OPEN LETTER: Why Entrusting Moscow to Witkoff and Kushner Both Worries Me and Reassures Me

The timing is by no means coincidental

According to the Irish Times, this phone call took place precisely on the eve of the NATO summit scheduled in Ankara, where Trump is set to meet Volodymyr Zelensky in person. CNN, for its part, notes that the conversation took place over the weekend of July 4, America’s Independence Day—a timing choice that has not escaped the notice of any seasoned observer of presidential diplomacy.

The Kremlin confirmed, via Reuters, that the two leaders had agreed to “speak again in the near future.” This deliberately vague phrasing leaves all options open: a swift resumption of dialogue or an indefinite postponement, depending on how the balance of power evolves on the ground and at the negotiating table.

What This Statement Doesn’t Say

No reliable source confirms a specific timeline for a trip by Witkoff and Kushner to Moscow. The phrase “as soon as possible” used by the Kremlin remains, by its very nature, a statement of intent, not a dated commitment. This is a crucial nuance that too many sensationalist headlines will tend to gloss over.

Nor do we know whether Kyiv was consulted prior to this announcement, or what role Ukraine will actually play in these bilateral U.S.-Russian talks. It is precisely this lack of information that deserves to be acknowledged rather than filled with speculation.

This gray area worries me more than anything else. Diplomacy that moves forward without us knowing what it truly promises is diplomacy that, by its very nature, eludes any normal democratic oversight—whether American, Ukrainian, or European.

A Precedent That Breaks with Tradition

Entrusting an issue as weighty as the war in Ukraine to personal envoys rather than to the traditional U.S. diplomatic apparatus marks a break with decades of practice. Previous administrations, both Republican and Democratic, relied on career ambassadors, specialized undersecretaries of state, and National Security Council teams specifically trained in Eurasian affairs.

Since returning to power, Trump has chosen a different path: one in which personal loyalty is equated with diplomatic competence. This approach has its defenders, who highlight the speed of decision-making it enables, and its critics, who see it as a dangerous weakening of institutions.

The Risks of Diplomacy Without Institutional Safeguards

The main danger of this approach lies in the absence of institutional memory and structured accountability. A career ambassador is accountable to a hierarchy, to procedures, and to a Congress that can demand accountability. A personal envoy of the president is, in practice, accountable almost exclusively to the president himself.

Here is my conviction, stated plainly: I trust this method only under constant oversight. It can produce rapid results—I do not deny that. But it also deprives the U.S. Congress and the public of normal democratic oversight over decisions that affect the security of all of Europe.

Ukraine, a Bystander in Its Own Negotiations

The most tangible risk for Ukraine lies in its structural absence from this direct line of communication between Washington and Moscow. When two personal envoys of the U.S. president negotiate directly with the Kremlin, without a consistent Ukrainian presence at the table, Kyiv finds itself having to react to decisions made elsewhere rather than helping to shape them.

Volodymyr Zelensky has reiterated, time and again since the start of this war, that nothing can be decided about his country’s future without his country’s involvement. This demand—legitimate and grounded in international law—clashes, however, with the reality of a balance of power in which the major powers negotiate among themselves first.

The historical precedent that worries Ukrainians

Analysts in the region regularly point to precedents where major powers have negotiated the fate of smaller nations without fully including them at the table. This historical specter explains the extreme vigilance of Ukrainian diplomacy toward any bilateral U.S.-Russian negotiations that might take place outside of channels that include Kyiv.

It is precisely for this reason that the NATO summit in Ankara takes on disproportionate importance: it is an opportunity for Zelensky to ensure that Ukraine’s voice remains heard at the very moment when Witkoff and Kushner may be preparing to hold direct talks with Moscow.

I refuse to dismiss Ukraine’s vigilance as diplomatic paranoia. It is based on a clear-eyed reading of history, in which larger powers have all too often decided the fate of smaller nations without their input. Kyiv is right to demand a seat at every table.

Ankara: An Unlikely but Useful Diplomatic Hub

The choice of Ankara as the venue for the NATO summit is no coincidence. Turkey occupies a unique position in this conflict: as a member of the Atlantic Alliance, it simultaneously maintains active economic and diplomatic relations with Moscow. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has already hosted several rounds of Russian-Ukrainian negotiations since 2022, positioning himself as an indispensable intermediary despite criticism of his own authoritarian tendencies at home.

This balancing act allows Turkey to play a role that neither Washington nor European capitals can fulfill on their own: that of a bridge—imperfect but functional—between two sides that have not spoken directly to one another since the invasion.

The Limits of Turkish Neutrality

This neutrality displayed by Ankara, however, comes at a price: Turkey continues to maintain substantial trade with Russia, including in sensitive sectors, which fuels criticism from certain European allies who view this stance as too accommodating toward Moscow.

