Steven Pifer Says US Step Back From Russia-Ukraine Mediation Could Help Kyiv

Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer says Washington’s apparent decision to step back from mediating Russia-Ukraine peace talks may not be a setback for Kyiv – and could even work in Ukraine’s favor.

In  an op-ed for The Hill, Pifer argued that President Donald Trump’s mediation effort has failed because the administration mishandled the process, embraced key Russian demands early, and refused to back diplomacy with real pressure on Moscow.

Pifer cited Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s May 22 remarks in India, where Rubio suggested Washington had seen little progress in brokering an end to Russia’s war against Ukraine.

“We just… sensed that there wasn’t a lot of progress being made,” Rubio said. “If someone else would like to handle it, they should.

The former ambassador wrote that Rubio was right to acknowledge the lack of progress, arguing that Kyiv has shown readiness to discuss peace in the context of a balanced settlement, while Moscow has given no sign of changing its maximalist position.

“Nothing suggests that Moscow has made any significant change in its bargaining position. It simply wants Ukraine to capitulate,” Pifer wrote.

The ex-envoy said warning signs appeared early in Trump’s mediation effort. He pointed to Trump’s February 2025 remarks that Ukraine should not expect to recover all its territory or join NATO – positions that Pifer said effectively accepted major Kremlin demands before negotiations had even begun.

Pifer also criticized Trump’s rhetoric toward President Volodymyr Zelensky and the administration’s handling of international diplomacy, including what he described as Washington siding with Russia, North Korea and Iran against a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia as the aggressor.

He reserved particular criticism for Trump’s chief negotiator, Steven Witkoff, saying Witkoff had visited Moscow eight times without traveling to Kyiv and had shown a troubling willingness to accept Russian narratives.

According to Pifer, Witkoff’s comments about Russian-speaking Ukrainians in occupied territories reflected a basic misunderstanding of Ukraine. The former ambassador noted that in Ukraine’s 1991 independence referendum, every region voted in favor of independence from Moscow.

Still, Pifer argued that the greatest responsibility for the failed mediation lies with Trump himself.

“In his eagerness to play nice with Putin, Trump has not supported his negotiator by using his very considerable leverage with the Russian leader,” Pifer wrote. Washington could tighten sanctions on Russia or threaten more military aid to Ukraine. Instead, the administration lifted some oil sanctions and bragged about ending Ukraine aid in 2025.

“If Putin can string Trump along and avoid new sanctions, what incentive does he have to negotiate seriously?” Pifer wrote.

According to the former US diplomat, a pause or end to US mediation would cost Ukraine little because the process has produced no apparent progress on issues that matter to Kyiv. It could also reduce pressure on Ukraine to make what he called one-sided concessions, including demands to surrender territory that Russia does not even fully occupy.

Looking ahead, Pifer said a mediator may eventually prove useful if the Kremlin becomes ready for a genuine settlement. But he argued that such a mediator does not have to be American.

Europe, he wrote, has a more direct stake in the outcome of the war and would likely provide a less biased mediation effort.

“For starters, Europe would send its chief negotiator to Kyiv as well as Moscow,” Pifer concluded.