An Analysis of the Putin-Witkoff Meeting and Proposed Peace Suggestions

At a sensitive moment in the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, has refocused attention on the possibilities of opening a direct negotiation pathway, not only between Moscow and Kyiv but also between Russia and the West, led by Washington.

The three-hour meeting at the Kremlin was described by Russian presidential aide for foreign policy and one of the architects of normalizing relations with Washington, Yuri Ushakov, as constructive and beneficial. It was followed by leaks and political signals regarding multiple settlement proposals, reflecting the influential parties’ efforts to adjust the course of the war and avoid further strategic escalation.

Firstly – Dimensions of the Russian-American Meeting

Regarding the dimensions of this meeting, which was the fourth in less than two months between the Russian president and a U.S. counterpart envoy, we can refer back to Yuri Ushakov, who noted that the meeting allowed for a convergence of views, particularly concerning the Ukrainian file, along with other international issues, presumably including Iran.

The significance of the meeting lies in its occurrence away from the official channels of the current U.S. administration, which reflects the extent of involvement from Trump’s trusted insiders in attempts to engineer a political settlement. This will be counted as an achievement for him upon his return to the White House amid a surge of promises in this regard. In this context, Trump’s comments about negotiations proceeding well and reaching an agreement very soon have gained prominence.

Secondly – Features and Contents of Proposed Settlement Plans

Currently, two main settlement plans are being discussed, with some details leaked to the media, as reported by Reuters.

The first plan, crafted under American oversight by Witkoff, and the second coordinated between Europeans and Kyiv, has been dubbed the “Kiloj Plan.” While the two plans intersect on certain points, they differ in essential elements that pertain to the core interests of both Russia and Ukraine.

The overlapping points between the two plans include:

1. The return of certain areas, such as the Kinburn region in Kherson, to Ukrainian sovereignty.
2. Ensuring freedom of navigation on the Dnieper River.
3. A comprehensive ceasefire.
4. Signing agreements regarding natural resources.
5. Providing security guarantees to Ukraine from international parties (the specifics of these parties remain unclear).

Witkoff’s plan, which can be seen as the American approach (or Trump’s approach), stipulates the following:

1. An American recognition, under the law (since the de facto situation is already determined), of Russia’s sovereignty over Crimea, in addition to recognizing, de facto (but not yet de jure), Russian control over the parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhia under their jurisdiction.
2. Exclusion of Ukraine from joining NATO.
3. Gradual lifting of sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014.
4. Establishing U.S.-Russian cooperation in the energy and industrial sectors.

The Kiloj Plan, which could be classified as representing the European-Ukrainian approach, includes:

1. Keeping the issues of territorial sovereignty (Crimea and the four regions) open for negotiations.
2. Active participation of the U.S. and European nations in the executive negotiations.
3. Offering security guarantees similar to those outlined in Article 5 of the NATO Charter.
4. The return of Ukrainian children (forcibly displaced) and a prisoner exchange formula of “everyone for everyone.”
5. Financial compensation to Ukraine from frozen Russian assets in the West.

Thirdly – Moscow’s Perspective on the Suggestions

Witkoff’s plan represents the closest foundation to Moscow’s acceptable settlement views, as it institutionalizes Russia’s territorial gains in Eastern and Southern Ukraine and prevents NATO’s expansion in the former Soviet space, following five previous waves. Conversely, Russia views the Kiloj Plan as entirely biased towards Kyiv, reproducing unrealistic demands, particularly concerning security guarantees and the condition of foreign troops operating under a peacekeeping banner.

Nonetheless, Kremlin statements, especially from Lavrov, Ushakov, and Peskov, come in a cautious context but are not devoid of signals of serious channels. They emphasize that many Western leaks are misleading, which may reflect a Russian desire to maintain the confidentiality of ongoing negotiations with the Trump administration.

Fourthly – Obstacles to Progress in the Settlement Process

Despite the evident current U.S.-Russia rapprochement, which many are discussing, I believe that the settlement is currently impeded by two main obstacles:

1. Western Division

This is evident in the gap between Trump’s approach and the positions of the European Union and Britain; Europeans tend to favor providing a negotiating support package to Ukraine aimed at strengthening its position at any negotiation table, alongside their desire to hold a significant seat at the negotiating table, given that Trump appears indifferent to them and doesn’t acknowledge them at all, a stance welcomed by Putin.

2. Kyiv’s Maneuvering

The Ukrainian leadership is attempting to exploit the Western discrepancies to bolster its terms, showing a willingness to use “constitutional objections” and parliamentary pressure as a pretext to reject any agreement that does not guarantee the full recovery of Ukrainian territories.

Fifthly – The Implications of the Scene and the Balance of Power

Russian assessments suggest that the military balance on the ground leans in favor of Moscow; thus granting it a strong bargaining chip. Conversely, it appears that the West—specifically Trump’s administration—is seeking a settlement that preserves their dignity without becoming embroiled in unpopular security commitments domestically. In this context, Witkoff’s plan emerges as a potential middle ground that could achieve a political breakthrough without causing Kyiv to collapse or violating Russian red lines.

Conclusions

The main conclusion is that the settlement is moving towards shaping what can be described as a grand deal between Washington and Moscow, which will later be presented to the Europeans and Kyiv, thus positioning Washington as the true center of gravity in any potential solution.

Recommendations

• Continue monitoring shifts in the American stance, particularly from Trump, as we have witnessed over the past three months since his return to the White House.
• Analyze the course of divergence between European and American positions, assessing its impacts on Kyiv’s flexibility.
• Open a wider Western discussion concerning post-war arrangements in Eastern Europe and their implications for regional security and energy markets.

Conclusion

In light of the fourth meeting between Putin and Witkoff and the convergence of Russian and American approaches, it can be asserted that the settlement is no longer merely a theoretical option; it has become a realistic possibility. As Russian military pressure continues and advances on the ground persist—albeit slowly—and the West seeks a political exit, the chances for agreement increase. However, achieving it remains contingent on Washington’s ability to reconcile with its European partners and reshape Kyiv’s position to align with the new international equation.