Still, without this Turkish platform, it is far from certain that Witkoff and Kushner would today have such a favorable diplomatic framework in which to announce their willingness to travel to Moscow.

I hesitated for a long time to give Erdogan any credit on this issue, given how deeply concerned I am about his authoritarian tendencies at home. But I must acknowledge, with the honesty I demand of myself, that his diplomatic platform objectively serves the cause of a dialogue that, without it, might simply not exist.

A President Who Plays Both Sides

Donald Trump has built his diplomatic strategy on calculated ambiguity: talking to Putin, talking to Zelensky, sending his emissaries to both sides, without ever publicly committing to a definitive position until the moment he deems appropriate. This approach, which his supporters describe as pragmatic, worries those who see it as a lack of strategic clarity that is detrimental to Ukraine.

From a strictly military standpoint, however, it must be acknowledged that the Trump administration has, so far, maintained the bulk of the support framework for Kyiv, even though criticisms regarding the slowness or inadequacy of certain deliveries remain well-founded and well-documented.

The Red Line the West Cannot Cross

Regardless of the diplomatic approach chosen, one red line must remain non-negotiable: no agreement can legitimize the territorial gains Russia has secured by force since the 2022 invasion. This is a fundamental principle of international law, and it is also a matter of credibility for the entire Western security architecture.

When it comes to Trump, I reject both caricature and blind leniency. I give him credit when his administration maintains military support for Ukraine. I strongly criticize him whenever he flirts with the idea of rewarding Russian aggression with territorial concessions. We judge by actions, never by personal sympathy.

A Parallel Diplomacy That Raises Questions

What stands out in this sequence is the relative lack of public communication from the U.S. State Department regarding these developments, compared to the visibility given to announcements involving Witkoff and Kushner. This asymmetry in communication reinforces the impression of a two-tiered diplomacy, in which the traditional institutional apparatus finds itself relegated to the background.

This pattern is not unique to the Ukraine issue: it reflects a broader tendency within the Trump administration to prioritize personal channels over institutional processes, including in other sensitive foreign policy matters.

This institutional silence troubles me more than any clumsy statement. Diplomacy that proceeds without the U.S. Congress or European allies being fully informed always ends up, sooner or later, producing surprises that no one had anticipated.

The Questions This Letter Cannot Answer

I must be honest with you: I do not know whether this trip to Moscow will actually take place in the coming days, nor what will be discussed there if it does. As I write these lines, there are no reliable sources that allow us to predict the outcome of this diplomatic development. What I can say is that the method employed warrants both your vigilance and your attention.

A Meeting Laden with Symbolic Tension

The NATO summit in Ankara comes at a pivotal moment: just a few days after the Putin-Trump call, and potentially even before Witkoff and Kushner’s first trip to Moscow. This timing turns the summit into a test of cohesion for the entire Atlantic Alliance.

Zelensky will have to demonstrate there that Trump’s personal diplomacy with Moscow does not come at the expense of his country’s vital interests. The other NATO members, for their part, will have to clarify whether this U.S. mediation has a collective mandate or whether it remains a strictly bilateral initiative between Washington and Moscow.

Western Unity Put to the Test

The recent history of this war has shown, time and again, that Western unity remains the most effective weapon against Russian attempts to divide the allies. Any perception of a deal negotiated behind the scenes, without sufficient consultation with European partners and Kyiv, would risk undermining this unity, which has been so patiently built since 2022.

I firmly believe that Western unity remains our greatest asset in the face of Moscow. That is why I am watching this summit in Ankara with almost anxious attention: if Trump’s personal diplomacy were to fracture this unity—even unintentionally—the price would be paid by Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, not by the negotiators themselves.

The Middle East as a Testing Ground for His Approach

Steve Witkoff first proved himself, in Trump’s eyes, on the Middle East issue, where his direct, transactional approach yielded some concrete results, particularly in the negotiations related to Gaza. This relative success explains why Trump chose to entrust him with the Russia-Ukraine issue as well, despite the stark difference in complexity and stakes between the two regions.

Applying a real-estate-style, transactional negotiation method to a conflict involving the territorial integrity of a European state, Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, and the credibility of the post-1945 international order carries risks that the precedents in the Middle East do not necessarily allow us to anticipate.

Kushner and the Legacy of the Abraham Accords

In the minds of the American public, Jared Kushner remains associated with the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries during Trump’s first term. This genuine and well-documented diplomatic success fuels the confidence Trump places in him for issues of an entirely different geopolitical nature.

But negotiating normalization between states that were not at open war is fundamentally different from mediating an active armed conflict, with daily human casualties documented on the ground in Ukraine.

