Trump Aide Undercuts Boss With Disappointing Take on Putin Summit
thedailybeast.com -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 12:28:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, U.S.–NATO Relations
President Donald Trump's top negotiator in Ukraine appeared like a deer in headlights discussing what the president had achieved in his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday.
Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff insisted his boss made "progress" achieving peace during the summit, though acknowledged that what Trump fell short of the ceasefire that he had promised before the meeting.
Witkoff said Russia has agreed to "legislative enshrinement in the Russian Federation" not to go after European countries and violate their sovereignty before claiming cryptically that the failure to arrive at a ceasefire at the Alaska summit had paved the way for an end to fighting.
"We are intent on trying to hammer out a peace deal that ends the fighting permanently, quicker than a ceasefire," Witkoff claimed.
Host Jake Tapper appeared perplexed.
"I still don't understand how not getting the ceasefire is a win," he said.
"We cut through all kinds of issues that would have to be discussed and agreed to during a ceasefire period," Witkoff claimed. "The fundamental issue, which is some sort of land swap, which is obviously, ultimately in control of the Ukrainians -- that could not have been discussed at this meeting."
Without specifying, Witkoff said that the Russian delegation "made some other concessions on several of the regions [of Ukraine]," which he called "significant."
"That doesn't mean it's enough," he said.
Witkoff said territorial concessions would be discussed on Monday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Witkoff further claimed Putin had agreed to "effectively offer Article Five-like language to cover a security guarantee," referring to the provision of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) agreement that signatories would treat an attack on any NATO member as an attack on them all.
Tapper pressed Witkoff on this claim, asking Witkoff if "any further incursions in Ukraine, Russia would understand would be seen as an attack on all NATO members?"
"No, Jake, that's not what I said," Witkoff said. "We got to an agreement that the United States and other European nations could effectively offer Article 5-like language to cover a security guarantee."
Witkoff's remarks come after an abysmal meeting with Putin on Wednesday in which he mistook Putin's demand for a "peaceful withdrawal" of Ukrainian forces from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia as a proposed concession from Putin to pull back Russian troops in the regions.
Witkoff's lukewarm evaluation on CNN comes after Trump rated his meeting with Putin as a "10 out of 10."
After the meeting, Trump walked back his goal of achieving a ceasefire -- which he said Putin would have to agree to on Friday or face economic consequences -- and has pivoted to trying to achieve a peace deal involving territorial concessions to Russia.
According to one European diplomat who spoke to Fox News on Saturday, Trump supports the idea of Russia taking full control of the eastern Donbas region. The Donbas region includes Luhansk, which Russia controls, and Donetsk, which is still heavily contested and controlled partly by Ukrainian forces.
Last week, Zelensky said that he would reject any proposal to cede the region to Russia, saying that would "open a bridgehead" to further territorial incursions from Putin.
The Daily Beast has reached out to the White House for comment.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent summit between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska has revealed the complexities and contradictions in U.S. foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the ongoing war in Ukraine. Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Special Envoy to the Middle East, offered a puzzling assessment of the meeting, asserting that progress was made, despite the glaring absence of a ceasefire that was initially promised. This situation invites further examination of not only the diplomatic stakes involved but also the broader geopolitical landscape that has historically shaped U.S.-Russia relations, especially in the context of the Ukraine conflict.
Historically, the relationship between the U.S. and Russia has been fraught with tension, particularly in the post-Soviet era as NATO expanded eastward. The expansion is often cited by Russian leaders as a threat to their national security, and events like the annexation of Crimea in 2014 have deepened hostilities. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine is not merely a territorial dispute but a representation of the enduring Cold War mentalities that persist in international relations. The failure to achieve a ceasefire at the Alaska summit serves as a reminder of the complexities inherent in negotiating peace in a region still reeling from years of conflict exacerbated by external influences, including U.S. military aid and support for Ukraine.
