By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the success of the Gaza peace deal, US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff proposed a collaborative effort with Russia to establish a similar plan for Ukraine. Witkoff, during a brief phone call with Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign policy aide, offered advice on how Putin should present the proposal to Donald Trump. Witkoff suggested Putin initiate a call with Trump before a planned White House visit by Volodymyr Zelenskiy, utilizing the Gaza agreement as a model.
Read the original article here
Witkoff Advised Russia on How to Pitch Ukraine Plan to Trump – a Situation of Grave Concern
Let’s dive right into this; the crux of the matter is that Steve Witkoff, a figure deeply intertwined with the Trump administration, appears to have advised Russia on how to best present a Ukraine peace plan to Donald Trump. This is not simply a matter of diplomacy; it raises serious questions about allegiances, potential conflicts of interest, and the overall integrity of the process. It’s a move that, from the surface, appears to be a betrayal of the United States’ interests, and possibly, one step closer to actual treason.
Considering the fact that Witkoff suggested Putin himself engage Trump on the issue, it suggests a strategic alignment that goes beyond mere advisory roles. The advice allegedly included guidance on timing, presentation, and even leveraging existing agreements, like the Gaza peace deal, to frame the pitch favorably. This paints a picture of someone actively helping a foreign power navigate the complexities of dealing with a former U.S. president.
The timing of this alleged advice is also worth noting. The call between Witkoff and a senior Kremlin official, Yuri Ushakov, occurred around the time of a planned visit by Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the White House. This timing is incredibly suggestive of trying to shape the narrative and influence Trump before he met with the Ukrainian president. It’s like trying to get the upper hand, setting the stage for a particular outcome before the main event even happens.
Looking at the broader picture, the situation brings up questions about Witkoff’s motivations. It’s difficult to see how this kind of action benefits the U.S. and Ukraine, and how it really benefits anyone except maybe the individuals directly involved. Concerns about personal enrichment and business interests always seem to come into play.
The fact that Witkoff allegedly told his Russian counterpart that he had deep respect for Putin and that he had told Trump that it was his belief that Russia has always wanted a peace deal is also concerning. It is very difficult to accept this at face value, given the reality of the ongoing war and the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This raises the question of whether this was a genuine belief, or simply a strategic move to “grease the wheels” and influence Trump’s perception. This adds another layer of complexity, raising concerns about deceit and manipulation.
The implications of all this are severe. If Witkoff was indeed advising Russia on how to approach Trump, it suggests a willingness to prioritize personal or financial gain over the best interests of the country. This raises questions about whether this situation could be characterized as aiding and abetting an enemy, which could be considered treasonous.
This situation also casts a shadow on the entire Trump administration. It raises questions about the individuals close to Trump, and the extent to which they were influenced by outside interests. In this scenario, the U.S. appears to be playing the role of a Russian supporter rather than an objective mediator. This undermines the credibility of the U.S. on the international stage.
The situation also raises questions about the motivations of both Witkoff and Trump. Are they driven by a shared vision of foreign policy, or are they motivated by a desire for personal gain? We might have to follow the money, as they say. Who is benefiting from this arrangement?
It’s clear that the details of Witkoff’s involvement need to be thoroughly investigated. His role within the Trump administration, and the nature of his interactions with Russian officials, deserve careful scrutiny. At the very least, his actions raise serious questions about his fitness to hold such a position.
Whether this represents a grave breach of trust, or something even more serious, is something that has to be decided. The potential consequences of this situation are far-reaching, and they warrant the most serious attention.
Witkoff’s connections, and his alleged actions, deserve thorough scrutiny. This isn’t just a political matter; it touches on issues of national security, foreign policy, and the fundamental principles of the rule of law.