Russian President Vladimir Putin met with US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner at the Kremlin on September 6.
The envoys’ visit came as both sides stepped up their aerial attacks. Putin and Zelenskyy both agreed to pause strikes on each other’s capitals while the talks were under way.
Witkoff and Kushner then met with Ukrainian officials in Kyiv on September 7.
Following the talks, Witkoff said he was “confident that there’ll be a good resolution here.” Kushner said, “One thing Steve [Witkoff] and I really thought would be productive is to go back to the trilateral format, which we were able to do about six months ago.”
UWI author, political scientist Dr. Onur Sinan Güzaltan assessed Trump’s latest move on Ukraine, which appears aimed at restarting negotiations and lowering tensions, as well as Russia’s perspective, in an interview with Ceyda Karan from Sputnik Türkiye.
We share Güzaltan’s assessment with our readers.
Güzaltan argues that Witkoff and Kushner’s visits to Moscow may have been intended to prevent a collapse in Ukraine. According to Güzaltan, while Kyiv is losing ground, while Europe continues to take a harder line toward Russia:
“When we look at the situation on the ground, we see that the Kyiv government is losing. Kyiv’s logistical routes through Odessa and other ports have been cut off. Zelenskyy had given Russia a 40-day deadline, and they tried to act on it. There were attacks against Russia, but they failed to achieve results, and they continue to lose territory. We are now entering winter, and this is a harsh winter region. It is also being reported that the Ukrainian army has difficulties in terms of both personnel and equipment.
“Perhaps American officials have intensified these visits in order to prevent a sudden collapse in Kyiv. The CIA Director and a representative of the Vatican had also visited Moscow recently. These were the first such visits since the beginning of the special military operation. There is clearly a request on the agenda, and when assessing it, we have to look at the reality on the ground.
“In the last weeks, attacks targeting infrastructure facilities in Russia have frequently appeared in the news. These attacks caused gasoline shortages for civilian vehicles in Moscow and other cities. There were disruptions in logistics and production. Production facilities were also targeted. Warehouses belonging to companies that make home deliveries were targeted as well. Russians use these delivery services a lot.
“There is propaganda claiming that there are queues at banks and that people are in a miserable state. But when you go out onto the streets in Russia, you can see that this is not the case. Russian society is prepared for these kinds of difficulties. Russia is suffering damage in certain areas, but there are no major structural problems of the kind portrayed in the Western media.
“While Kyiv is losing on the battlefield, Russia’s relations with Europe are becoming increasingly tense. At the same time, contradictions between the US and Europe continue. It would therefore be appropriate to assess the visits by Trump’s son-in-law and his special envoy within this broader context.”
Güzaltan said that Russia and Ukraine would try to find a middle ground, but that Russia would not make major concessions for that. He also emphasized that Zelenskyy has already lost a quarter of Ukraine’s territory. In Güzaltan’s view, the US has no real concern for the “fate of the Ukrainian people”:
“The demands from both sides that have appeared in the media are very ambitious. When negotiations begin, both sides raise the stakes, but in the end they will try to find some kind of middle ground. There are points on which Russia cannot compromise. It has gained territory, and I don’t think it will give up in this matter. These are regions with vast wheat fields, major iron and steel plants, and nuclear power stations. Whether Zelenskyy will remain in power in Kyiv is also questionable. We are talking about a Zelenskyy government that has lost a quarter of its territory. Those are the conditions under which they will come to the negotiating table.
“The US may threaten that the war will continue if its demands are not met during the negotiations. The Russians may perhaps make some technical concessions, but I don’t think they will make major concessions on fundamental issues when they have been winning on the battlefield. From the very beginning, Russia has said that Kyiv’s NATO membership is a matter of national security and that groups in Ukraine that can be described as far-right pose a threat to Russia. They have also said that the deployment of Western missiles and advanced weapons systems in and around Kyiv constitutes a threat. They have also raised the question of the language and culture of the Russian population in regions such as Donbass.
“I don’t think the US is concerned about the fate of the Ukrainian people. They have a strategy of weakening Russia. Russia and Ukraine were once part of the same state, and there are family ties between the two peoples. At the end of the day, sooner or later, the Americans and the British may leave, but these people will still live together. Moscow takes this into account in its policies.
“At its core, the Ukraine issue has been a struggle over the future of Europe. If Europe is left to follow its natural geographical orientation, it moves toward cooperation with Russia. Russia has energy resources, logistical networks, and pipelines. There is a complementarity between Europe and Russia that we call ‘Eurasia.’ It is a geopolitical complementarity. Today, however, we have a Europe that cooperates with the Atlantic bloc. This cooperation harms Europe’s national interests. That is true both for Europe’s capitalist class and for its middle classes. The war in Ukraine was provoked in order to prevent the natural integration of Europe and Russia.
“Political governments in Europe are shaped by structures of capital that were built around an Atlanticist Europe. These are groups that want to preserve the old order. But in Germany, the AfD has declared victory. In France, Le Pen appears likely to be one of the candidates reaching the second round, and she advocates more harmonious relations with Russia and a Europe that is independent of the US.
“With this trend, we can see forces that support closer relations with West Asia and Eurasia coming to power in Europe. But the existing structures are engaging in provocations in order to preserve their hold on power. Even so, if developments in Europe follow their expected course, I foresee a process that I describe as a ‘European Spring.’ I expect changes of government, instability, and political activity in the streets across Europe. Europe is in fact at a point of decision: It will either continue under the present governments, which pursue policies contrary to the interests of European nations, or a new course will emerge that defends Europe’s own interests and cooperation with the Mediterranean, Russia, and Türkiye. It is even possible that we may see coups.”