By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, deviated from standard diplomatic procedure during three high-level meetings with Vladimir Putin by using Kremlin interpreters instead of his own. This decision, criticized by former U.S. ambassadors, raised concerns about potential misinterpretations and the lack of independent verification of Putin’s statements. Witkoff’s reliance on Kremlin translators also compromised the creation of accurate meeting records crucial for subsequent briefings and negotiations. Despite Witkoff’s efforts, Russia shows little interest in a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine.
Read the original article here
The Trump envoy’s reliance on a Kremlin interpreter during meetings with Putin to discuss ending the war in Ukraine is deeply concerning. The sheer incompetence of this decision is staggering; it’s akin to trusting Russian intelligence over your own, a blatant disregard for national security. This isn’t just a simple oversight; it points to a profound lack of understanding about the geopolitical landscape and the inherent risks involved.
This decision raises serious questions about the information relayed to the envoy. Did the interpreter accurately convey Putin’s messages, or did they subtly shape the narrative to favor the Kremlin’s agenda? The possibility that the envoy received a carefully curated version of Putin’s stance, omitting crucial details or presenting a misleadingly peaceful picture, is deeply troubling. The potential for manipulation is immense.
The fact that the envoy’s own interpreter was unavailable, possibly due to being fired, further exacerbates the situation. This lack of preparedness, combined with the choice to rely on a potentially biased interpreter, suggests a shocking level of negligence. It casts doubt on the entire negotiation process and raises questions about the validity of any agreements reached.
The envoy’s reported boast about “understanding Putin and the Russians better” is particularly alarming. This suggests a willingness to accept the Kremlin’s narrative at face value, potentially overlooking critical warnings or dissenting viewpoints. This raises concerns about the envoy’s judgment and objectivity throughout the discussions.
The situation is particularly troubling considering the potential motives behind Putin’s actions. Using interpreters as an act is a well-known tactic; a KGB agent himself, Putin is known to manipulate information. His ability to orchestrate the message received by the envoy is a dangerous and concerning possibility.
The lack of a trusted US interpreter raises even more serious red flags. The absence of an official US interpreter suggests a deliberate attempt to keep the discussions off the record, potentially to avoid accountability or scrutiny. This lack of transparency is completely unacceptable in such high-stakes negotiations.
This incident is reminiscent of the Helsinki meeting in Trump’s first term, where Trump famously declared he believed Putin over his own intelligence agencies. This recurring pattern demonstrates a disturbing lack of judgment and a concerning willingness to trust the Kremlin’s narrative.
The potential consequences of this disastrous decision extend beyond the immediate negotiations. The possibility of leaked information, intentional or not, could have significantly damaged US interests and strategic partnerships. The choice to rely on a Kremlin interpreter presents a security risk, both in terms of the information exchanged and the potential for manipulation.
Furthermore, the lack of a proper record of these conversations is alarming. Without a reliable record of what was said, there is no way to verify what agreements were reached, if any were truly reached in good faith. This lack of transparency threatens accountability and compromises future negotiations.
The entire situation exemplifies a profound level of incompetence and a blatant disregard for national security. The decision to trust a Kremlin interpreter suggests a prioritization of perceived personal relationships or convenience over national interests. It’s a deeply troubling example of how poor decision-making can compromise national security and the well-being of the United States. An investigation into this incident and the individuals involved is essential to ensure that similar mistakes are not repeated in the future. This incident is not merely a matter of incompetence; it represents a failure of judgment with potentially grave consequences.