Talks have picked up, and at the same time there was a strange and telling leak about the conversations between Mr. Witkoff and Mr. Dmitriev. The situation is troubling, because the Russians have shown that they can use a single individual to quite easily manipulate the American president. I hope their plan does not succeed.The leaked phone call is a major embarrassment or certainly should be for Mr. Witkoff, because it appears he was advising a senior Russian official on how President Putin could influence President Trump.This is not a good look. This is not how American diplomats are trained to operate. I was a diplomat for 31 years, and they are expected to represent American interests. It does not sound like that is what Mr. Witkoff was doing. Perhaps there is some context that would make it appear less troubling than the leaked report suggests, but it is still a very bad look. The United States should be pursuing its own interests, and its diplomats and envoys should be acting firmly in support of those interests.What’s most worrying is that this exchange happened just as major talks were underway between Washington, Moscow, Kyiv, and the European Union. The real focus now is the effort to outline a roadmap. First, a list of Russian demands surfaced online, and then we heard they would be revised. So where do things stand? And how realistic is it that the Russians are actually prepared to enter into negotiations?Against the views of many of my colleagues, I have always thought that Trump would ultimately pursue policies aimed at achieving a durable peace. His stated goal has been to secure a lasting peace based on the current lines occupied by the two militaries. Putin does not want that. Putin wants more. He wants effective control of Ukraine.Trump has said that he understands this, but he has not yet pursued a policy that could actually prevent Putin from accomplishing his objective. The 28-point plan was overwhelmingly skewed in Russia’s favor.Reading the transcript of the call between Witkoff and Ushakov, it appears that Witkoff may want that to be the ultimate outcome, which is not in America’s interests. I say “may” because we simply do not know for sure.But that approach was put into play as Trump was leaning toward major sanctions on Russia and sending significant new weapons systems to Ukraine, including Tomahawk missiles.That approach persuaded Trump not to move forward, because after that call, instead of Tomahawks for Ukraine and sanctions on Russia, we suddenly began hearing about a summit in Budapest.To Trump’s credit, he learned from the fiasco in Alaska that he needed someone reliable to verify whether Russia was actually willing to negotiate seriously and whether it was prepared to make real compromises. Rubio then reached out to Lavrov, and after their conversation, Rubio reported that there was nothing new.Trump then decided not to meet Putin in Budapest. Instead, the United States imposed major sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil. This worked out well for the United States and, I believe, for Ukraine, though certainly not for an aggressive Kremlin. But then, unfortunately, Dmitriev came to the United States. He worked with Witkoff on a document that became the 28-point plan, which again placed American policy in a very unfavorable position. Fortunately, that unfavorable position lasted only a few days. On Sunday, Rubio led an American team in negotiations with Ukraine.They produced a much better document, the 19-point plan, which we have not yet seen, but which reportedly removes the most egregious elements of the 28-point proposal, such as Ukraine handing over the western Donbas to Russian forces that have been unable to conquer it, and eliminating the cap on Ukraine’s military when there is no such cap on Russia.There were then talks in Abu Dhabi, and now Witkoff is heading to Moscow while Driscoll is returning to Ukraine. "At this point, the negotiations have returned to what I would describe as a reasonable place, unlike the very unreasonable direction they took last week."Is it even realistic to expect a written agreement, one that would be anchored not just in broad intentions, but in concrete security guarantees for Ukraine? And how much room do the Russians actually have to negotiate, given that some points are purely ornamental while others are issues they will never compromise on?I do not think that Putin wants to sign a deal. Such an agreement would prevent him from conquering more of Ukraine and from taking effective political control of the country. From what I am reading about the 19-point document, if it were accepted, it would make it very difficult for Putin to take additional Ukrainian territory."For that reason, I see no possibility that the Russians will agree to it."Many points in the 28-point document we have already seen were clear. Not most of them, but a significant number were disastrous and would have left Ukraine vulnerable to future Russian attacks.But one point that was not clear in the 28-point document, and which is crucial, is the issue you mentioned: security guarantees. I