The proposals presented by Witkoff were drafted in Oslo earlier in the week, a summit designed to reconcile a bitter rift between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and President Trump. In Norway, Zelenskyy and European leaders sought to align their postwar security demands with US interests. However, upon returning to Russia, the diplomatic momentum appeared to stall. Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters that while Putin had been briefed on “some new aspects in the approaches of the Europeans and Kyiv,” the content lacked tangible substance. Ushakov indicated that Russia was “in principle, ready to resume” trilateral talks in mid-November, a timing that conveniently aligns with the period following the crucial US midterm elections. The Kremlin emphasized that any future trilateral discussions must focus on postwar security, a term that remains heavily contested by Kyiv and its European allies.
The diplomatic friction was compounded by a domestic controversy in the United States regarding Witkoff’s choice of words. After Putin ordered the release of Stephen Hubbard, a 74-year-old former American teacher held in Russian prison for over four years on mercenary charges, Witkoff described Putin as a “humanitarian.” The comment drew immediate and sharp criticism from within the US political establishment. Republican Senator Thom Tillis posted on social media: “WTF, Steve? Look up the definition of ‘humanitarian’.” The exchange highlighted the delicate balance Witkoff attempted to strike between maintaining a working relationship with Moscow and adhering to the moral and legal frameworks of US policy. President Trump deflected the criticism, stating he would not comment on the choice of words, while Vice President JD Vance defended the envoy, arguing it was appropriate to say something “nice” to a leader who had just released an American hostage. Trump further amplified the narrative of a diplomatic victory, claiming on social media that the release was “unprecedented” and that the US was “not required to give anything in return,” framing it as a gesture of respect for his leadership rather than a traditional prisoner swap.
Despite the diplomatic maneuvering, the battlefield reality did not shift. In the early hours of Thursday, missiles struck Kyiv, wounding 15 people and damaging subway infrastructure on the Southern Bridge over the Dnipro River. These strikes followed an attack on the city the previous evening that wounded six others. In the northeast, a Russian strike in the Kharkiv region killed a woman and injured four, while drone attacks targeted energy infrastructure in the Poltava region. In response to the Russian barrage, Ukrainian authorities announced that hundreds of drones had been sent toward Moscow overnight. Two people were wounded in Russia as a result of these reciprocal attacks. The continuation of high-intensity strikes on both sides served as a stark counterpoint to the “constructive” tone Witkoff attributed to his talks with Putin. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha reacted to the strikes and the diplomatic efforts, stating that “appeasement, servility and flattery” would not stop Russia’s war, a sentiment that reflects Kyiv’s growing frustration with what it perceives as Western hesitation.
Analysts suggest that Putin’s decision to release Hubbard was a calculated move to align Trump further with Russian positions ahead of the US midterm elections. By offering the US president a visible diplomatic win, Moscow aimed to reinforce a dynamic in which Washington’s leverage is perceived to be waning. Trump’s assertion that Ukraine has “given us nothing” in the context of these negotiations further illustrates the shifting power dynamics. Zelenskyy, for his part, maintained that Kyiv backed resuming trilateral talks as soon as possible, but the gap between the “substance” of the proposals and the Kremlin’s demands for postwar security guarantees remains wide. The Oslo meeting was intended to smooth over the US-Ukraine rift, but the subsequent St. Petersburg meeting revealed that the foundational disagreements on security architecture and territorial integrity have not been resolved.
As the war enters its next phase, the diplomatic track moves toward technical-level consultations, with Witkoff noting that “important work left to do” remains. The mid-November timeline for potential trilateral talks places the future of the conflict inextricably linked to the outcome of the US elections. Until then, the contrast between the diplomatic language of “constructive” dialogue and the physical reality of missile strikes on Kyiv and drone attacks on Moscow persists. The release of Hubbard, while a significant humanitarian outcome, has not altered the strategic trajectory of the war, leaving the central tension between US mediation efforts and Russian military objectives unresolved.
