The Witkoff Leak

I couldn’t find a good overview of what we know about the Witkoff leak, so I decided to write my own. What you’ll find below:

• Context
• What the leaked calls show
• Who leaked the calls?
• Reactions
• Relevance, moving forward

Context: the Trump 28-point peace plan and Witkoff’s role

• Trump’s administration has been pushing a 28-point plan to end the war in Ukraine, explicitly modelled on his Gaza ceasefire deal. The plan is being drafted by the U.S. with heavy Russian input, particularly via Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund and a key Kremlin fixer. (Axios)

• Axios and Al Jazeera reporting, plus various leaks, converge on the same core features of the original draft:

  • Ukraine would recognise Russia’s control over Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, including some currently Ukrainian-held areas of Donetsk.
  • Front lines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia would be frozen along the current line of contact.
  • Ukraine’s armed forces would be cut from ~900,000 to ~600,000 troops.
  • Ukraine would be barred from NATO, with the EU and others offering some alternative security guarantees. (Al Jazeera)
• Unsurprisingly, Kyiv and most European capitals saw this draft as a capitulation: “written in Russian to begin with,” as one U.S. senator described it after being briefed. (Al Jazeera)
• Steve Witkoff is a New York real-estate developer, long-time Trump friend and fundraiser, made “Special Envoy for Peace Missions” despite having no classical diplomatic background. He helped broker Trump’s Gaza deal and has become de facto lead envoy on the Ukraine track, including multi-day drafting sessions with Dmitriev in Florida. (Axios)

That’s the backdrop: an already-controversial, heavily Russia-leaning draft, being sold by a non-traditional envoy with strong personal ties to Trump and documented access to senior Russians.

Major sources:

• Newsweek
• Al Jazeera
• Newsweek
• Reuters
• The Guardian
• The Guardian
• TIME
• The Guardian

What the leaked calls show

The Oct 14 Witkoff–Ushakov call

Bloomberg obtained and transcribed a call on 14 October 2025 between:

• Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy
• Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s top foreign-policy aide and long-time Kremlin operator

Key elements from the transcript, as summarised by AP, Meduza and Euronews: (AP News)

1. Staging the Trump–Putin optics

   • Witkoff explicitly tells Ushakov Putin should call Trump after the Gaza deal:

     • Congratulate him for the ceasefire,
     • Say Russia supported it,
     • Frame Trump as a “man of peace”.

   • The idea is to create a positive, ego-stroking context before pivoting to Ukraine:

     “From that, it’s going to be a really good call,” Witkoff says (per AP’s summary). (AP News)

   • Witkoff pushes to have the Putin–Trump call before Zelensky’s visit to the White House, so Trump meets Zelensky with a fresh, flattering Putin conversation in his head. (euronews)

2. Substance: what Russia “needs” to get a deal

   • Witkoff refers to a “20-point Trump plan” and suggests doing the same with Moscow. (euronews)

   • Crucially, he tells Ushakov:

     “I know what it’s going to take to get a peace deal done: Donetsk and maybe a land swap somewhere.” (euronews)

     That is: de facto acceptance that Russia must keep Donetsk and potentially receive further compensating territory.

   • He then advises not to talk openly in these terms but to “talk more hopefully,” because he believes Trump will give him broad discretion to get to a deal. (euronews)

3. Role-playing the sales job

   • Witkoff coaches Ushakov on how to frame the plan as shared:

     • Suggesting Putin say that “Steve and Yuri” discussed a similar plan,
     • Presenting it as a mutual Trump–Putin peace project, rather than a Russian diktat.

4. Frequency and informality

   • Ushakov later confirms on Russian TV that he speaks to Witkoff “quite often” by phone, and does not dispute the authenticity of the transcript, while insisting that the conversations are confidential. (AP News)

The Oct 29 Ushakov–Dmitriev call

Bloomberg also obtained a second call, on 29 October, between: (AP News)

• Yuri Ushakov
• Kirill Dmitriev, Russian sovereign wealth fund head and key architect of the plan

Key points:

• Ushakov pushes a maximalist Russian draft:

  “We need the maximum … Otherwise, what’s the point of passing anything on?” (euronews)

• Dmitriev agrees to submit “our position” to Witkoff, acknowledging the Americans probably won’t take it “exactly,” but hoping the final plan will be “as close to it as possible.” (AP News)
• This directly undercuts later U.S. claims that the 28-point plan was simply “authored by the U.S.”: Russia is plainly drafting a wish-list document intended to be the baseline. (AP News)

Verification status

• Bloomberg says it reviewed recordings of both calls.
• AP, Reuters and others treat the transcripts as credible but note they have not independently verified the audio. (AP News)
• Ushakov and Kremlin spokespeople do not deny the calls happened, but complain about the leak instead. (AP News)

So in terms of evidence: nobody serious is pretending the calls are fabricated; the argument is whether what Witkoff did is scandalous or just “hard-nosed diplomacy”.

