Steve Witkoff, a prominent New York property developer, has become a controversial figure. His switch to becoming a diplomat for the US on the worldwide stage has brought him out of obscurity. His recent comments and contradictory actions on behalf of Russia and President Vladimir Putin have most certainly done just that. This is particularly the case with the current crisis around the war in Ukraine. Yet this combination of roles uniquely positions Witkoff to function as an intermediary. This high-profile role has led to considerable debate about what his influence over U.S. foreign policy will mean for Europe.
Witkoff has been in the forefront on teaching Russia how to curry favor with former President Donald Trump. To his credit, he acknowledge that he’s no expert in the historical underpinnings of these great power rivalries. To learn more about the subject, he said, he’s been watching a lot of Netflix documentaries. This groundbreaking approach to making sense of extremely complicated international dynamic has attracted the ire and skepticism from some environmentalists, academia, and other critics.
At a recent gathering in Miami, Witkoff provided the same briefing that he delivered to Ukraine’s National Security Adviser, Rustem Umerov. This meeting was a clear example of Witkoff’s influence in nudging U.S. policy in favor of Ukraine and against Russia. His analyses apparently influenced a key 150 minute conversation between Trump and Putin on the 15th of October. This talk round was viewed as crucial to the re-set of U.S.-Russia bilateral ties.
Critics contend that Witkoff’s clout has slowed U.S. military assistance to Ukraine. This is especially the case when it comes to the provision of Tomahawk missiles. He has consistently been at the helm of creating the 28-point U.S.-Russian plan to settle the conflict. This abstentionist framework has made Europe a geopolitical pawn rather than a player, an object rather than an actor.
Witkoff’s perception of Putin is particularly noteworthy. He remarked, “I don’t regard Putin as a bad guy. That is a complicated situation, that war and all the ingredients that led up to it. You know, it’s never just one person, right?” This statement is indicative of a dangerous trend among some U.S. policymakers who want to engage rather than confront Russia.
European leaders have already been impressed by Witkoff’s approach. They view his legal opinions as strengthening Russian interests rather than protecting Ukrainian sovereignty. French President Emmanuel Macron emphasized, “The absolute condition for a good peace is a series of very robust security guarantees, and not guarantees only on paper.” This fatalistic view reflects fears that Witkoff’s plan would backfire and benefit Russia at the long-term expense of European security.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s president, has expressed concern over what a possible U.S.-Russia deal could mean. He warned that Ukraine could face “the loss of dignity or the risk of losing a key partner, the United States.” This limited and stark choice really calls into question the long-term feasibility of Witkoff’s peace plan — at least from Ukraine’s point-of-view.
The updated U.S. peace plan has shrunk to just 19 of the original 28 points. Critics contend that it bows to Russia’s wishes rather than promoting a mutually beneficial political solution. François Heisbourg noted, “It is essentially a peace arranged on Russia’s terms.” Against such a backdrop, this understanding illuminates the best fears that Ukraine will be pressured into negotiations that require it to give up territory and its sovereignty and independence.
Further criticism comes from Josep Borrell, who warned that Trump’s plan “exposes the failure of the EU’s appeasement strategy.” Yet he misplaced that criticism on the proposal’s insufficiency for Europe. As he noted, U.S. policy is no longer aligned with European interests. This tension between U.S. and European approaches to Russia highlights a rift that is widening in transatlantic relations.
Critics say what Witkoff has done is part of a more alarming pattern. They think the U.S. is giving precedence to its relationship with Russia, burying European security interests close to the bottom of the agenda. François Hollande lamented the historic implications of this shift, stating, “We are living through a moment that is both historic and dramatic… this plan marks Ukraine’s capitulation and offers no security guarantees.”
The geopolitical landscape is constantly shifting as Witkoff has learned to walk and chew gum in the midst of these ongoing negotiations. Others caution that simply increasing financial aid or military assistance will not help Ukraine win the war. JD Vance emphasized that “peace will not be achieved by failed diplomats or politicians living in a fantasy world,” arguing instead for a pragmatic approach grounded in reality.
As we all enter into discussions about what the U.S.-Russia relationship should look like going forward, Witkoff’s first few actions will underscore his importance to any future diplomacy. Such actions would equally strike a heavy blow at European stability. The tenuous line between bolstering Ukraine’s resistance, while simultaneously keeping Russia open to negotiation, is a tightrope act sorely lacking in prudence and foresight.