Ukraine live: Trump’s envoys confronted over holding talks with ‘war criminal’ Putin

The talks were an attempt to test whether diplomacy could end Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner held discussions involving Putin and then Ukrainian leaders in Kyiv. The Guardian reported that they left Kyiv without a breakthrough, while the BBC said Zelensky expected the war to continue into winter.

The core mechanism is that negotiations cannot succeed unless both sides accept the basic terms. Russia and Ukraine still disagree over occupied territory, Ukraine’s future security and the conditions for any ceasefire. Ukraine also doubts Putin genuinely wants peace. The Independent described Putin as having no interest in peace and warned that Trump could be falling into his trap.

The meetings therefore produced contact, not agreement. They may keep channels open, but continued fighting is likely unless Russia accepts meaningful limits and Ukraine receives credible protection. The outcome also shows why direct diplomacy alone cannot overcome incompatible war aims.

Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are political envoys, not traditional career diplomats. Witkoff is a businessman appointed by Donald Trump to pursue sensitive foreign-policy contacts. Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, previously served as a senior White House adviser and has remained a trusted figure in Trump’s circle. Their involvement gives Trump a channel for direct, high-level diplomacy.

Their practical role is to meet important decision-makers, explore possible compromises and report back to Trump. Witkoff has engaged Putin, while the pair also travelled to Kyiv to speak with Zelensky and Ukrainian officials. That makes them intermediaries between Washington, Moscow and Kyiv, rather than independent peace negotiators with authority to impose a settlement.

Their approach has attracted criticism. The Telegraph called the Witkoff-Kushner effort an embarrassment, and The Independent said Trump risked entering Putin’s trap. Their success depends on whether contact can produce enforceable commitments, not merely meetings or optimistic statements.

“War criminal” is a political and legal description for someone alleged to have committed, ordered or enabled grave breaches of international humanitarian law. It does not automatically mean a court has found that person guilty. In Putin’s case, the term reflects allegations connected to Russia’s invasion and conduct in occupied Ukrainian areas.

The most prominent legal action came in March 2023, when the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Putin. Prosecutors alleged responsibility for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied parts of Ukraine to Russia. The warrant means ICC member states that can enforce it may be required to arrest him, although Russia rejects the court’s authority and does not surrender him.

That background explains why Ukrainian figures objected to envoys holding talks with Putin. Negotiation may be necessary to stop a war, but meeting an accused leader can appear to grant legitimacy. It also raises questions about justice, accountability and the victims’ rights.

Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. By September 2026, the fighting has continued for more than four and a half years. This is separate from the broader Russia-Ukraine conflict, which began in 2014 with Russia’s seizure of Crimea and parts of the Donbas. The full-scale phase transformed the crisis into a massive interstate war.

The territorial impact is enormous. Russia has occupied roughly one-fifth of Ukraine, including Crimea and areas of the eastern and southern regions. Exact front lines change, and estimates vary by date, but the scale is measured in hundreds of thousands of square kilometres. Millions of Ukrainians have been forced from their homes, either internally displaced or living abroad as refugees.

The human impact extends far beyond occupied land. Civilians face deaths, injuries, destroyed homes, disrupted power and separated families. The continuing scale helps explain why negotiations concern sovereignty, borders and security, rather than a simple ceasefire alone.

Zelensky’s winter warning reflects the gap between diplomatic contact and an actual settlement. The BBC reported that he expected the war to continue into winter after meeting Trump’s envoys. That suggests Kyiv saw no immediate reason to believe Russia would stop fighting or accept terms protecting Ukraine’s independence. A meeting alone does not change battlefield incentives.

The main disagreements are fundamental. Russia wants to preserve gains and influence over Ukraine’s future, while Ukraine rejects recognition of annexation and demands respect for its territorial integrity. Kyiv also seeks strong security guarantees so another invasion becomes less likely. Moscow has resisted arrangements that could bring Ukraine lasting Western military protection. The parties also differ over ceasefire terms and accountability.

Unless those issues move, the war can continue despite diplomacy. Winter may bring further military pressure and humanitarian hardship. Future talks therefore need more than personal relationships with Putin; they need verifiable commitments, a clear territorial framework and credible protection for Ukraine.

Direct negotiations with Putin could give Ukraine access to the person who controls Russia’s military decisions. That may be necessary for any ceasefire or prisoner exchange. But it also changes bargaining power. If Washington presents a deal before Ukraine agrees, Kyiv could face pressure to trade land, sanctions relief or security for a temporary pause. The Independent’s warning that Trump may be falling into Putin’s trap captures that risk.

The mechanism is diplomatic leverage. A powerful intermediary can frame which demands seem realistic and which side appears obstructive. If the United States treats Russia and Ukraine as equally responsible, it may weaken the principle that borders cannot be changed by force. Meetings without Ukrainian control could also make allies doubt whether long-term support remains firm.

The effect on international backing is not predetermined. A fair, coordinated process could preserve support and strengthen Ukraine’s position. A rushed settlement could divide allies, reward aggression and leave Ukraine exposed to another attack. The talks’ consequences depend on whether Ukraine’s consent and security are protected.

Sovereignty means Ukraine chooses its government, alliances and policies without coercion. Territorial integrity means its borders cannot be altered lawfully through invasion. Security guarantees matter because a ceasefire without protection could give Russia time to rearm and attack again. Together, these principles turn peace from a pause in violence into a framework for lasting independence.

Their mechanism is practical as well as legal. If Russia keeps territory seized by force, other states may learn that aggression can succeed. If Ukraine lacks credible guarantees, it may have to accept negotiations under military pressure. Guarantees could involve weapons, monitoring, sanctions or commitments to respond to renewed attack, although their exact form must be negotiated.

That is why the talks cannot focus only on stopping today’s fighting. The Guardian reported no breakthrough after the envoys left Kyiv, and the continuing dispute over land and protection remains central. A durable settlement must be accepted by Ukraine and make future aggression harder, not merely postpone it.