By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On October 14, Steve Witkoff advised Russian official Yuri Ushakov to have President Putin call President Trump, offering suggestions on what Putin should say. Following this, Putin did call Trump on October 16, and on October 17, during a meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky, Trump did not offer Tomahawk missiles, potentially due to the influence of the call. Witkoff’s actions, including promoting Putin’s positions, may have contributed to prolonging the war by encouraging the Russians and could be influencing Trump to not pressure Russia. This behavior and the conversations about potential investments with Russia suggest a deeper motivation, which is still unknown.
Read the original article here
Why Does Steve Witkoff Keep Taking Russia’s Side? Because he’s been painted as a Russian asset, and the implications behind that seem to have some weight, the main idea behind it seems to come from the fact that his actions repeatedly seem to benefit Russia’s interests. There’s a persistent thread that suggests he’s acting as a conduit, potentially using his position to advocate for Russia and its aims. This pattern is noted as being particularly problematic given the current global geopolitical climate.
Why Does Steve Witkoff Keep Taking Russia’s Side? The prevailing sentiment suggests that the financial incentives behind this behavior are substantial. The phrase “follow the money” is used repeatedly, hinting that Witkoff’s actions are motivated by monetary gains, and the money seems to come from Russia. There are mentions of untraceable bitcoin, and that he is an unregistered foreign agent, which adds further weight to the suspicion of financial entanglements. This view is further complicated by the fact that some suspect his actions were used to benefit others by laundering money through.
Why Does Steve Witkoff Keep Taking Russia’s Side? The role of Trump and his relationship with Russia is central to the discussion. Witkoff is depicted as someone operating on behalf of Trump, and by extension, seemingly on behalf of Putin. The implication is that Witkoff’s actions are part of a larger pattern of alignment between Trump and Russia. He seems to be playing a role that is aligned with Putin’s interests, and there’s a strong belief that Trump supports this alignment.
Why Does Steve Witkoff Keep Taking Russia’s Side? The very nature of his work is questioned as it does not seem to serve American interests. The fact that he’s a real estate developer, with apparent ties to business deals with Russian oligarchs, is seen as suspicious, with critics implying that this background is incompatible with his current role. His involvement in certain negotiations, particularly regarding sensitive matters with Russia, is viewed with skepticism, which is strengthened by the fact that his work seems to benefit the Russians by painting them in a positive light while making concessions for them.
Why Does Steve Witkoff Keep Taking Russia’s Side? The actions of this administration are mentioned as being, in their entirety, aligned to the interests of Russia. This overarching view contributes to the conclusion that Witkoff’s behavior is not an isolated incident but part of a wider trend. The fact that he would be fired in any other administration suggests he is being protected due to his connection to Trump.
Why Does Steve Witkoff Keep Taking Russia’s Side? Political motivations are also considered in the context of the greater political dynamic. Some consider this a symptom of the current Republican party, and its voters deciding to align with Russia to keep Trump and other dictators in power. It is implied that Witkoff’s support for Russia is viewed as a consequence of this political alignment. This suggests a partisan dimension to the issue, as well.
Why Does Steve Witkoff Keep Taking Russia’s Side? Ultimately, the answer seems to lie with the belief that he is being paid to do so. Whether through direct payments, implicit financial benefits, or other means of compensation, the conclusion is that Witkoff’s loyalty lies with the money, and that the financial gains from this relationship are significant enough to warrant his actions. The conclusion that he is a “Russian asset” seems to sum up the majority of the views.