In the night of November 5, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, businessman Jared Kushner, published on behalf of the White House and the special envoy for peace missions, Steve Witkoff, a 423-word text reproducing a declaration by Donald Trump in the Oval Office to set the United States’ objectives for the post-war period in Ukraine.
This publication follows a White House meeting between Donald Trump and Kirill Dmitriev, Vladimir Putin’s envoy to the United States, and comes five days before the Abu Dhabi trilateral discussions on November 10 and 11.
During these first direct negotiations since February, Kushner and Witkoff will lead the American delegation against Vladimir Medinski, Russia’s representative. According to the American announcement, and in response to a Russian request, Europeans, NATO, and the European Union will not be at the table. Germany, France, and the United Kingdom will be “consulted” in the so-called Shell Bay format — named after a Florida golf club — and then “taken to the side.” Their direct participation by the Europeans is only envisaged “if progress is made.”
The content of the text, which we translate and analyze here, marks an overwhelming Russian victory in the realms of American discourse and positioning.
The White House adopts the very expression Moscow has demanded since Dmitri Medvedev’s proposal in 2008 and the ultimatums of December 2021—a “new European security architecture.” The object of negotiation thus ceases to be Ukraine and becomes the continent’s order.
In delineating these balances, Kushner places Europe and Russia on an equal footing—“for more than thirty years, Europe and Russia have been striving to establish a durable security framework”—speaks of “competing security concerns,” without mentioning the invasion of Ukraine by the Putin regime.
From this emerges five objectives that belong more to confidence-building measures than to deterrence (ongoing consultations, crisis communication, military transparency, reciprocal risk-reduction measures, and a durable framework for European security and stability in the long term). Yet, as analyst Mujtaba Rahman notes, “the European security order did not fail for lack of dialogue mechanisms or transparency; it failed because Vladimir Putin chose to destroy it. No new framework, especially if designed top-down by the Trump team, can replace credible deterrence across the continent and support for Ukraine.”
Also to note is Kushner’s assertion that “NATO will remain central to European collective defense,” without detailing the American commitment that would make that centrality credible. The White House now consistently speaks of the Alliance as an external structure whose solidity he might simply observe from the outside.
In crystallizing an impressive Putin victory over the Trump administration’s rhetoric, this text nonetheless appears at a moment when three variables are evolving unfavorably for this convergence.
The military situation remains bleak for Russia. Last Sunday, the Ukrainian general staff reported 2,500 Russian losses in twenty-four hours, equivalent to one man out of action every thirty-five seconds, and 54,400 for October, the worst monthly toll of the war for only a few kilometers gained. These figures come from a belligerent side and cover both dead and wounded, but the trend aligns with serious estimates that note Russia is wearing itself down without achieving a decisive victory on the front.
The American political context is then particularly unfavorable to Trump. The midterm elections gave Democrats control of both chambers, including in long-standing Republican states. On the eve of the publication of this text, several media reported that Marco Rubio was considering leaving the State Department.
The third variable is tied to China. Returning from Beijing, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier reported that, contrary to what the Trump administration had claimed, Xi Jinping did not wish to organize a tripartite summit with Washington and Moscow on Ukraine. He also seemed surprised by this proposal. A meeting with Trump and Putin is likely to take place on the margins of the APEC summit in Shenzhen, but Ukraine will not figure on the agenda. According to Steinmeier, Xi “was clear: this is a European conflict and Europeans must also be at the negotiating table.” This refusal, coming from a power deeply aligned with Russia, could be explained in two ways. On one hand, such a summit would cement Moscow’s status as a great power, even as it becomes more vassal to Beijing. On the other hand, it would commit China to a settlement it does not want to bear responsibility for on a regional level and in its international posture.
The forward surge described by this diplomatic document thus emanates from a leadership weakened domestically, whose diplomacy wobbles and which seeks closer ties to another system mired in a difficult context, an acceleration that could reflect a certain fragility.
In a speech delivered in Atlanta on October 17, Jon Ossoff, a largely reelected Georgia senator and a presidential hopeful, directly targeted the two signatories of this text and the context in which it is framed.
It is worth reading:
“Do you all remember Jared Kushner? Yes. The president’s son-in-law, this so‑called ‘special envoy’ in charge of diplomacy with Russia and the Middle East? And the other special envoy, Steve Witkoff, who cofounded World Liberty, the president’s dubious cryptocurrency company? Well. So, listen closely. Jared and Steve are currently negotiating with Putin to sell billions of dollars’ worth of Russian oil fields, refineries, and gas stations to the president’s friends. There is first Sheikh Tahnoun, the head of Emirati intelligence services, who poured $500 million into the president’s and Witkoff’s cryptocurrency company. There are also the Al-Khayyat brothers, two Syrians who finance Jared and Ivanka’s multi‑billion‑dollar Albanian resort project. And finally, there is the third partner: a billionaire who donated a colossal sum to Trump’s campaign. Oh, and the U.S. government would take a 15% stake, by the way. See the picture? In the midst of a global energy crisis, the president’s son-in-law and his business partner are negotiating the sale of Russian oil fields to friends of the “First Family.” These same friends who have poured hundreds of millions into the Trump family businesses. So what! But here is the essential point. If you are involved, near or far, in all these maneuvers, next year you will find yourself in a very simple situation: you will raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, with God’s help, before the United States Congress.”
The president today advanced an important discussion with several European leaders on the need for a broader European security architecture capable of helping to establish the conditions for lasting peace.
Building on his action and the groundwork carried out this week in Brussels with Ukraine, NATO and our European partners, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and I wished to share some of the objectives guiding our ongoing discussions.
For more than thirty years, Europe and Russia have struggled to establish a sustainable security framework. Decades of mistrust, competing security concerns, and the devastating consequences of this war make this challenge extraordinarily difficult, but it remains essential for lasting peace.
Our objective is to craft practical arrangements that address the security concerns of all parties, reduce the risk of future conflicts, and create a more stable and predictable security environment.
We are exploring five main objectives: permanent security consultations, reliable crisis communications, greater military transparency, reciprocal measures to reduce the risk of escalation, and a durable framework for European security and stability in the long term.
Any arrangement must fully respect each nation’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and decision-making independence. Each country will retain authority over its own security and its own alliances, and no country would have a veto over another’s sovereign choices. NATO will remain central to European collective defense, and this initiative would build on existing institutions and commitments.
We will continue consultations in the Shell Bay format with Ukraine, NATO, the European Union, and our European partners, broadening exchanges so that all relevant perspectives and ideas are taken into account. We will also engage Russia within the framework of peace negotiations.
Next week in Abu Dhabi, the United States will convene the first trilateral peace discussions with Ukraine and Russia since February. All parties remain intensely engaged in preparing substantial and productive negotiations. We will consult closely with our European partners on the sidelines and, if progress is made, aim to move to an expanded multilateral format with their direct participation.
These ideas are still evolving, and we welcome thoughtful contributions. Creating the right structure will be crucial to ending this war and transitioning from conflict to conditions that enable durable peace.
It is a difficult and meticulous undertaking. There is no easy solution. But the opportunity to help end this devastating war and to build the foundations of a more peaceful, safer, and more prosperous Europe for generations to come makes this a challenge worth rising to meet.
We will see how these discussions evolve and will continue to work intensely with all parties toward the president’s objective: a comprehensive and lasting peace.