US-led effort to bring Russia and Ukraine closer to a possible settlement has entered a new stage. Talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US presidential envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were described by Moscow as “extremely frank,” “timely” and “highly useful.”
After meeting with Vladimir Putin, US envoys travelled to Kyiv for talks with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. While no breakthrough has been announced, the meetings mark a new push by Washington to keep the negotiating process moving.
Putin’s aide Yuri Ushakov said the American representatives presented a number of ideas concerning possible ways to resolve the conflict. He did not disclose the details of those proposals. According to Ushakov, Putin told the US negotiators about what he described as “real progress” by Russian forces on the battlefield and expressed confidence that Russia would achieve its objectives.
The White House described the talks as substantive and said the next steps would be announced in the coming weeks.
Following the Moscow meeting, Witkoff and Kushner travelled to Kyiv, where they held talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. It was the first official visit to Ukraine by the two US representatives in the current diplomatic effort. For Ukraine, the visit was significant not only politically but also in practical terms. Ukrainian airspace remains closed because of the war, meaning that the American envoys travelled to Kyiv by rail. Until now, talks involving the US, Russia and Ukraine had largely taken place in Moscow or at neutral locations such as Abu Dhabi. The arrival of Witkoff and Kushner in Kyiv changes that dynamic to some extent. Washington is now engaging directly with both capitals rather than conducting the diplomatic process from a single location.
According to Financial Times sources familiar with the talks, Trump’s envoys brought to Kyiv “updated versions” of earlier documents, revised “to reflect changing circumstances” since the peace negotiations stalled in February 2026.
The Ukrainian side made clear that it does not expect an immediate end to the war. Following the talks, Zelenskyy warned that the fighting could continue through the winter. He also pointed to Donbas as one of the central issues in discussions over how the war could eventually be brought to an end.
At the same time, Jared Kushner said Trump had instructed his team to prepare a package of proposals aimed at achieving a long-term peace. This leaves the negotiations at an important but still uncertain stage. Washington appears to be trying to turn separate discussions with Moscow and Kyiv into a broader framework for a possible settlement. But the positions of the two sides remain far apart on some of the most sensitive issues.
Axios, citing a source familiar with the talks, reported that Volodymyr Zelenskyy had raised the issue of preparing Ukraine for the coming winter amid the ongoing war during his meeting with Witkoff and Kushner. US officials, meanwhile, stressed that they wanted to achieve a breakthrough in the peace negotiations before winter sets in, the report said.
Earlier this week, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said that “serious momentum” could emerge in the peace negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow in the coming days, although he stopped short of revealing details. At the same time, CIA Director John Ratcliffe travelled to Moscow, a visit that Western media linked to US efforts to restart peace talks.
Military expert Ivan Stupak, speaking to AzerNEWS, said that the latest contacts should be viewed primarily as an attempt to restart dialogue rather than as evidence of a breakthrough.
“Essentially, there has been no real dialogue. For at least the past six months, nothing pragmatic has taken place. There may have been some informal conversations or contacts, but there has been no substantive negotiating process,” Stupak said.
According to him, the fact that US representatives had travelled to Kyiv after their meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin was itself significant.
“This is an important meeting because, at the very least, it gives us hope that some form of negotiation may be possible,” he added.
Stupak stressed, however, that he does not expect the fighting to end by February 2027. He said the coming winter could be particularly difficult for Ukraine.
Looking beyond a possible ceasefire, Stupak emphasized that any lasting settlement would require a mechanism capable of preventing the sides from returning to hostilities.
“In my view, we need a third party that can stand between the Ukrainian and Russian forces and serve as a buffer and a guarantor,” he said, adding that UN peacekeepers could potentially play such a role.
Stupak acknowledged that such a proposal would likely face strong opposition from Russia, but said the composition of a potential peacekeeping force could be discussed in detail. He suggested that countries such as China and India, as well as some African and other non-Western states, could potentially take part in such a mission.
“If the UN peacekeeping force consisted mainly of British or French troops, that would likely be unacceptable to Russia. But if countries such as China and India were involved, the situation could be different,” he explained.
He also pointed to the financial and logistical challenges involved. Stupak noted that the UN peacekeeping mission in Cyprus, which monitors a roughly 180-kilometre buffer zone between Turkish and Greek Cypriot forces, costs tens of millions of dollars a year.
“Just imagine the scale of the costs involved when you consider that the potential line of separation in Ukraine is far longer,” he said, stressing that financing such a mission would be one of the key issues to resolve.
At the same time, Stupak noted that modern technology could reduce the number of personnel required to monitor a ceasefire. Drones, sensors and other surveillance systems could be used to detect violations along the line of separation, he said. For Stupak, however, the presence of an independent monitoring and peacekeeping mechanism remains essential.
“This is the cornerstone from which we can build a real discussion about whether a peace agreement can actually work. Without peacekeepers or some other mechanism capable of monitoring compliance, everything else would be like building a house on sand by the sea – you simply do not know when it will be washed away,” he concluded.