Witkoff's remarks during the CNN interview reflect a broader trend in contemporary U.S. politics, where rhetoric often overshadows concrete results. The notion that discussions about territorial concessions could somehow be equated with progress is indicative of a diplomatic strategy that prioritizes optics over substantive outcomes. This is a critical point to raise in discussions with those who may support current U.S. foreign policy strategies. The failure to achieve the initial goal of a ceasefire not only undermines the credibility of the Trump administration but also exacerbates the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Ukraine, where civilians continue to suffer due to ongoing hostilities.
Moreover, the ambiguous nature of Witkoff's statements regarding U.S. security guarantees reflects the precarious position of Ukraine. The idea that the U.S. could offer "Article 5-like" guarantees without committing to the full weight of NATO's obligations highlights the complexities of international security agreements. Such assurances, devoid of actionable commitment, may evoke skepticism among both Ukrainian officials and the international community. This ambiguity is further compounded by Trump’s contradictory stance on the meeting, where he rated it a "10 out of 10," despite tangible failures. This dissonance can be leveraged in discussions to illustrate the chaotic nature of the current administration's approach to foreign policy—one that appears more focused on personal diplomacy than on building a cohesive strategy rooted in international law and respect for national sovereignty.
Finally, it is essential to contextualize these developments within the ongoing struggles for social justice and human rights, which are often sidelined in discussions of foreign policy. The Ukrainian conflict is not just a geopolitical issue; it is a humanitarian crisis that affects millions. Displaced families, loss of life, and the long-term impact on communities must be at the forefront of any peace negotiations. Left unchecked, the narrative surrounding U.S. foreign policy can lead to a devaluation of the human cost of war. Engaging in discussions about the importance of placing human rights and social justice at the center of foreign policy not only challenges the prevailing narratives but also aligns with a broader call for an ethical approach to international relations—one that prioritizes the well-being of individuals over political expediency.
In conclusion, the Alaska summit has opened up a critical dialogue about the effectiveness of current U.S. foreign policy strategies and their implications for global peace and security. It provides a unique opportunity to challenge traditional narratives about international relations, emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and a commitment to human rights. Engaging with these issues can empower individuals to advocate for a more humane and just approach to foreign policy, one that does not merely seek temporary solutions but strives for enduring peace and security for all nations involved.
The recent developments surrounding President Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska have raised significant questions regarding U.S. foreign policy, particularly in relation to Ukraine. As the Trump administration struggles to present a coherent narrative following the summit, it is essential to analyze the implications of these discussions for international relations and the future of democratic governance in Eastern Europe. In doing so, we can gain insights into how a failure to uphold democratic values and assert sovereignty can result in far-reaching consequences not only for Ukraine but also for the broader international community.
Historically, the U.S. has positioned itself as a champion of democracy and a bulwark against authoritarianism, particularly in post-Soviet regions. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine have underscored the delicate balance of power in Europe and the necessity of a firm U.S. stance against Russian aggression. Trump's summit with Putin, however, indicates a troubling departure from this historical commitment. The mixed messages from his aides, such as Steve Witkoff's muddled explanations about the lack of a ceasefire and the ambiguous nature of territorial concessions, reveal a concerning lack of clarity and direction in U.S. foreign policy. This is not merely a question of diplomatic failure; it speaks to a broader pattern of prioritizing personal rapport over principled stances on international law and human rights.
For Americans who are concerned about the implications of these developments, it is crucial to engage in informed discussions that emphasize the importance of supporting democracy abroad. Advocacy for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity should be at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy discussions. Citizens can encourage their representatives to support legislation that bolsters military and economic aid to Ukraine, ensuring that the country has the resources it needs to defend itself against aggression. This not only sends a message of solidarity to the Ukrainian people but also serves to uphold international norms against territorial conquest, which are vital for global stability.
Furthermore, it is essential to draw attention to the interconnectedness of domestic and foreign policy. The rhetoric coming from the Trump administration can be seen as part of a broader trend of normalization of authoritarian tactics, where the rule of law is undermined both at home and abroad. The American public must remain vigilant against narratives that suggest compromising on sovereignty and democratic principles is acceptable. Engaging in community discussions, writing letters to the editor, or using social media platforms to advocate for a strong stance against Russian aggression can amplify the voices calling for a principled foreign policy.