Who leaked the calls?

We genuinely don’t know. Newsweek lays out three plausible categories of suspects rather than a single smoking gun: (Newsweek)

1. U.S. intelligence / Western intel

   • Parallels are drawn with the Michael Flynn case: monitoring foreign officials, then catching U.S. interlocutors on the line and leaking.
   • Richard Grenell and Glenn Greenwald suggest this is another intelligence community hit job against Trump-world, but provide no evidence. (Newsweek)

2. A NATO ally

   • Some analysts speculate a European service may have intercepted and leaked the calls to blow up a plan they see as dangerous for European security (because of territorial concessions and restrictions on Ukraine’s military). (Newsweek)

3. Russia

   • Moscow denies leaking, calling the publication an example of “hybrid warfare” and insisting the aim is to hinder U.S.–Russia rapprochement. (Reuters)
   • However, Christo Grozev and other investigators point out that at least one call was held over unencrypted GSM, calling the Russian side “idiots” for doing high-level business on lines Western services have been exploiting for a decade. (Newsweek)

Bottom line: the leak likely comes from whichever side’s SIGINT guys were listening in – U.S., European, or Russian – but the political narrative about the leaker is already part of the fight.

Reactions by key actors

Trump and the White House

Trump’s line is very simple:

• The call is “a standard thing”:

  • “He’s got to sell this to Ukraine. He’s got to sell Ukraine to Russia. That’s what a dealmaker does.” (Newsweek)
• He insists Witkoff is talking the same way to Kyiv, and that this is how serious negotiations work: you speak frankly about what the other side needs, then nudge them toward it.
• Trump does not dispute the transcript and continues to back Witkoff, even sending him to Moscow next week to meet Putin, while Army Secretary Dan Driscoll goes to Kyiv. (Newsweek)
• White House communications director Steven Cheung spins the leak as proof that Witkoff is talking “nearly every day” to both Russia and Ukraine “to achieve peace”, i.e. that the leak is evidence of industrious diplomacy rather than disloyalty. (Newsweek)

Strategically, Trump has softened his deadline after the backlash (no more hard “Thanksgiving or else” ultimatum) and now stresses that the plan was “fine-tuned” and is not a final take-it-or-leave-it offer. (Al Jazeera)

MAGA / pro-Trump orbit

Two main themes:

1. The leak is the scandal, not the content.

   • Richard Grenell: “Find the leaker and fire them immediately. No excuses. The anonymous leaker is a national security risk.” (Newsweek)
   • Glenn Greenwald compares it directly to the Flynn interception, calling it “the most serious leaking crime in the US Code” if U.S. intel is behind it. (Newsweek)

2. Criticism from Europe and Congress is framed as obstructionism.

   • JD Vance, now VP, has publicly rebuked European leaders for their pushback, arguing that they are undermining an effort to stop the killing while still relying on U.S. security guarantees. (Al Jazeera)

This camp implicitly accepts that Witkoff is being helpful to Moscow in form, but argues that’s in service of a peace deal, and that the real enemy is the leaker and the “warmongers” who want to kill the plan.

U.S. Congress and party politics

Here the split is not simply Democrat vs Republican; it’s pro-Ukraine vs “deal at any cost”, cutting across party lines.

Democrats

• Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) calls Witkoff an “actual traitor”, adding: “Steve Witkoff is supposed to work for the United States, not Russia.” (The Guardian)
• Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) says Witkoff and Trump “are in bed with the Russians” and that the plan aligns with Russian interests. (Newsweek)
• Multiple Democrats call for Witkoff’s removal from his post and for investigations into how this channel was set up and supervised. (The Guardian)

Non-MAGA Republicans

• Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) says the transcript shows Witkoff “fully favors the Russians” and asks bluntly:

  “Would a Russian paid agent do less than he?” – concluding Witkoff “cannot be trusted” and “should be fired.” (AP News)

• Other Republicans like Brian Fitzpatrick, Mitch McConnell, Roger Wicker criticise the plan and the back-channeling as undermining Ukraine and sidelining the State Department. (The Guardian)

So you end up with an odd alignment: hawks in both parties are livid, while core MAGA plus some isolationist voices are defensive or focused on the leak.

Official U.S. government line (State, etc.)

The institutional line is much more cautious:

• Secretary of State Marco Rubio insists the plan was “authored by the U.S.” with input from both Russia and Ukraine, and denies that it’s simply a Russian wish-list. (AP News)
• The State Department declines detailed comment on the leaked calls, and the AP notes it has not independently verified Bloomberg’s audio. (AP News)
• The White House defends Witkoff and keeps him in place, signalling Trump has no intention of sacrificing him to calm Congress. (AP News)

Institutionally, they’re trying to ring-fence the damage: acknowledge the call exists, frame it as normal diplomacy, insist the plan is still “under negotiation”.