I respect Kushner’s actual diplomatic record in the Middle East. But I reject the facile comparison between normalizing peaceful relations and ending an active war of aggression. These are not the same tools, nor do they carry the same moral urgency.

A Europe Watching with Caution

European capitals are following this diplomatic development with caution tinged with concern. No major European government has publicly criticized the Witkoff-Kushner initiative, but several diplomats, quoted anonymously by the specialized press, have expressed their desire to be consulted before any substantial progress is made with Moscow.

This European caution reflects a hard-learned lesson since 2022: the continent’s security can no longer depend solely on decisions made in Washington, however well-intentioned they may be.

European rearmament: an essential backdrop

It is in this context that the accelerated rearmament of European NATO member states takes on its full strategic significance. The more Europe invests in its own deterrence capabilities, the less it depends solely on bilateral U.S.-Russian decisions to guarantee its collective security.

I believe that Europe is now paying the price for decades of military underinvestment, finding itself hoping that Trump’s personal diplomacy will serve its interests without always being able to influence it directly. This lesson should remain etched in our minds long after this war ends.

A Trip to Moscow That Could Speed Things Up

If Witkoff and Kushner do indeed travel to Moscow in the coming days or weeks, as the Kremlin’s statement suggests, this trip could mark a significant acceleration of the diplomatic timeline, potentially in step with the follow-up to the Ankara summit.

But at this stage, there is no guarantee that this acceleration will produce tangible results on the ground. The recent history of this conflict is rife with moments of diplomatic optimism that have not been followed by concrete changes in the fighting.

The Scenario of a Prolonged Status Quo

Conversely, it is just as possible that this announcement will remain, like others before it, a declaration of intent without immediate follow-through, as Russian and American positions evolve in response to military developments on the ground and the outcomes of the NATO summit.

I resist the temptation to predict which of these two scenarios will come to pass. Intellectual honesty compels me to admit that I do not know, and that anyone who claims to know for certain is either lying to you or to themselves.

A Test for American Democracy Itself

Beyond the fate of Ukraine, this episode raises a broader question about the nature of contemporary American diplomacy: Can it continue to function effectively when it relies on personal relationships rather than on strong institutions accountable to Congress and the public?

This is a question that goes far beyond the scope of this war and deserves to be asked regardless of the outcome of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

How history will judge this approach

If this personalized diplomacy leads to a just peace for Ukraine, history will undoubtedly judge the approach more leniently than if it fails or, worse, if it results in an agreement perceived as a disguised capitulation. Historical judgment, here as elsewhere, will be based on results, not on stated intentions.

I conclude this section with a firm conviction: the method matters, but the result matters more. If Witkoff and Kushner return from Moscow with a ceasefire that protects Ukraine’s territorial integrity, I will be the first to applaud this unconventional diplomacy. If not, history will forgive neither the choice of emissaries nor the absence of institutional safeguards.

To Washington

Mr. President, I am writing this open letter to remind you of what is at stake: every additional week of war comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives. If your personal envoys can truly accelerate a just peace, then let them depart for Moscow without delay. But let this urgency never come at the cost of excluding Kyiv from decisions that determine its own future.

Transparency toward Congress and European allies is not an obstacle to effective diplomacy; it is a prerequisite for its lasting legitimacy.

I write this request fully aware that no U.S. president reads open letters from foreign columnists. I write it anyway, because publicly articulating what should be demanded is part of the job, even when no one at the top hears it directly.

To Kyiv and its allies

To Volodymyr Zelensky and his European counterparts, I simply say this: your vigilance in the face of this personalized diplomacy is both legitimate and necessary. Continue to demand a seat at the table; continue to document every step forward and every setback, because it is this transparency that ultimately protects the interests of the Ukrainian people.

A Double-Edged Diplomacy

This open letter does not claim to definitively determine whether the Witkoff-Kushner approach is good or bad news for Ukraine. Rather, it seeks to clearly identify what we know, what we do not know, and what warrants renewed vigilance in the coming days, between this weekend’s Putin-Trump call and the NATO summit in Ankara.

War diplomacy has never been a simple exercise. It is even less so when it relies on personal emissaries rather than on tried-and-true institutions. It is this tension that we must keep in mind in the weeks ahead.

The Only Criterion That Should Matter

Ultimately, a single criterion must guide our collective judgment on this diplomatic sequence: does it strengthen or weaken Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity? Any approach, however unconventional, must be evaluated by this standard—and by this standard alone.

I conclude this letter as I began it: with a vigilance that rejects both facile cynicism and naïve optimism. Moscow has never deserved our blind trust. Kyiv, on the other hand, has earned every ounce of support it continues to seek.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist