Witkoff and Kushner Land in Moscow for Putin Talks as the Ukraine Peace Push Faces Its Hardest Question: Land

Two American envoys stepped off a plane into wet snow in Moscow on Thursday morning, carrying the latest version of a peace effort that has now been running for months without the breakthrough its backers keep promising. Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner had come straight from two days of talks in Abu Dhabi, where Russian and Ukrainian negotiators sat down together under American mediation for the first time in nine months. They left the Gulf with an agreement on another large prisoner exchange and little else that could be announced in public. Now they were in the Russian capital to put the same questions to Vladimir Putin in person, in what would be Witkoff’s tenth face-to-face meeting with the Russian president. The central question has not changed since the effort began, and neither side has moved on it: how much land, if any, Ukraine would give up to stop a war that is now four and a half years old. Witkoff Kushner Moscow Putin talks November 2026.

1 The Arrival in Moscow

The arrival itself was staged the way these visits always are: a small ceremony on the tarmac, a handshake in the snow, and a short drive into the centre of the city. But the choreography carried a message of its own. The two Americans were not received by junior officials and left to find their own way to the Kremlin. They were met by Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s special envoy, who waited for them as their plane came in and then travelled with them into central Moscow. In the language of diplomacy, that is a signal that the Russian side wanted this visit to be seen as serious business rather than a courtesy call, and that the man waiting at the airport was someone the president trusted to handle the first conversation.

1.1 Wet Snow on the Tarmac

Moscow in mid-November is rarely kind to visitors, and Thursday was no exception. Wet snow was falling as the envoys’ plane arrived, and the images from the airport showed the two men in heavy coats, shaking hands with Dmitriev against a grey sky. The weather was a small detail, but it set the tone for a visit that nobody on either side was describing as comfortable. These are not the conditions in which deals are celebrated. They are the conditions in which long, difficult conversations happen indoors, away from the cameras, and the public is left to read the outcome from whatever the two sides choose to say afterwards.

The timing of the meeting was tight. The Kremlin talks were expected to take place in the first half of the day, which meant the envoys had only hours between landing and sitting down with Putin. That schedule suggests the visit was planned as a working session rather than a ceremonial one. There was no time built in for sightseeing or for the kind of long, staged programme that accompanies a state visit. The two men had flown in from Abu Dhabi, where the trilateral talks had finished only the day before, and they were expected to go straight to the substance. For a negotiation that has repeatedly stalled on the same point, that urgency is itself a piece of information: the American side wanted Putin’s reaction to the Abu Dhabi discussions while they were still fresh, before positions hardened again.

1.2 A Tenth Meeting for Witkoff

For Witkoff, the Moscow trip was familiar ground in the most literal sense. The meeting with Putin would be the tenth time he has sat down with the Russian president in person, a count that makes him by far the most frequent American interlocutor Putin has dealt with in this conflict. That history cuts both ways. On the one hand, it means Witkoff knows the room, knows the arguments, and knows which of Putin’s positions are fixed and which might still move. On the other, it means there is very little left to learn about each other’s starting points. Ten meetings is a lot of meetings for a negotiation that has not yet produced a ceasefire, and the number itself has become a measure of how stubborn the gap between the two sides remains.

The repetition also tells a story about how the American administration has chosen to run this diplomacy. Rather than rotating envoys or widening the circle, it has kept returning to the same man, and the same channel, again and again. That consistency has an advantage: trust, or at least familiarity, builds over repeated encounters, and a negotiator who has been in the room nine times before does not need to spend the tenth meeting establishing who he is. But it also carries a risk. When the same envoy returns with the same message and gets the same answer, the process can start to look like motion without movement, and the question of whether a different approach might work becomes harder to avoid.

2 What Abu Dhabi Produced — and What It Did Not

Before Moscow, there was Abu Dhabi. The two days of talks in the capital of the United Arab Emirates finished on Wednesday, and they mattered for a reason that had nothing to do with what was agreed. They were the first direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine mediated by the United States to try to end the war in nine months. That is a long gap. For most of this year, the two sides have talked about each other, through intermediaries, in public statements and in leaks, but they have not sat in the same room with an American mediator between them. Abu Dhabi changed that, and the fact that the talks happened at all was treated by the American side as progress in itself.

2.1 The First US-Mediated Direct Talks in Nine Months

Nine months is a long time in a war. In that period, the fighting continued, the casualty lists grew, and the diplomatic effort drifted through a series of public statements that often seemed to contradict each other. The Abu Dhabi meeting was therefore as much a test of whether the two sides could still talk as it was a negotiation over terms. The fact that Russian and Ukrainian negotiators both showed up, stayed for two days, and reported some progress afterwards suggests that the channel is still open. But the same reports made clear that the progress was limited, and that the American side itself described the remaining differences as major.

The choice of Abu Dhabi as the venue was not accidental. The Emirates have played the role of a neutral host before, and the city offers a setting where both sides can meet without the political weight that would come with a European capital or a direct visit to Washington or Moscow. It is also a place where prisoner exchanges have been arranged in the past, which may explain why the one concrete result of the talks was another exchange rather than a political breakthrough. The venue, in other words, suited the kind of result the talks produced: practical, limited, and human rather than strategic.

2.2 The Prisoner Exchange and the Missing Breakthrough

The one thing the Abu Dhabi talks did produce was news of another planned major prisoner exchange. For the families of captured soldiers, that is not a small thing. Prisoner exchanges are the one area of this war where the two sides have repeatedly managed to reach agreement, and each exchange brings home men who might otherwise have spent years in captivity. But as a measure of progress toward peace, an exchange is a thin result. It deals with the consequences of the war, not with the war itself, and it says nothing about the questions that would have to be settled for the fighting to stop.

What the talks did not produce was a public breakthrough on the wider negotiations. There was no announcement of a ceasefire, no framework agreement, and no sign that either side had moved on the central issues. The American side was frank about this, saying that differences remained on major issues, including territory. That honesty is worth noting, because it cuts against the public optimism that has often surrounded this effort. President Trump has spoken repeatedly, and confidently, about the prospects for a deal. The officials doing the actual negotiating have been more careful, and the gap between the president’s public tone and the negotiators’ private assessments has become one of the most consistent features of this process.

3 The Question That Blocks Everything: Territory

If there is one issue that explains why ten meetings, two days in Abu Dhabi, and months of American mediation have not produced a deal, it is territory. The war is, at its core, a dispute about land: about who controls which parts of Ukraine, about whether borders drawn by force can be accepted, and about what Ukraine would have to surrender to buy peace. Everything else in the negotiation — security guarantees, reconstruction money, the future shape of European security — is secondary to that question, and it is the question on which neither side has shown any willingness to move.

3.1 The Donbas Demand Kyiv Has Rejected

The most concrete version of the territorial dispute concerns the Donbas, the eastern region of Ukraine that includes the Donetsk and Luhansk areas. Putin has demanded that Ukraine surrender the whole of the Donbas in return for peace. Kyiv has strongly rejected that demand, and there is no sign that its position is softening. The rejection is not a negotiating tactic. It is a position rooted in the basic facts of the war: the Donbas is Ukrainian territory, much of it is still held by Ukraine, and handing it over would mean surrendering land that Ukrainian soldiers have died defending, in exchange for a promise from the same government that invaded it.

The demand is also, from Kyiv’s point of view, a test of what a peace deal would actually be worth. If Russia can obtain by negotiation what it has failed to obtain by force — control of an entire region it does not fully hold — then the lesson for any future conflict is clear, and it is not one Ukraine is willing to teach. That is why the Donbas question has become the symbol of the wider deadlock. It is not the only territorial issue in the war, but it is the one that most clearly exposes the gap between what Moscow wants and what Kyiv can accept, and it is the one that the Moscow talks would have to address if they were to achieve anything more than another round of handshakes.

3.2 Why Land Is the Hardest Issue to Trade

Territory is the hardest thing to negotiate in any war, and this war is no exception. Land is not like money, which can be divided, or like a timetable, which can be adjusted. It is fixed, visible, and tied to the identity of the people who live on it. A concession on territory is a concession that everyone can see on a map, and it is a concession that the other side can never undo. That makes it the issue on which leaders are least willing to compromise, because the political cost of giving ground is immediate and permanent, while the benefit — an end to the fighting — is uncertain and depends on the other side keeping its word.

There is also a practical problem. Any territorial deal would have to answer questions that go far beyond drawing a line on a map. What happens to the people who live in the areas that change hands? What happens to the soldiers who fought for them? What happens to the towns and cities that have been destroyed? And what guarantee is there that a concession made today will not simply become the starting point for a new demand tomorrow? These are not abstract questions. They are the questions that Ukrainian officials ask when they are pressed to consider territorial concessions, and they are the reason the American mediators have found the land issue so difficult to move.

4 The American Pivot: Guarantees and Reconstruction

Faced with a deadlock on land, the American mediators have tried a different approach: steering the discussion toward the things that might be agreed even while territory remains unresolved. The two subjects they have pushed hardest are postwar security guarantees for Ukraine and the reconstruction of the country once the fighting stops. The logic is straightforward. If the two sides cannot agree on where the border should be, perhaps they can agree on what happens after the war ends — on how Ukraine is protected, and on who pays to rebuild what has been destroyed. It is an attempt to build a peace from the edges inward, rather than from the centre outward.

4.1 Security Guarantees as the New Centre of Gravity

Security guarantees have become the new centre of gravity in the talks, and for good reason. From Ukraine’s point of view, the central lesson of the war is that promises are not enough. The country gave up its nuclear weapons in the 1990s in exchange for assurances about its security, and those assurances did not prevent the invasion. Any future deal that leaves Ukraine without a credible guarantee against a repeat attack would, in Kyiv’s view, be a pause rather than a peace. That is why the discussion of guarantees — of who would provide them, what they would cover, and how they would be enforced — has taken on such importance in the American mediation.

The difficulty is that a guarantee is only as strong as the willingness of the guarantors to honour it, and the history of this war gives Ukraine reason to be sceptical. A guarantee from the United States would be the most valuable, but it would also be the most politically complicated, raising questions about American commitments that go well beyond Ukraine. A guarantee from European countries would be easier to arrange but harder to enforce. And any guarantee that Russia itself is asked to accept would have to be designed in a way that Moscow does not see as a threat. The American mediators have been working through these problems, but they are problems that do not have easy answers, and the Moscow talks were expected to test whether Putin is willing to discuss them seriously.

4.2 Reconstruction as Common Ground

Reconstruction is the other subject the Americans have pushed, and it is the one where the two sides’ interests overlap most clearly. Ukraine needs to be rebuilt. The scale of the destruction after four and a half years of war is enormous, and the cost of rebuilding will run into hundreds of billions of dollars. Russia, for its part, has an interest in a settlement that allows sanctions to ease and trade to resume. A reconstruction plan, tied to a peace deal, could offer both sides something they want: for Ukraine, the money and the commitment to rebuild; for Russia, a path back toward normal economic relations.

But reconstruction is also a subject that can be used to avoid the harder questions. It is easier to talk about rebuilding bridges than to talk about who controls the land on either side of them. The American mediators know this, and they have tried to use reconstruction as a way to keep the conversation going while the territorial issue remains stuck. Whether that strategy works depends on whether the two sides see reconstruction as a genuine part of a settlement, or simply as a way to pass the time while the war continues. The Moscow meeting was a test of that question, too.

5 The Men Carrying the Message

Peace efforts are often described as if they were conducted by countries, but they are in fact conducted by people, and the two men who arrived in Moscow on Thursday are worth understanding in their own right. They are very different figures, with different backgrounds and different relationships to the president they serve. Together, they represent the two channels through which this administration does its diplomacy: the professional envoy who has become the face of the effort, and the family member whose closeness to the president gives him a different kind of authority.

5.1 Witkoff, the Envoy Who Keeps Returning

Steve Witkoff was not a diplomat before he became one. He built his career in real estate, and he came to the job of special envoy as a personal associate of the president rather than as a career foreign service officer. That background has shaped the way he works. He negotiates directly, in person, and often, and he has built his approach around repeated face-to-face meetings with the leaders he is trying to persuade. The tenth meeting with Putin is the clearest expression of that approach. Witkoff believes, or at least acts as if he believes, that personal relationships and persistence can achieve what formal diplomacy cannot.

That approach has its critics. Some argue that the repeated meetings have produced little beyond the meetings themselves, and that Witkoff’s lack of diplomatic experience shows in the way the talks have been conducted. Others argue that his direct access to the president, and his willingness to travel to Moscow again and again, are precisely what the effort needs. What is not in doubt is that Witkoff has become the central figure in the American mediation, and that his tenth meeting with Putin was the most important appointment on the diplomatic calendar on Thursday.

5.2 Kushner and the Family Channel

Jared Kushner brings a different kind of weight to the table. As the president’s son-in-law, and as a senior adviser in the previous administration, he has a relationship with Trump that no professional diplomat can match. His presence on the Moscow trip signals that the president is personally invested in this round of talks, and that the message the envoys carry comes directly from the top. It also signals that the administration is using more than one channel to reach Putin, and that Kushner’s role is to reinforce, and perhaps to add weight to, the message that Witkoff has been carrying.

Kushner’s involvement also raises questions. His business interests in the Gulf, and his history of dealing with governments in the region, have been the subject of scrutiny, and his presence in a negotiation of this importance invites questions about the line between personal diplomacy and official policy. But whatever the questions, his presence in Moscow on Thursday was a fact, and it was a fact that the Russian side would have read carefully. When a president sends his son-in-law as well as his envoy, the message is that this matters to him personally, and that the outcome will be reported back to him directly.

6 Moscow’s Wider Ask: A New Security Architecture

The Moscow talks were not only about Ukraine. They were also about a wider set of demands that Russia has been making for years, and that Putin has now put back on the table in the context of the peace talks. On Wednesday, a senior Russian diplomat said that Moscow could conclude non-aggression pacts with NATO member states as part of a new security architecture for Europe. That is a significant statement, and it reveals the scale of what Russia is seeking. It is not only asking for territory in Ukraine. It is asking for a new arrangement for the security of the whole continent, one that would limit what NATO can do and give Russia a formal role in deciding how Europe is defended.

6.1 Non-Aggression Pacts With NATO States

The idea of non-aggression pacts between Russia and NATO member states is not new, but it has taken on a new urgency in the context of the Ukraine talks. A non-aggression pact is, in principle, a simple thing: a formal agreement that neither side will attack the other. But in practice, such pacts carry a great deal of political weight. They would amount to a recognition by NATO countries that Russia’s security concerns are legitimate, and they would create a formal framework in which Russia could claim a say in European security decisions. For Moscow, that is an attractive prize. For NATO, it is a concession that would be very difficult to make.

The proposal also has to be understood in the light of Russia’s long-standing complaint that NATO’s expansion eastward has threatened its security. That complaint has been at the heart of Putin’s justification for the war in Ukraine, and it is a complaint that the West has consistently rejected. A non-aggression pact would not resolve that disagreement, but it would give it a formal shape, and it would create a mechanism through which Russia could raise its concerns in the future. Whether that is a step toward stability or a step toward giving Russia a veto over European security is a question on which opinions differ sharply.

6.2 Europe’s Answer: Ceasefire First

The European response to Russia’s wider ask has been clear, and it has been consistent. Many European politicians say they oppose any discussion of Europe’s overall security before real progress on Ukraine — including a ceasefire — is made. The logic is straightforward. To discuss a new security architecture while the war is still being fought would be to reward the invasion, and to give Russia a seat at the table on the basis of a war it started. The Europeans want the fighting to stop first, and they want any discussion of the future to take place on the basis of a ceasefire, not as a substitute for one.

That position creates a tension at the heart of the Moscow talks. The American mediators are trying to keep the conversation going, and they are willing to discuss security guarantees and reconstruction as a way to do so. The Europeans are warning that some subjects should not be discussed until the war stops. And the Russians are using the talks to raise their widest demands. The result is a negotiation in which the three sides are not only disagreeing about the terms of a settlement, but about what should even be on the agenda. That is a difficult position to negotiate from, and it is one of the reasons the Moscow meeting was being watched so closely.

