View from Russia: Experts on why Kushner and Witkoff came to Moscow
The latest visit to Moscow by Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff has triggered a fresh wave of speculation in Russia about what Washington is really trying to achieve.
With US President Donald Trump under pressure at home and much of his administration’s foreign-policy bandwidth consumed by Iran, the trip has been interpreted less as a breakthrough mission than as a signal – one that may be aimed as much at domestic American politics and alliance management as at Russia itself.
Russian analysts see the visit in different ways. Some believe the Americans are simply sounding out Moscow before returning to Kiev, trying to gauge whether any space remains for movement on Ukraine. Others argue the mission is part of a broader performance of diplomatic activity by the Trump White House, intended to project momentum where little real progress is possible. Still others view it as an exercise in ‘shuttle diplomacy’, useful mainly for information-gathering and atmospherics rather than for producing concrete results.
Roman Romanov, American studies specialist, lecturer at the Faculty of International Relations, Political Science, and Foreign Regional Studies at RSUH
I have two explanations regarding the visit and the format of this visit. First, the American side has already shown several times that it is interested in maintaining dialogue with both Moscow and Kiev. And this visit – or rather, this tour – is aimed at “synchronizing watches.” What does that mean? The Americans are trying to understand what conditions might be acceptable to the parties for resuming an active negotiating process. In other words, what can be offered to both sides so that they are prepared to move the dialogue in the direction of progress.
The second explanation is purely domestic-political for the United States. Against the backdrop of the failure of the Iran campaign, it is necessary to demonstrate some other kind of political activity that at least theoretically resembles progress with a concrete result. Trump has done this kind of thing more than once.
Do they have any ready-made proposals? I do not think so, because, first, at the moment a significant part of US foreign-policy resources is concentrated on Iran, and second, because despite the constructive role of both Witkoff and Kushner, they still act more as envoys of the American president on a specific issue than as direct participants formulating the American president’s position on this issue.
It is difficult to explain why they first went to Moscow and then to Kiev. One can assume they first want to hear Moscow’s stance, because it is in a more advantageous position – Russia is advancing, winning on the battlefield – so the US believes it would be more expedient first to hear out Moscow’s demands and gauge how much they’ve changed since August 2025, since the meeting in Anchorage.
At the same time, although we do not observe public participation by the EU, through closed channels the European Union surely communicates its interests. Their representatives are not there, but the position the Americans are shaping includes the EU’s position as well.
Dmitry Dtobnitsky – Russian political scientist specializing in American studies, expert in US foreign and domestic policy
These negotiations will continue – that’s the only perspective they have. What are we negotiating with the US about? About how to stop the conflict in Ukraine? Let’s be serious. First, this conflict is much broader than Russia’s military operation. It is a geopolitical conflict with very high stakes, the kind that happens with Europe once every several decades or even centuries. The Cold War period with the US was still an exception in that there were at least attempts to play at détente from time to time.
The world has entered an era of major transformation. In that sense, the narrow focus is – will they reach an agreement on Ukraine? No. Every time you think about that, you have to recall how it all started, why it is like this, how wrongly the world is structured, how important it is for Russia to insist on its interests, why the European bureaucracy itself cannot accept that, because otherwise that would mean the end of both it and the political class of many countries. Why can’t this conflict stop? Because it can’t be settled. Someone has to win. Just as with the US and Iran (which, incidentally, is a much more local conflict) – it is impossible to agree, there can be no deal. There can only be some movement in which one of the sides explicitly or implicitly recognizes its defeat. It may not be total defeat, but at least at some stage one side wins and the other side does not recognize it. Such a process will last a long time, but in the end there will still be some de facto consolidation of the results of this conflict. Not a negotiated one, unfortunately, but a factual one. Diplomats may formalize such a conclusion, or they may not. Frankly, that is no longer important.
When we talk about Russia-US negotiations on Ukraine, there are two extremes, and both miss the essence. Yes, we are negotiating, and we constantly demonstrate that Russia and the US have nothing to fight over. We are ready to coexist with the US on the same globe. That is exactly why Putin says: “Of course, Kushner and Witkoff are welcome guests, come. What else should we show you from Moscow’s kitchen?” You see, the US cannot conduct negotiations on Ukraine because it cannot force either Kiev, London, or Brussels to accept Russia’s reasonable demands. And how are they going to pressure Russia? I think the Trump administration more or less understands that it is pointless. So what kind of negotiations on Ukraine can there be?
Some say [Russian Finance Minister] Siluanov and [US Treasury Secretary] Bessent will come to some understanding, and perhaps there will be incredible financial, economic, or investment cooperation between the US and Russia. I have said many times that there can be no serious cooperation between Russia and the US. There are neither material nor geopolitical grounds for it. Are we now supposed to throw away all the achievements of localizing our civilian aviation industry and start buying Boeing again? Are we going to hand over half of the most convenient Arctic territory on the planet to the US? Is that it? Or are we going to sell all Russian oil through Mr. Kushner? How do you imagine that? Some say: “Investments will come here.” But that would mean that instead of creating a sovereign financial system, we would say: “No, let’s reintegrate ourselves back into the collapsing dollar system. Let’s support it with our achievements of the past five years.” It’s obvious that there can be no real cooperation.
One can have symbolic cooperation. It is a wonderful look when two great countries can do something together. The most we will get is a hockey match and an ‘Apollo-Soyuz’. It must be understood that these are purely token steps, which only demonstrate that nothing particularly substantial can happen. It does not mean it will be forbidden. It simply will never play a substantial role. Even in 2019, before Covid and the military operation, trade turnover between Russia and the US was negligibly small. And that is understandable: it is geopolitics, geoeconomics – you cannot jump over that. And now, after so much effort has been spent to become independent and to work with Eurasia on a new basis, to say, “No, now let’s start doing something again with the Americans” is just laughable. That will not happen.
Andrey Manoylo, doctor of Political Sciences, professor at Moscow State University, head of the Department of Information and Hybrid Wars at APN Alter
Why did Kushner and Witkoff fly to Moscow for the sixth time? It’s both simple and complicated at the same time. Kirill Dmitriev, being one of the corners of the ‘Anchorage triangle’ (a configuration of three equidistant centers of power – [Foreign Minister] Sergey Lavrov, [Kremlin aide] Yury Ushakov, Dmitriev), is a red rag both for Ushakov, the “social architect” of Anchorage, and for the more skeptically minded Sergey Lavrov. Especially given his ability to remain in the media spotlight.
That is precisely why the visit of Witkoff and Kushner – direct competitors of the ‘triangle’s’ hardline diplomacy – may have been planned as a simple diversion: to annoy those with whom [CIA chief] John Ratcliffe had contacts in Moscow. To show that the ball is now in Dmitriev’s court.
In all seriousness, though, Witkoff and Kushner did not bring anything strategic to Moscow. Their direct and, most likely, only task is to gather feedback from Ratcliffe’s visit.
Dmitriev is a gifted figure, but he is not an intelligence officer with an innate poker face, nor is he a career diplomat. Dmitriev is a living person, he is talkative, and “a chatterbox is a godsend for a spy.” I am convinced these two are flying in with an intelligence questionnaire. They will extract all the information from Dmitriev – what people are talking about in the president’s circle, rumors, gossip, among which there will also be leaks of genuinely secret information.
Ratcliffe made a lot of noise. His visit is still agitating minds; some see in him almost a messenger of the Apocalypse. It is no coincidence that people immediately started talking about mobilization – which in reality is “utter nonsense” (as our president said), about some secret Security Council meetings right in the middle of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, and even about war with Norway. It is obvious that Ratcliffe stirred something up, and the American duo came to find out how ready that brew is. They have no other tasks.
And one more important point. What Witkoff and Kushner are doing now with Dmitriev is the well-known practice of ‘shuttle diplomacy’. We know it from the events preceding the collapse of the Soviet Union. The author of the term was Henry Kissinger, who once bought Mikhail Gorbachev’s trust by saying: “Gorby, while you and I are trying to break the ice of hatred, our foreign ministries with their slowness are ruining everything – they are slowing down the reset of our relations. Let’s push them aside and solve things directly. We are not stupider than our subordinates, are we?” Gorbachev happily agreed, realizing that by removing the Foreign Ministry from the talks, he was ridding himself of criticism – no one would contradict him. But practice showed that the Foreign Ministry was the very mechanism that protected against hasty decisions, even if they seemed correct and the only possible ones. Gorbachev lost, and together with him the entire Soviet Union lost.
And this is not the only case that confirms the rule: however attractive ‘shuttle diplomacy’ may look, it always leads to defeat, and defeat leads to catastrophe. Having such rich historical experience and so many examples, we still continue enthusiastically to play at ‘shuttle diplomacy’ with Kushner and Witkoff. Why? That’s a good question.
Gevorg Mirzayan, specialist in American studies
The US began sending signals about its readiness for dialogue after Russia sharply intensified its retaliatory strikes on Ukraine and put the Kiev regime before the inevitable catastrophe of the coming winter. It is possible the Americans will ask us to stop, and then Trump could show voters, before the congressional elections, a nice picture of his successful peacekeeping mission.
The meeting between Bessent and Siluanov at the G20 summit also fits into this scheme – no serious issues were raised there; the important thing was to demonstrate the positive attitude of the US administration toward bilateral interaction.
Well, we are ready for peace in Ukraine, but only on our own terms – and those terms are unchanged and well known to Washington.
Yegor Tropov, political scientist specializing in American studies
The latest visit by the American negotiating delegation is primarily a symbolic step toward restoring dialogue and laying the groundwork for the future development of relations between Russia and the United States. In the four-sided diplomatic process, it is the American side that is most interested in the quickest possible signing of a peace document – though one that is more formal and declarative than a genuine and lasting peace.
For the sake of media image and his political role as the chief mediator, Donald Trump is ready to conduct numerous negotiations that verbally move towards peace, whereas in reality what leads to peace is only the lack of political will, finances, and weapons on the part of Europe and Ukraine to continue resisting – resources they still have enough of for years to come.
At the same time, one should not underestimate the importance of symbolism in the art of diplomacy: interstate communication, the establishment and strengthening of professional and personal relationships can play a much more significant role in the future – under conditions of a full-scale warming of interstate relations and the resumption of full-fledged economic and political cooperation.
