A specific US law prohibits such recognition, limiting Trump’s ability to offer concessions without Congressional approval.
Proposals also reportedly suggest tacit recognition of Russian control over parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions, de facto if not de jure. However, this approach appears largely theoretical, as Russia’s willingness to permit international oversight of strategic assets, such as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, remains doubtful.
A more Europe-centric proposal, considered closer to Ukraine’s position, includes provisions for the return of deported Ukrainian children, prisoner exchanges, restoration of Ukraine’s control over strategic locations, and the eventual release of frozen Russian assets for reconstruction efforts in Ukraine. Nonetheless, practical enforcement mechanisms for these terms remain unclear.
The broader context of these negotiations is marked by a strategic calculation in Moscow. Putin appears interested in maintaining negotiations to undermine Western unity and project an image of diplomatic legitimacy. He also seeks to prolong military operations in Ukraine while negotiations continue, aiming to erode Ukraine’s resilience.
President Trump, however, faces domestic political pressures. Continued Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilian areas risk associating Trump with atrocities, potentially damaging his reputation. Trump has reportedly warned Putin that failure to de-escalate could lead to the United States withdrawing from peace efforts.
At the same time, Trump’s priorities extend beyond Ukraine. His administration is heavily invested in resolving tensions with Iran and stabilising the situation in the Middle East. A successful agreement involving Iran’s nuclear materials, with Russia as an intermediary, could serve Trump’s broader foreign policy objectives. This dynamic creates a tension between the need to maintain pressure on Russia over Ukraine and the desire to secure Russian cooperation regarding Iran.
Analysts suggest that Putin’s interest in preserving direct dialogue with Trump may outweigh his desire for continued escalation in Ukraine, providing a potential, albeit uncertain, opening for at least a temporary ceasefire.
However, the situation remains volatile. A potential outbreak of conflict between India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers, could fundamentally shift American strategic priorities. Should such a crisis arise, attention and resources would be diverted from Europe and the Middle East, further complicating the situation in Ukraine.
The unpredictability of Trump’s negotiating style, coupled with the complex and often competing priorities of involved parties, renders clear forecasting difficult. Much depends on forthcoming developments in negotiations with Iran and the degree of Russia’s willingness to moderate its military activities in Ukraine to preserve its diplomatic channels with the United States.
In conclusion, while current diplomatic efforts offer a theoretical path to de-escalation in Ukraine, the practical challenges remain formidable. The intersection of multiple global crises means that any progress will likely be fragile, subject to rapid reversal, and highly contingent on decisions made in Washington, Moscow, Tehran, and beyond in the coming weeks.
