Donald Trump’s attempts at diplomacy between Russia and Ukraine have, at times, been reminiscent of a game of broken telephone. His apparent indifference to the specifics implies that the ceasefire he aims for is further away than his optimistic assertions suggest.
Take the events from just the past week. Following his call with Vladimir Putin on Tuesday, Trump claimed that the two leaders had agreed to a partial ceasefire focusing on “energy and infrastructure” targets, implying that Russia would refrain from attacking bridges, hospitals, railways, and other civilian facilities.
However, mere hours later, a Russian drone struck a Ukrainian hospital. Russia’s version of the call indicated that they had only consented to a halt on strikes related to “energy infrastructure,” leaving other civilian targets open to attack.
By Wednesday, the White House press secretary was sidestepping questions about the specifics of the call, directing reporters to the administration’s statement without clarifying whether Trump had misunderstood their discussion.
On that day, Trump stunned the world by announcing that the US was advocating for an American-led privatization of Ukrainian power plants to offer new security assurances to Ukraine. He instructed his national security adviser Mike Waltz and secretary of state Marco Rubio to provide an “accurate” summary of the conversation, which is an unusual emphasis. They claimed Trump had told Zelenskyy that “American ownership of those plants could be the best protection for that infrastructure.”
However, Zelenskyy quickly responded by stating that the power plants are national assets and “belong to all Ukrainians.” He asserted that a takeover bid had never been discussed.
“If the Americans want to take over the stations from the Russians and invest in modernizing them, that is a completely different matter,” he commented. “Regarding ownership [of the nuclear power plants], we certainly did not discuss this with President Trump.”
The inconsistencies are accumulating, and Ukraine is eager to shield itself from potentially grave misunderstandings. On Thursday, Zelenskyy announced a plan to send a team of negotiators to Riyadh to ensure that US negotiators receive a list of energy infrastructures they wish to have included in a partial ceasefire.
“I don’t want there to be any different understanding of what the parties will agree upon,” Zelensky stated.
Trump has a tendency to depict intricate and sometimes contentious discussions in glorified, exaggerated terms. He famously characterized a 2019 phone call with Zelenskyy as “perfect,” during which he proposed that Ukraine investigate Joe Biden’s son Hunter in exchange for future military aid.
Recent phone conversations, especially those with Putin, have similarly remained in a shrouded context. After this week’s call, the Kremlin stated that it had demanded a stop to foreign military assistance to Ukraine as part of any long-term peace. Trump, however, claimed that this topic was never brought up.
“We didn’t talk about aid, actually, we didn’t talk about aid at all,” Trump insisted. “We discussed many topics, but aid was not one of them.”
The US president has sought to control the narrative that emerges from his private discussions with global leaders. In recent dialogues, particularly with Putin, the White House has not clearly indicated which advisors were present during the calls.
Only Steve Witkoff, a real estate mogul and associate of Trump, has directly commented on the call, describing it as “epic, transformational,” and expressing pride in being “an American sitting there listening.”
Next week’s round of shuttle diplomacy in Riyadh may signal a moment when Trump can no longer conceal the fissures. “There are going to be proximity discussions, meaning one group will be in one room, and another group in a different room, engaging in back-and-forth discussions like shuttle diplomacy in a hotel,” stated General Keith Kellogg, the Trump envoy to Ukraine. “And that’s how it’s going to work, and then we’ll learn where everyone stands.”
There exists a level of naivety in the US approach as their business-savvy negotiators begin to confront seasoned Russian diplomats. When Sergei Lavrov and Yuri Ushakov met with US negotiators in Riyadh, they brought with them decades of experience and referenced draft agreements to steer the discourse. The US negotiators appeared outmatched.
Witkoff has expressed his belief that Putin is “acting in good faith,” suggesting that following the Trump-Putin phone call aimed at preventing strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure, the Russian military shot down seven of its own drones. Some right-wing nationalists in Russia later mocked him, branding him as gullible.
“The West believed that nonsense, and that’s amusing,” remarked Mikhail Zvinchuk, a popular Russian military blogger and propagandist during an online broadcast. “Mr. Witkoff claimed to be impressed by Russia’s commitment to peace.”
Putin’s team in Riyadh is set to be led by a former FSB general who previously oversaw intelligence operations against Ukraine and Grigory Karasin, a former diplomat who negotiated the Minsk agreements between Russia and Ukraine.
Those agreements were aimed at ceasing conflict between Ukraine and Russian-supported proxy forces in the southeastern region. However, they were viewed as significantly unfavorable to Ukraine and were plagued by ambiguous details regarding which side was responsible for providing what guarantees and in what sequence. Ultimately, they fell apart.
As Witkoff, Waltz, and Rubio prepare for the crucial meetings in Riyadh on Monday, a key question lies in whether they can muster the expertise to navigate the intricacies of an 11-year-old conflict with some of Russia’s most adept negotiators seated across from them.