In terms of educational outreach, it is paramount to equip individuals with resources to understand the historical context of U.S.-Russia relations and the implications of appeasement versus assertive diplomacy. Hosting forums or workshops that feature experts in international relations, human rights law, and Eastern European politics can foster a deeper understanding of these issues. By creating a well-informed citizenry, we can ensure that discussions about foreign policy are not only robust but also rooted in a commitment to democratic values and human rights.
In summary, the fallout from Trump’s meeting with Putin is indicative of a broader challenge to democracy and sovereignty that requires active engagement from the American public. By prioritizing support for Ukraine, advocating for strong international norms, and fostering informed discourse, we can help steer U.S. foreign policy back towards a commitment to democracy. It is through these actions that we can ensure that the values we hold dear are reflected not only in our domestic policies but also in our approach to international relations.
Analyzing the recent developments surrounding the Trump-Putin summit and the subsequent comments from Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, it's evident that the stakes in Ukraine and the broader geopolitical landscape have significant implications for peace, security, and international relations. For those who are concerned about these issues and want to take action, here are a set of ideas and concrete steps to consider:
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Educate Yourself and Others**: Stay informed about the ongoing situation in Ukraine, the dynamics of U.S.-Russia relations, and international law regarding territorial sovereignty. Share this knowledge with your peers to raise awareness.
2. **Advocate for Peaceful Resolutions**: Engage in discussions about the importance of diplomacy and peaceful conflict resolution in international relations.
3. **Support Organizations Focused on Peace and Human Rights**: Contribute to or volunteer with organizations that advocate for peace, human rights, and support for Ukraine.
### Exact Actions You Can Personally Take
1. **Sign Petitions**: - **Petition for Diplomatic Efforts in Ukraine**: You can find petitions on platforms like Change.org or Care2 that advocate for increased diplomatic efforts in Ukraine. For example, search for petitions aimed at urging the U.S. government to prioritize peace talks over military solutions. - **Example**: Search for "Support Peace Talks in Ukraine" on Change.org and sign the petition.
2. **Contact Your Representatives**: Reach out to your local and national representatives to express your concerns regarding U.S. foreign policy in Ukraine and advocate for a focus on peace negotiations.
**How to Write to Them**: - **Who to Write**: Your U.S. Senators and House Representative. - **Finding Contact Information**: Use [GovTrack.us](https://www.govtrack.us/) to find your representatives’ contact details.
**Sample Email Template**: ``` Subject: Advocate for Peace in Ukraine
Dear [Representative's Name],
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the recent developments in Ukraine and the U.S. response to the ongoing conflict. I urge you to prioritize diplomatic efforts and peace talks over military actions and territorial concessions. A stable and peaceful resolution is essential not only for Ukraine but for global security and human rights.
Thank you for your attention to this pressing issue.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email] ```
3. **Participate in Local Activism**: Join local groups or organizations that advocate for peace and justice. Attend town hall meetings or community forums to voice your concerns.
4. **Use Social Media**: Utilize platforms like Twitter and Facebook to raise awareness about the situation in Ukraine. Share articles, comment on posts from representatives, and use hashtags related to peace in Ukraine.
5. **Write to Media Outlets**: Submit op-eds or letters to the editor in local newspapers to express your views on U.S.-Russia relations and advocate for a peaceful resolution in Ukraine.
**Example Media Contacts**: - **The New York Times**: letters@nytimes.com - **Washington Post**: letters@washpost.com - **Local Newspapers**: Check their websites for submission guidelines.
### What to Say
- Emphasize the importance of a diplomatic approach to resolving the conflict in Ukraine. - Advocate for the protection of human rights and the sovereignty of nations. - Call for transparency and accountability in U.S. foreign policy decisions. - Encourage your representatives to consider the broader implications of military actions and territorial concessions.
By taking these actions, you can contribute to a collective push for a more peaceful and just resolution to the conflict in Ukraine. Engaging with your community and representatives can amplify the call for diplomacy and human rights, helping to shape a more favorable outcome.