In the polished boardrooms of Manhattan real estate, Steve Witkoff was once regarded as a master of the deal. A self-made billionaire, he rose from modest beginnings to amass a portfolio of luxury hotels, high-rise towers, and multimillion-dollar developments that transformed sections of New York’s skyline. For years, he was a fixture among the city’s elite, moving in circles where politics and business blurred easily, loyalty counted more than ideology, and proximity to power could elevate a property mogul into a political confidant.
Today, Witkoff stands far from the glittering skyline he helped shape. His current stage is far more volatile, defined not by blueprints and board meetings but by Eastern Europe's complex, blood-stained politics. It is here, in the midst of a brutal war between Ukraine and Russia, that Witkoff has inserted himself into one of the most delicate geopolitical processes of the modern era. And it is here that his business past, particularly his ties to the Russian capital and his troubling admiration for Vladimir Putin, have raised profound and urgent questions about the legitimacy of his role.
Witkoff is not a diplomat, nor does he claim to be. He lacks formal training in foreign policy and has never served in public office. Yet through his friendship with Donald Trump, he has become a central player in a loosely structured and largely opaque effort to shape peace negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow. According to multiple sources, Witkoff has acted as an informal liaison, delivering messages, facilitating contact between parties, and even helping draft a controversial peace proposal that would dramatically reshape the map of Ukraine.
His sudden emergence in this role has stunned many observers, not just because of his inexperience but because of what he brings with him. Witkoff nurtured close financial and personal ties with influential Russian figures for years. His company courted Russian money, like many real estate developers seeking investment, when offshore wealth from Moscow flooded the New York market. Perhaps most damning are his ties to Len Blavatnik, a man with direct ties to the Kremlin. In 2021 the Witcoff Group in partnership with Blavatnik's Acess Industries acquired the One High Line project in New York. A project which has surpassed $1 billion in sales as of 2025.
Witkoff's deep business ties to Blavatnik are problematic becaue Blavatnik was sanctioned by Ukraine in 2023. Despite this Witkoff did not cut ties to Blavatnik. Instead, Witkoff doubled down on his business relationship with Blavatnik. In January of 2024 Witkoff and Blavatnik bought Banyan Cay Resort & Golf Club in West Palm Beach together. To do so the pair took out a joint $75 million loan. To be fair to Blavatnik he claims to have sold his last Russian holdings in 2022. He also vehemately denies any affilation with the Kremlin. However, the reality still stands that Blavatnik is sanctioned by the Ukrainian government and his a history of ties with numerous Russian oligarchs.
These financial connections were not exceptional in their time. But in the present context, they have acquired a dangerous relevance. If Witkoff remained a private citizen perhaps this relationship wouldn't be an issue, but he chose to go into negotiations. In this regard having a $75 million dollar joint loan with a person sanctioned by the government you are attempting to neogotiate with is a massive liability. This is issue is further amplified by the threat of Russian influence. The fact, is Ukraine is on the front lines, quite literally, of that fight. In this environment, the appearance of even indirect financial dependence on Russian wealth is not a footnote. It is a red flag.
Further complicating matters are Witkoff’s personal views on Russia’s authoritarian leader. In recent months, he has gone out of his way to praise Vladimir Putin, describing him as “a great guy,” “super smart,” and even “honest.” These are not just offhand comments. They have been made publicly, repeatedly, and with enthusiasm that suggests genuine admiration. When asked about these statements, Witkoff has not walked them back. Instead, he has doubled down, insisting that Putin is someone he respects and that “we need to be realistic about working with people like him.”
This posture has sent shockwaves through diplomatic circles and enraged officials in Kyiv. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s administration, already skeptical of American-led peace overtures, was reportedly “deeply disturbed” by Witkoff’s involvement. Speaking anonymously, A senior Ukrainian adviser said that Witkoff’s public praise for Putin had damaged trust and made any negotiation process involving him “inherently suspect.” Ukrainian civil society groups have echoed that sentiment, warning that entrusting a businessman with documented ties to Russian money and an open admiration for Russia’s president with shaping peace talks is an affront to the sacrifices Ukrainians have made.
This outrage has only grown in light of the peace proposal that Witkoff is said to have helped draft. The proposal, which has circulated among Trump’s foreign policy inner circle, includes provisions that would formally recognize Russia’s control over Crimea, effectively cede parts of the Donbas to Russian influence, and provide early sanctions relief before the withdrawal of Russian forces. In Kyiv, such a framework is seen not as a roadmap to peace but as a capitulation in disguise.
For many Ukrainian leaders, the most troubling aspect of this proposal is not just its substance but its potential to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. They believe it reflects the worldview of someone who sees Putin not as a war criminal but as a misunderstood pragmatist. That belief, they argue, renders Witkoff incapable of representing the interests of a sovereign Ukraine. They point out that diplomacy is not simply about making deals. It is about legitimacy. It is about moral clarity. And it is about trust. On those counts, they argue, Witkoff has already failed.
Even within Trump’s orbit, doubts are emerging. While the former president reportedly values Witkoff’s loyalty and appreciates his business instincts, some of his advisers are beginning to question whether this is a gamble worth taking. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have both expressed reservations about lifting energy sanctions. Their concern is that doing so would allow Russia to recover economically, enabling it to continue weaponizing oil and gas as tools of geopolitical coercion. Witkoff, on the other hand, has reportedly argued that economic reintegration is essential to bringing Putin to the table, an argument that aligns more closely with Russian talking points than with Western strategy.
Witkoff’s defenders say that he brings an outsider’s perspective, a businessman’s pragmatism, and a willingness to speak plainly. However, critics argue that this supposed plainspokenness is merely a lack of sophistication and that his approach reduces a complex, deeply human conflict into a transactional negotiation. Peace, they argue, cannot be achieved through the lens of a real estate deal. It cannot be built on a foundation of compromise with war criminals or acceptance of land seizures. It must be rooted in justice and accountability. Anything less is an insult to the thousands of lives lost in this conflict.
Witkoff stands at the center of an escalating game that is growing more treacherous with each passing day. Each foray into Moscow, each secretive discussion with Putin, and every draft of a skewed agreement chips away at the already fragile framework of international unity supporting Ukraine. Furthermore, with each admiring remark he makes about a leader whose actions have led to the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, he not only diminishes his credibility but also erodes the moral force that should underpin any proposals he seeks to advance. The implications of his choices weigh heavily as they threaten to unravel a collective stand against tyranny and injustice.
It is not just about whether Witkoff has the right intentions. It is about whether his past and worldview disqualify him from being taken seriously. In the end, peace may come through negotiation. However, if that negotiation is led by someone who sees Putin as a partner rather than a perpetrator, then peace may come at a too high price.
Ukraine and the world cannot afford that kind of peace.
Add comment
Comments