Kyiv

Kyiv’s official reaction is careful and heavily filtered through the larger fight over the plan:

• Zelensky has not publicly attacked Witkoff personally. Instead, he focuses on the principles of any acceptable agreement:

  • Borders must not be changed by force.
  • Ukraine must have real, durable security guarantees.
  • The deal must not sow the seeds of a future war. (Al Jazeera)

• After the Geneva talks, Ukrainian and U.S. officials say the original 28-point draft was cut down to 19 points, with Ukraine’s concerns partially addressed; Kyiv is said to have “tentatively agreed in principle” to a revised framework, with territorial issues kicked up to Trump and Zelensky personally. (ABC News)

But inside Ukraine and its information space:

• Ukrainian outlets and Western-facing projects (NV, RBC-Ukraine, UA Crisis) highlight the leak as proof that Witkoff is “on Russia’s side”, which deepens domestic suspicion of both the plan and Trump’s intentions. (RBC Ukraine)
• The calls are weaponised as evidence that Trump’s envoys are effectively negotiating with Russia about what Ukraine must give up, and only then “selling” it to Kyiv.

Kyiv’s leadership is stuck in a bind: publicly they can’t blow up the only active peace track with the U.S. president, but the leak makes it much harder to sell any compromise to a domestic audience that now has a transcript of Washington and Moscow gaming out their future borders over the phone.

Moscow

Russia’s reaction is almost entirely about narrative control, not denial:

• Ushakov confirms the calls and complains that publishing conversations is an attempt “to interfere” and “hinder” relations with the U.S. (AP News)
• Deputy FM Sergei Ryabkov calls the leak part of Western “hybrid war” and says it’s “unacceptable” – while also ruling out any “significant concessions” in the peace talks. (Reuters)
• Dmitry Peskov says it’s premature to suggest a near-term deal and warns against overinterpreting media leaks. (Newsweek)
• Putin himself says the revised U.S. blueprint “could lay the foundation for a final peace settlement,” but also threatens to seize more Ukrainian territory if Kyiv does not accept it – which, combined with battlefield advances in areas the plan hands to Russia, looks more like leveraging talks to ratify gains than genuine compromise. (Al Jazeera)

So Moscow’s message is: yes, we’re talking; no, we didn’t leak; and no, we’re not backing down on our maximalist demands.

EU and European leaders

The loudest structural opposition is coming from Europe:

• Ursula von der Leyen: any credible peace must

  • stop the killing,
  • not change borders by force,
  • avoid capping Ukraine’s military, and
  • keep the EU central to security guarantees. (Al Jazeera)

• A joint statement at the G20 (UK, Canada, Finland, France, Spain, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Ireland) signals deep concern about:

  • rewarding Russia with territory,
  • shrinking Ukraine’s armed forces,
  • sidelining NATO and EU decision-making. (Al Jazeera)

• Macron and Kallas go further: they stress that cutting Ukraine’s military and accepting Russian land grabs would invite a future attack; Macron explicitly says Russia will “come back” if there is no serious deterrence. (Al Jazeera)

The leak itself is less central to EU messaging than the substance it reveals:

• The call confirms what Europeans already suspected: that the Trump team is co-creating a plan with the Kremlin that would lock in major Russian gains and reshape European security without full European input.
• It therefore reinforces the EU insistence that they will not bless a peace deal that violates core principles, even if it’s brokered by Washington.

How serious is this, analytically?

If you strip away the noise, three structural points emerge:

The leak confirms the “Russian wish-list” critique

Before the leak, critics could suspect the 28-point plan was heavily skewed towards Moscow. After the leak, there is direct evidence that:

• Russian officials openly talk about drafting the paper from their maximum position, and
• expect the final U.S. proposal to be “as close as possible” to that maximum. (AP News)

That makes it much harder to sell the plan as a neutral U.S. attempt to balance interests.

Witkoff’s role is no longer deniable

The calls show Witkoff is not just passively listening; he is:

• Actively co-engineering the Kremlin’s approach to Trump (wording, timing, flattery), and
• Signalling that he understands – and to some extent shares – Russia’s minimal conditions (keeping Donetsk and more). (Reuters)

Whether you call that “standard deal-making” or “actual betrayal” is politics; factually, he’s helping Russia package its position.

Politically, the leak raises the cost of any compromise

For Trump to succeed with this plan, he needs:

• Kyiv to accept painful concessions;
• Europeans to swallow a settlement that violates their stated red lines;
• U.S. Congress to go along with a deal seen as “ending the war”.

The leak:

• Hardens U.S. congressional opposition, including among Republicans;
• Gives European leaders more ammunition to say “this was shaped in Moscow”;
• Makes it politically harder for Zelensky to agree to anything resembling what Witkoff is discussing on tape.

In other words, even if the plan was sincere, the leak has significantly reduced its viability by exposing how it was made and who it really favours.