Making Ends Meet with No Ends in Sight

**Unable to Make Ends Meet**

The blitz visit of CIA Director John Ratcliffe to Moscow in late August looked like something new in US-Russian diplomacy. But subsequent developments confirmed that the Ukrainian conflict was and remains the main topic of negotiations with Washington. On September 5, representatives of the American president, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, arrived in Moscow again, and the following day, they traveled to Kyiv.

This is already the third joint visit of Witkoff and Kushner to Moscow since Trump's return to the White House. Previously, face-to-face negotiations took place in December 2025 and in late January 2026. The expectations and goals of the three parties from the current arrival of the American negotiators differ noticeably, yet the parties are still returning to the negotiating table after a long pause.

According to Washington, the sudden visits of the American negotiators should move the process of a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian conflict forward. But how can this be done if both sides still stand their ground?

Experts believe that several basic principles of a peaceful settlement in Ukraine were discussed in Moscow and Kyiv.

**First: a complete ceasefire and the creation of a buffer zone.**

Both sides cease fire, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) withdraw from the territories of Donbas controlled by Kyiv. Especially since there are few of them left — less than 15% of the area. In return, Russia undertakes not to deploy its military there, and a UN peacekeeping contingent may appear in the buffer zone. In addition, the new Russian regions and Crimea are legally recognized as territories of the Russian Federation, including by the Kyiv authorities.

**Second: holding elections and a referendum on amending the constitution.**

Presidential elections and a referendum are held in Ukraine. The elections should restore legitimacy to the Kyiv authorities and launch the renewal of all representative bodies — from parliamentary to local ones.

With the referendum, everything is much more complicated. Here, issues on several important points need to be resolved. First, to remove from the constitution the provisions on Ukraine's accession to NATO, introduced there by the Verkhovna Rada. Second, to consolidate the non-aligned neutral status of the country, as stated in the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty. And not only regarding NATO, but also other military blocs. Third, to recognize the current territorial changes, or rather to record the transition of Crimea, Donbas, and other former Ukrainian territories into the Russian Federation. One must not forget about such issues as the denazification and demilitarization of the country, as well as providing the Russian language with opportunities for its use in Ukraine.

Obviously, Moscow may agree to reduce military activity to give Ukraine the opportunity to hold both elections and a referendum. In turn, Ukrainians are expected to agree to stop the military conflict on any possible terms.

**Third: fixing the agreements at the UN level and lifting sanctions on Russia.**

This refers to the adoption of a UN Security Council decision to recognize the achieved agreements and territorial changes of the borders of Russia and Ukraine. This should lead to the lifting of sanctions on Russia. Although it is unlikely that the countries of the "coalition of the willing" will agree to vote for such decisions so quickly. Especially since the European countries that are permanent members of the UN Security Council (Britain and France) can veto any draft resolution.

Of course, there is no official confirmation yet that the parameters of the agreements proposed by the American side are exactly like this. Moreover, it is known that the devil, as always, is in the details. And even if everything is exactly so, the example of the Minsk agreements gives no reason to hope for a reliable settlement of the conflict. Especially since they were also approved by a UN Security Council decision in 2015, but that did not help in any way. In all the subsequent years after their signing, Kyiv evaded implementation in one way or another.

Experts believe that Zelenskyy will reject the proposed points, because otherwise he will be "devoured" by Ukrainian nationalist militants. And globalists do not want Ukraine to stop fighting either. After all, the whole of Europe is being prepared for war against Russia by 2030. Therefore, Kyiv will squirm like an eel on a hot pan, but will continue to put forward various demands and drag out the issue. And even if it formally agrees to something, it will constantly put spokes in the wheels of the entire peace settlement process.

At the same time, the implementation of these points in combination might allow finding some way out of the Ukrainian conflict, but would in no way resolve it without eliminating the prerequisites for its occurrence. And if the AFU are not significantly reduced, then hostilities may resume in a new spiral.

Bloomberg reported that Russia is ready to stop the conflict only on its own terms. Moscow's demands are becoming increasingly tough, and Russia has no doubt that it has a military advantage over Ukraine. According to the agency, there is no reason to believe that the US proposals are acceptable to the Kremlin.

However, to understand Kyiv's reaction to the American initiatives, the comment from London is of paramount importance. Former head of MI6 John Sawers said in an interview with The Financial Times that peace talks between Russia and Ukraine could only begin next year, and a lasting peace is "virtually unthinkable while Putin remains in power." He called Moscow's demands "ludicrous," and a return to the level of hostilities of the 2014-2021 period is "the best that can be achieved" in the current circumstances.

