Steve Witkoff: Trump confidants irritated with praise for Putin

Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump’s special envoy both in the Middle East and in the Ukraine conflict, has been interviewed by US moderator Tucker Carlson for an hour and a half. It was a conversation that is mainly incomprehensible in Europe. Carlson’s chat, even with topics such as war and peace, irritated, and Witkoff’s sometimes very positive, personal assessment of Putin is all the more disturbing. So he said Putin was not a “bad guy” (“I don’t regard Putin as a bad guy”).

Witkoff emphasized that this assessment was based on personal encounters, not on a political analysis. Then he raved about a portrait that the Russian President presented to him as a gift for Donald Trump during his second visit to Moscow in March 2025-a “Gracious moment”. A symbolic act that underlines the personal level of negotiations. The expression cannot be transferred directly into German, but could be described with “gracious, courteous, benevolent”. Visibly moved he told that Putin – supposedly – prayed in a chapel for his “friend” Donald when he found out about Trump’s assassination.

This personal approach does not match the European image of Putin as a unperson, but corresponds to the negotiation philosophy of Trump and Witkoff. It is less about being historical than creating trust and appreciation in difficult times. It would be wrong to see Witkoff as naive that Putin went on the glue.

Witkoff is not a trained diplomat; His career took place outside of state circles. The lawyer is considered a real estateycoon and is a close friend of Trump. They have known each other since the 1980s, long before Trump’s political rise, which Witkoff always supported – not just with money. In 2024 he was co-chair of Trump’s Inauguration Committee. He belongs to a few who have accompanied Trump in business, private life and politics for decades without being dependent on him.

Personally, Witkoff enjoys the president’s full trust. Despite his nature unusual for European ears, he is not a newcomer to negotiations. His style is called directly, enforced and effective, more shaped by business life than diplomacy. The “Wall Street Journal” praised him as a clever, accessible and talented negotiator. He embodies Trump’s “Deal-Making” philosophy: personal relationships, clear communication and pragmatic solutions instead of bureaucratic protocols. Even critics admit that he solves problems in the diplomatic field and quickly delivers results. But they worry that his focus on short -term success can endanger long -term strategic interests – “Quick Wins” at the expense of the “Long Game”. Defenders would object that an end to mass dying in Ukraine would be more than a minor matter.

Witkoff expresses less warm than Putin, but also not negative – progress after the scandal in the White House. In his view, area abductions are inevitable, which brings Selenskyj into a precarious situation. “Can Selenskyj survive politically if he recognizes this? That is the central question in conflict,” said Witkoff. He thinks Selenskyj do his best. But on the other hand, his days seem counted. On Carlson’s question about elections in Ukraine, Witkoff replied: “Yes, there will be. They approved. There will be elections in Ukraine.” Witkoff left open whether this should be done under international supervision. He did not give details at time, participants or approved parties. He follows a demand for Russia. In the United States, however, it is doubtful whether a government whose legitimation is based on war law and exposed elections can bear a peace agreement.

The core of the problem is the Ukrainian Oblaste, partly occupied by Russia. Witkoff only counted the four regions – Donetsk, Luhansk, Saporischschja and Cherson. He called the “elephants in the room”. Obviously, he wrote down the wafer, at least the Russian controlled parts. Real political understandable: “The Russians are de facto. The question is: Will the world acknowledge that they are Russian territories?” But he also legitimized the Russian claim: “You speak Russian.” And referred to the highly controversial speakers under the Russian occupation.

The negative points can be easily filtered out of the conversation with Carlson: Putin’s exaggerated positive representation, the insight that Kiev had to lose large parts of his area, the promise of elections with vague conditions. It remains unclear whether Ukrainians can vote in Russia. In a larger scale, it turns out that the US government wants to end the conflict with Russia because it hinders American interests elsewhere. Ukraine should pay the invoice for a Russian-American compensation in the Arctic. Witkoff gave concrete examples such as joint energy deliveries to Europe.

Positive aspects are more difficult to identify. Ukraine is currently losing the ground, a turn is not in sight. Kiev’s negotiating position disappears, because war results are only reflected at the table, not lifted. A US goal could be to secure Ukraine at least Kharkiw, Cherson and Odessa. In the event of conflicts about borders, such as the port of Odessa or the reactors in Saporischschja, “creative” solutions should help. The first step would be a real, comprehensive ceasefire, Witkoff sees this as a prerequisite for Trump’s negotiating strategy to relax the atmosphere for discussions. But only the Trump government seems to prioritize a quick end to the fights. Both parties of the war do not want to stand as a preventer, but they also do not force an armistice. The Russians could use the time for further area gains, while Ukraine tries to conquer Russian territory elsewhere as a negotiating extent after the defeat at Kursk.