am not surprised that this point was vague or abstract, because it is politically difficult for the Trump team."To my mind, if Ukraine were allowed to join NATO and receive Article 5 protection, that would secure the country from future Russian aggression, but that is not going to happen at the present time."The United States, and several other NATO countries, are unwilling to take that step. A strong U.S. security guarantee with the weight of Article 5 could achieve the same result.I personally think that would be an excellent idea and a sound American policy. But I do not believe the Trump team has reached that conclusion. I would not rule out the possibility that they might, especially if such a guarantee became the key element of a deal. However, if it were included, I find it very hard to imagine the Kremlin accepting it, because it would ensure that Putin could not seize more of Ukraine.There’s a general belief that Putin is willing to keep the war going. But there are conditions that could push him to rethink his approach — a major economic shock and China’s stance. Xi Jinping and Donald Trump recently held a phone call, and their discussion went well beyond the war in Ukraine. For Putin, China’s position and the risk of Russia’s economy crashing are among the few factors that could truly force him to reconsider.I agree with you partly. I think Putin remains determined to seize far more Ukrainian territory. He wants control of the major cities along the Dnipro, especially Kyiv, and in the south he wants Odesa. He wants the entire Ukrainian Black Sea coast, and he believes he can wear Ukraine down by continuing the fight.He also believes that Donald Trump, like other Western leaders, will eventually grow tired of supporting Ukraine against Russia. That is his expectation, in my view. "However, the situation would be very different if strong, unified policies from the United States, NATO, and the EU made such ambitions impossible."This would require providing Ukraine with more advanced weapons—primarily from the United States, which produces the best systems in the world—and offering stronger economic support. And given the Trump team’s position, that would also require more economic assistance from the EU and other European states. If the EU, with support from the United States, or rather the G7 including the United States, endorsed transferring the nearly 300 billion dollars in frozen Russian state assets to Ukraine, that would provide substantial new economic support. With that level of assistance, Putin’s army would make no gains in Ukraine and might even begin to lose territory.The Russian economy would also come under far greater pressure from sanctions, and Putin might eventually be forced to end the war. But the only conditions under which he stops fighting are if Ukraine signs a surrender agreement, which Ukraine will not do. And Trump cannot demand that Ukraine sign such an agreement, because more than 80 percent of Americans support Ukraine in this war."Putin is the most disliked world leader among Americans."Only about 13 percent of Americans view him as even an acceptable leader. So I do not see Trump demanding surrender terms from Ukraine, even if some of his advisers might consider that option. The real question is when American and Western policy becomes stronger. I do not know the answer.But I do believe that if the policies of the United States, NATO and the EU remain where they are now, Putin cannot win this war and will eventually have to accept a durable peace and a sovereign, independent Ukraine.We were all taken aback when the recordings involving Mendich and the corruption allegations surfaced. It’s clear that the moment is approaching when President Zelensky and the opposition parties in parliament will need a much more serious internal dialogue. There has even been discussion about the need for a fundamentally new government — a completely new Cabinet of Ministers.You worked in Kyiv during the Orange Revolution. Do you see a way now to reboot the government without major disruption and to rethink the country’s direction?The scandal is significant, and the damage to Bankova is real. Although I think it has now been overshadowed by national security concerns, given how disastrous the 28-point document was for Ukraine. Zelenskyy has been an outstanding wartime leader, and he deserves great credit for that. History will show clearly that he has been an exceptional wartime leader.There has also been some progress on reform during Zelenskyy’s presidency, just as there was during Poroshenko’s, but it has not been enough. And this scandal made that clear, especially because it involved people very close to President Zelensky"One valid criticism of Zelenskyy since the full-scale invasion has been the restrictions placed on the media in Ukraine and on the movements of opposition figures who could be, and in many cases have been, very helpful in rallying support for Ukraine abroad. It would be very positive if all such restrictions were lifted."It would help Ukraine’s international standing, because there are highly competent opposition