7 The War on the Ground While They Talk

While the envoys were flying to Moscow, the war they were trying to end was continuing. That is the reality that hangs over every round of talks, and it is the reason the diplomatic effort is judged not by the number of meetings held but by whether the fighting stops. The war is now four and a half years old, and it has become the longest and most destructive conflict in Europe since the Second World War. The talks in Abu Dhabi and Moscow are taking place against a background of daily casualties, destroyed cities, and a front line that has barely moved in months but continues to claim lives every day.

7.1 Four and a Half Years In

Four and a half years is a long time for a war that was expected, by many, to be over in weeks. The conflict began with a full-scale invasion in February 2022, and it has since become a grinding war of attrition, fought across hundreds of kilometres of front line in the east and south of Ukraine. The human cost has been enormous, and the economic cost — to Ukraine, to Russia, and to the wider world — has been greater than anyone predicted at the outset. The war has reshaped European security, disrupted global food and energy markets, and created the largest refugee movement in Europe since the Second World War.

The length of the war matters for the negotiations because it has changed what both sides want. In the early months, the question was whether Ukraine would survive as a state. Now, the question is what kind of peace is possible after years of fighting, and whether either side is willing to accept a settlement that falls short of its original aims. The longer the war goes on, the harder those questions become, because the sacrifices made in the meantime make compromise more painful. That is the trap the negotiators are trying to escape, and it is the reason the Moscow talks carried such weight.

7.2 What a Deal Would Have to Stop

A peace deal, if one were reached, would have to stop more than the fighting on the front line. It would have to stop the missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities, the strikes on energy infrastructure that leave civilians without power and heat, and the daily toll of casualties that has become the background of life in Ukraine. It would have to create a mechanism for monitoring a ceasefire, for verifying that both sides are complying, and for dealing with violations when they occur. And it would have to address the fate of the prisoners still held on both sides, the civilians who have been detained, and the children who have been taken from Ukraine to Russia.

None of those things can be achieved by a handshake in Moscow. They require detailed agreements, monitoring arrangements, and a willingness on both sides to accept constraints on their own actions. That is why the talks are so difficult, and why the gap between the public optimism of the American president and the private caution of his negotiators is so wide. A deal is not a single decision. It is a long list of decisions, each of which has to be negotiated separately, and each of which has to be acceptable to two sides that have spent four and a half years trying to defeat each other.

8 What to Watch Next

The Moscow meeting was never going to produce a peace deal on its own. It was one step in a process that has already taken months, and that is likely to take months more. But it was a step that mattered, because it was the first time the American envoys had been able to put the results of the Abu Dhabi talks directly to Putin, and because it was the tenth time Witkoff had sat down with the Russian president. The question now is what happens next, and there are a few signals worth watching in the days ahead.

8.1 Signals From the Kremlin Meeting

The first signal will be what the two sides say after the meeting. If the Kremlin and the White House both describe the talks as constructive, and if they announce a further round of meetings, that will suggest the process is still alive. If one side or the other describes the talks as having made no progress, or if there is a long silence, that will suggest the opposite. The second signal will be whether the planned prisoner exchange goes ahead as agreed in Abu Dhabi. An exchange that takes place on schedule would show that the practical channel between the two sides is still working, even if the political talks are stuck. The third signal will be whether the envoys travel on to Kyiv, or whether they return to Washington to report to the president. A trip to Kyiv would suggest that the Americans have something to put to the Ukrainian side. A return to Washington would suggest that they do not, at least not yet.

8.2 The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that the Moscow talks were a necessary step, but not a sufficient one. The envoys arrived with the results of the Abu Dhabi talks, and they left with Putin’s response, whatever it was. The central question — the question of territory, and of the Donbas in particular — remains unanswered, and it will remain unanswered until one side or the other is willing to move. The American mediators have tried to work around it by talking about security guarantees and reconstruction, and the Russians have tried to widen the agenda to include the whole of European security. But the war will not end until the land question is settled, and the land question is the one on which neither side has shown any sign of giving ground. The coming days will provide the answers.

Comments

comments