Optimism as a tool Will Putin and Zelenskyy meet?

Amid the widespread perception of a deadlock in Russian–Ukrainian negotiations, statements from U.S. President’s special envoy Steve Witkoff came as rather unexpected. In an interview with Fox News, he noted: “We are hopeful, Jared [Kushner] and I, that we put some proposals on the table to both sides, that will bring them together in the next three weeks, and maybe even result in a settlement between Zelenskyy and President Putin,” Witkoff said.

According to him, this could evolve into a trilateral meeting with Donald Trump — the decision would be up to him. “I think he doesn't want to come to a meeting unless he feels he can consummate this and get the best result. He uniquely has the power to do it. So hopefully you will hear some good news in the coming weeks,” Witkoff added.

Meanwhile, the situation on the ground still does not provide a basis for compromise. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s position remains unchanged: recognition of the Russian front line as the new border and the transfer of all of Donbas to Russia, along with a series of postwar demands. Ukraine, on its side, is not prepared to make concessions. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy rejects the idea of territorial compromises, and it is unlikely that society would support any territorial concession in a potential referendum. Witkoff, who has met with Putin many times, is convinced that shifting him from this position is impossible. Moreover, experts believe that the real levers of pressure today exist only on Ukraine.

Based on this, one could theoretically assume that the U.S., in order to justify Witkoff’s forecasts, might take some painful measures against Ukraine in the coming days — for example, stopping the supply of satellite intelligence. But that would be an extremely serious step, instantly casting the United States as an ally of Russia not only in the eyes of Western partners, but, even more dangerously, in the eyes of American voters. Therefore, it is far more likely, following this logic, to expect the use of a less controversial, yet no less sensitive, arsenal for Kyiv. In this context, one could, if desired, even include the emergence on the political scene of former Ukrainian Armed Forces Commander-in-Chief, now Ambassador to London, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, levelling accusations at Zelenskyy.

On the other hand, it would probably be naive to assume that Witkoff said something he absolutely must “stand by to the death.” His statements may be aimed more at creating a positive atmosphere than signalling an imminent outcome. After all, he did not say that the meeting would take place, only that it was possible. This approach also allows the U.S. to highlight its ongoing peace efforts — while any lack of understanding from the conflicting sides can always be interpreted as a sudden, malicious disruption of a “perfect deal.”

In essence, the game of signalling a possible meeting and issuing corresponding “invitations” has been going on for a long time: Zelenskyy publicly invites Putin to a meeting to show that it is the Russian president who is avoiding negotiations; the Kremlin, in response, proposes the impossible to Zelenskyy — to come to Moscow; in turn, Kyiv’s authorities invite the Russian president to Kyiv. All of this has become a political ritual devoid of substance.

This is hardly surprising: both Moscow and Kyiv still have the strength to fight in order to achieve their minimum objectives. For Russia, that means the entire Donbas; for Ukraine, a freeze of the conflict along the current line of contact. Shifting the parties from these positions is not something even the Americans can achieve at present.