US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner recently visited Moscow and met Russian President Vladimir Putin after a period of stalled negotiations and escalating attacks. The meeting is seen as an attempt to reopen channels of diplomacy and pursue talks for a peace deal. Russia resumed attacks after a three-day pause during the US envoys’ visit. Although both sides highlighted the significance of the meeting and expressed optimism, the actual options for overcoming the impasse remain complex and uncertain.
As per reports, Witkoff and Kushner met Putin for more than three hours at the Kremlin before proceeding directly to Kyiv for consultations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for the first time since the war. Discussions focused on a series of new US proposals, the details of which remain undisclosed. Both Russian and US officials described the talks as useful. Yet the absence of any announced agreement reveals a fundamental reality that the main impediments to a sustainable deal, including the divergences with respect to the military and political objectives of both Russia and Ukraine, continue. The main challenge is reconciling conflicting visions of what an acceptable settlement should be for both.
There are significant domestic political considerations and priorities for all countries. Ukraine faces mounting political, economic and military challenges. Zelenskyy’s removal of Mykhailo Fedorov and Oleksandr Syrskyi highlights internal tensions. Hence, any sign of weakness will be extremely costly for the Ukrainian leadership. Putin also faces domestic pressures. The restrictions faced by the anti-war Yabloko party in the 2026 elections reflect, to some extent, the Kremlin’s concern over even limited political platforms that could channel and mobilize public discontent. Domestic political considerations for President Donald Trump in the United States also invariably shape the diplomatic environment. As the midterm elections approach, the Trump administration has strong incentives to demonstrate tangible progress in one of the world’s most consequential conflicts, particularly given Trump’s campaign promise to bring the war to an end.
Perhaps the most important disagreement between Russia and Ukraine is regarding the control of territories. Russia continues to insist that any comprehensive settlement must reflect what it describes as the realities on the ground. Moscow maintains claims over territories in eastern and southern Ukraine, including Donbas, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Crimea. Ukraine views Russian demands as incompatible with its sovereignty and long-term security. For Kyiv, territorial concessions would not merely represent a loss of land but would also affect its deterrence position, economic resources and geopolitical priorities.
For Russia, control over Donbas has become central to its military aims as well as its political narrative. As long as both sides continue to view these aspects as indispensable to their strategic objectives, prospects for de-escalation as well as a peace deal remain difficult. In the current context, the territorial issue remains the central obstacle to reaching any agreement. Russia also highlights the need to address what it terms the root causes of the conflict, referring to the concerns about NATO expansion and Ukraine’s future military orientation. Ukraine, meanwhile, highlighting Russian aggression, insists that any settlement must include robust security guarantees capable of preventing future aggression. The disagreements and the implications of these positions also relate to the extent, scope and nature of Europe’s security architecture. The security dilemma complicates prospects for sustainable peace. Western military, economic and diplomatic support for Ukraine strengthened Kyiv’s ability to resist Russia, but Moscow sees this support as a growing threat to its security, a perception aligned with its longstanding skepticism regarding NATO expansion. The war has to a large extent depleted Russia’s military stockpiles and exposed technological weaknesses. To overcome this, Russia has expanded its production capacity and deepened defense-supply links with its partners and allies. Russia’s defense spending for 2026 stands at 12.9 trillion roubles ($157 billion) and domestic drone output has reached 30,000 annually, with capacity expected to double. To counter Russia’s capacity, the EU plans up to 1,600 new sanctions targeting its military-industrial complex and circumvention networks.
One of the most consequential aspects of the negotiations remains the extent of leverage the United States exercises over Russia, especially as both Ukraine and its European allies understand the importance of the Washington in establishing any durable deal. Putin has repeatedly shown his willingness to absorb economic costs and international isolation in pursuit of strategic objectives viewed as fundamental to national security. This reality complicates assumptions that US pressure alone will be actually sufficient to secure any significant Russian concessions at this stage.
The nature of negotiations between the United States and Russia reflects a style that is distinctly associated with Trump’s approach to foreign policy, where personal diplomacy is preferred over formal bureaucratic processes. This has been evident in Trump’s approach towards diplomacy, which seems to be because of a belief that political breakthroughs are more likely to emerge from direct negotiations than from traditional institutional channels. The focus on shuttle diplomacy by trusted envoys and exploration of economic incentives that could potentially accompany a future settlement is therefore a hallmark of Trump’s style of diplomacy.
The timing of the recent visit becomes extremely critical. Officials have repeatedly emphasized concerns regarding attacks on electricity and energy infrastructure before winter. Russia’s tactic would primarily be aimed at degrading Ukraine’s economic resilience and increasing pressure on the Ukrainian leadership. From Moscow’s perspective, weakening Ukraine’s leverage before any substantive negotiations could improve Russia’s bargaining position. Putin’s statements and responses suggest that Russia continues to prioritize its military goals.
Russia is also likely to intensify hybrid warfare across Europe. Through misinformation campaigns and propaganda, Moscow can exploit existing divisions within Europe. Debates over energy security, defense spending, sanctions and military support for Ukraine contribute to domestic political tensions across Europe. The rise of parties skeptical of continued support for Ukraine, including the Alternative for Germany (AfD), reflects these tensions. AfD leader Alice Weidel argues that Germany’s Ukraine policy has contributed to Germany’s economic and energy challenges. Such disagreements within European capitals provide Russia with the scope for intensification of hybrid warfare to weaken European cohesion, even if they do not immediately fundamentally change government policy.
Zelenskyy does not view Ukraine as strategically defeated in the current context. Ukrainian officials have frequently highlighted the effectiveness of long-range strikes targeting military and logistical infrastructure deep within Russian territory. Kyiv sees these operations as evidence that Ukraine retains the capacity to retaliate and impose costs on Russia despite battlefield challenges. Consequently, Ukraine also has incentives to continue shaping conditions before entering a final settlement process. This mutual expectation of future leverage caters to the difficulties in finding a middle ground for negotiations. Ukraine’s deep-strike campaign has expanded the war into Russia’s interior, targeting key locations including Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kronstadt Naval Base and Kuibyshev refineries. These attacks have damaged critical infrastructure and disrupted Russia’s energy production and military supply chains. As a result, Russia has faced refinery shutdowns, airport closures and increased costs of repairing sanctioned industrial infrastructure. Recent Ukrainian strikes have also forced Moscow to redeploy air defense systems away from the front lines to protect domestic infrastructure.
Ukraine also has apprehensions regarding the US position on Russian concessions. Ultimately, any durable settlement must satisfy several conditions simultaneously. Russia seeks sanctions relief, access to markets and the unfreezing of assets, while also preserving the military gains it views as strategically essential. Ukraine seeks credible security guarantees and protection of its sovereignty. European governments, which will bear the long-term security consequences of any agreement, must also be convinced to support the outcome.
For that reason, current diplomacy should be understood not necessarily as a solution for an imminent breakthrough but as a preparation for the political groundwork for eventual negotiations. Escalation before winter and diplomatic maneuvering are more likely in the coming months than a comprehensive peace agreement. Moscow and Kyiv have fundamentally different views regarding concessions, security guarantees and the future order in Europe. Until those differences narrow, negotiations are likely to remain focused on managing the conflict rather than resolving it. Looking ahead, speculation about higher-level diplomatic engagements, including the possibility raised by Putin’s adviser Yuri Ushakov of a future meeting involving Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping, highlights the pursuit of new diplomatic momentum. Whether such meetings happen remains uncertain at this point.