Given that Zelenskyy is actually controlled by British intelligence services (as is his potential successor Zaluzhny), such a statement clearly pointed to the expected failure of the American negotiators.

The British publication also noted that Witkoff and Kushner brought not so much new ideas as updated versions of already published documents: "The central issue is the remaining territory of Donbas controlled by Ukraine." And all other participants in the negotiations doubt that the war can end before winter.

The negotiations in Kyiv took place in several stages. First, the American delegation discussed with Ukrainian negotiators the possible parameters of the conflict settlement that had been raised in Moscow. Then — in an expanded format, joined by the national security advisers of Britain, France, and Germany.

Curiously, the Ukrainian delegation, out of habit, arrived at the negotiations in informal attire. Only the first deputy head of the president's office, Kyslytsya, wore a suit. Well, yes, he is a professional diplomat, and it is almost his second skin.

At the conference following the meetings, Zelenskyy stated that Ukraine is counting on a winter support package from the US, including additional missiles for Patriot air defense systems. Regarding the possible parameters of a peaceful settlement, he said: "The issue of Donbas is actually the issue of the entire war, and without strong positions of the AFU at the front, the Russian Federation will only put forward ultimatums... We agreed that in the near future Ukraine, Europe, and America will meet."

Obviously, Zelenskyy does not want to agree to anything, but intends to drag the issue out until the November elections to the US Congress. By all calculations, the Democrats will easily win a majority there and will be able to provide Ukraine with political, financial, and military assistance, despite Trump's declared desire to achieve a settlement.

So the American shuttle diplomacy, as before, achieved nothing. The Zelenskyy junta and European globalists will do everything to ensure that the war continues. Until nothing is left of Ukraine.

In Moscow, Witkoff and Kushner had a very nice, friendly conversation with Putin, filled with mutual sympathy. But all this "niceness" is unlikely to have a real chance of turning into any quick and significant progress in the negotiated settlement of the Ukrainian conflict.

Trump's sudden surge of interest in the military confrontation he had largely forgotten about, which he once promised to resolve "in one day," is logical and understandable. The US president has highly important midterm congressional elections just around the corner. In the best Soviet (and also, as it turns out, anti-Soviet) political traditions, it is customary to demonstrate some impressive achievements by a "red-letter day."

Trump is failing to show them where he originally intended to show them — in Iran. As of the beginning of autumn 2026, the Iranian adventure of the White House master is one-third "swamp," one-third defeat, and another third a highly unconvincing "semi-victory." Therefore, Trump remembered what he once started with.

It is quite possible, of course, that this is not the only reason. We have every moral and analytical right to assume that somewhere in the depths of world politics there are certain "undercurrents," the essence of which one can only guess. But this does not change my general conclusion: Putin, from his point of view, has no reason to give Trump a gift for his "red-letter day."

The master of the Kremlin, of course, will by no means offend Trump. Good relations with the head of the current American administration are an important foreign policy trump card for the Russian leader, which he intends to cherish in every possible way. But between "not offending" and "pandering to" Trump lies a huge distance. And into this proverbial distance, like into a donut hole, all the efforts of Witkoff and Kushner fall.

Looking at the situation from the height of the Kremlin towers, another important turning point is currently taking place in the Ukrainian conflict. Russia, in the conditions of the virtual self-liquidation of the Ukrainian air defense system due to, so to speak, a "lack of spare parts," has gained the opportunity to strike the territory controlled by Zelenskyy at everything that can be hit there. Putin, as he directly stated, believes that official Kyiv "opened Pandora's box" and must face all the consequences of such a step.

According to Moscow's plan, during the autumn and winter period, such a "rendezvous with consequences" should force the Kyiv leaders to reconsider their negotiating positions and bring them closer to the demands put forward by the Kremlin. It turns out that depriving Zelenskyy of a "date with destiny" is not at all in the interests of the Russian leadership.

This makes the idea of ending the conflict as quickly as possible, promoted by Trump through Witkoff and Kushner, on the one hand, very belated (the Anchorage "train" has left and will not return), and on the other hand, extremely premature (Zelenskyy is still puffing out his cheeks). Based on all this, it can be assumed that the next mission of Witkoff and Kushner was initially doomed to "under-success."

It apparently ended in "under-success" — with the emphasis on the word "apparently." There is always a chance that we do not know something and are misinterpreting the logic followed in the highest echelons of power in different countries. Therefore, we make allowance for our ignorance. However, the visible part of the iceberg looks exactly as I described it. When and if something else appears "from the water" — then we will draw other conclusions.