figures who have been doing important work in support of Ukraine against Kremlin aggression, especially on issues such as arms sales to Ukraine and countering Russia’s false claims about alleged repression of Christians in Ukraine.Allowing opposition members to travel to the West to present Ukraine’s position would not be a bad thing; it would be a very good thing. It would also be beneficial if the president engaged directly with the leaders of the various opposition parties to discuss the situation in Ukraine, both domestically and in terms of what Ukraine must do in order to prevail in this war.In 1215, King John signed the Magna Carta with the barons of England. During the Orange Revolution, Poland’s President Aleksander Kwaśniewski served as a key mediator. So it’s natural to expect that someone today might step forward to take on a similar role and launch the needed dialogue. Such discussions would have to be broad and inclusive, bringing together the EU, Ukraine’s government and opposition, and the United States. But how realistic is it to imagine a new, modern version of the Magna Carta being brokered? Kwaśniewski, of course, is no longer Poland’s president. Who now could carry enough trust to lead a process like this, and how could it be given a proper institutional framework? There are many unanswered questions — and the worrying possibility of more destabilizing scenarios.I remember the European role at that time. I remember when Kwasniewski came. The United States also played a role, in fact a very important one, in making sure there was no violence after the falsified election was overturned. We know that Moscow was applying pressure, and Yanukovych as well, urging Ukrainian forces to clear the streets of Kyiv. Thank goodness they did not do that, and both we and the Europeans helped prevent it.I do not believe the situation between the president of Ukraine and the opposition today is anywhere near as volatile or dangerous as it was then. Intervention from the outside was needed at that time to prevent violence. No one today is talking about the possibility of violence between the opposition and the administration in Ukraine. So I think this is a matter that Ukrainians need to resolve among themselves. Figures like Poroshenko have been calling for unity since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, and the Zelenskyy team has been less receptive to that.It would be helpful if some of the restrictions on opposition politicians were lifted so they could travel freely. A monopoly on the media is not needed in the current circumstances, and those constraints can be eased as well. But once again, this is something for Ukrainians to address internally.​​Anti-corruption bodies will keep working, and more information will come out — including some very prominent Ukrainian names. In the U.S. and the EU, people will look at these materials and ask, “Why are we funding a country that still can’t get corruption under control?” And certain political circles may use this as a tool to pressure Ukraine. So how real is the risk of a worst-case scenario, where some say, “You can’t keep signing blank checks for Ukraine,” and Trump responds, “I never intended to”? Especially now that the European Union has assumed most of the financial responsibility.As you know, one of the major policy changes Trump introduced when he returned to the White House was ending the American system of providing direct dollar aid to Ukraine — weapons and assistance that Ukraine did not have to pay for. Because of that, the corruption scandal in Ukraine has had less impact in the United States than in Europe.We all remember that when there was an attempt to undermine the independence of the anti-corruption agencies in Ukraine, the EU spoke out very strongly. That helped persuade Bankova to step back from those moves, along with the major demonstrations inside Ukraine. The United States did not play as significant a role in that situation.When this recent scandal became public, it was noted in the United States, but it was far less controversial here than in major European capitals, because again, it is Europe that is providing Ukraine with substantial financial aid"So obviously the scandal was damaging to Ukraine’s image. It also showed how corruption in Ukraine directly undermines Ukrainian security in relation to Russia. It is particularly notable that a major figure in the scandal is Derkach, a former Ukrainian politician who is now a Russian senator. That reflects very poorly on Bankova, because it happened while Ukraine is fighting a war against an openly aggressive Kremlin."I suspect, and we will have to wait and see, that this scandal will be addressed. I think steps are already being taken, but public attention has shifted to the war, as I mentioned earlier. Still, I do not think President Zelenskyy can avoid the domestic consequences of this scandal.Unless it is resolved publicly and with real, determined effort, I do not think President Zelenskyy, even as a highly respected wartime leader, will be able to fully restore his standing among the Ukrainian people.