"Ivanka BEGS Daddy Trump To SAVE HER HUSBAND As SCANDAL ERUPTS🚨"
Jared Kushner Draws Laughter in Kyiv as Trump's Ukraine Peace Push Runs Into a Territorial Deadlock
Trump envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff have revived direct diplomacy with Moscow and Kyiv, but Russia’s territorial demands, Ukraine’s refusal to surrender land it still controls, and continued Russian attacks show how far the parties remain from a durable settlement.
President Donald Trump's renewed effort to end Russia's war in Ukraine has placed his son-in-law Jared Kushner at the center of one of the administration's most difficult diplomatic missions. Kushner and special envoy Steve Witkoff traveled to Moscow and Kyiv in early September 2026 in an attempt to restart negotiations that had been largely frozen for months, meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on consecutive days.
The assignment comes against the backdrop of one of Trump's most memorable campaign promises. During the 2024 campaign, Trump repeatedly said he could end the war in "24 hours," at times saying he could settle it before taking office. More than a year and a half into his second term, the war continues. Russia still occupies large areas of Ukrainian territory, Ukraine continues striking Russian military and energy targets, and both sides remain far apart on the status of land in eastern Ukraine.
The public record, however, does not establish that Trump assigned Kushner the job in order to make him a scapegoat, nor is there verified evidence that Ivanka Trump is "in panic" over the mission. What the record does show is that Kushner has become an increasingly important unofficial-style presidential envoy, working alongside Witkoff on Ukraine as well as other foreign-policy negotiations during Trump's second term.
Their latest push began with a September 5 meeting in Moscow. According to the White House and multiple news organizations, Witkoff and Kushner spent about three hours with Putin discussing possible next steps toward renewed peace negotiations. The two then traveled to Kyiv on September 6 for their first visit to the Ukrainian capital in their current negotiating roles, where they met Zelenskyy and senior Ukrainian officials.
No breakthrough followed. The central obstacle remains territory. Russia has demanded that Ukraine withdraw from areas of the Donbas that Moscow claims as Russian territory but does not fully control. Ukraine has repeatedly rejected giving up land that remains under Ukrainian control and has argued that territorial questions cannot be resolved without credible security guarantees against another Russian attack.
That disagreement became unusually visible days later at the 22nd Yalta European Strategy conference in Kyiv, held September 11-12. Kushner addressed the gathering by video link and described what he said remained unresolved after the Moscow and Kyiv meetings. He said Putin had "laid out his line" for what Russia wanted territorially and added that if Ukraine were willing to withdraw to that line, much of the rest of a potential agreement had already been developed.
Kushner also stressed that Washington was still looking for a formula that would not simply override Ukraine's position. He described the U.S. role as finding a "creative solution" that could address Ukrainian concerns while persuading Russia to end the conflict in a framework intended to prevent another war. That qualification is important because some commentary about his remarks has reduced them to a simple American ultimatum that Ukraine must surrender territory.
Still, one line from Kushner produced a striking reaction inside the Kyiv conference hall. While describing the leaders' willingness to negotiate, he said Trump was committed, Zelenskyy was committed, and that "from what we heard, President Putin is very committed to this as well." Foreign Policy editor in chief Ravi Agrawal, who was at the conference, wrote that the hall erupted in laughter after the reference to Putin's commitment.
The reaction reflected a deep credibility problem facing any peace proposal built on assumptions about Moscow's intentions. Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and has continued large-scale missile, drone and ground attacks while simultaneously participating in intermittent diplomacy. Ukrainian officials and many European governments argue that any settlement must therefore include enforceable security guarantees rather than rely solely on Russian promises.
Trump himself has often described the war differently from Ukraine and its European supporters. In February 2025, he told reporters that Ukraine "should have never started" the war and could have made a deal, comments that drew immediate criticism because Russia initiated the full-scale invasion. Trump has also repeatedly pressed both Kyiv and Moscow to negotiate, alternately criticizing Zelenskyy and expressing frustration or disappointment with Putin as talks have stalled.
The administration's current diplomacy is therefore more complicated than the claim that Washington simply supports Moscow's position. Trump's envoys have pressed Ukraine on territorial concessions, but the administration has also continued efforts to pressure Russia. On September 18, Trump signed a major sanctions law targeting Russia's energy and defense sectors and its shadow tanker fleet, while also authorizing additional economic pressure on major buyers of Russian energy.
That move came only days after the Kushner controversy in Kyiv and demonstrates the mixed nature of the U.S. strategy: direct engagement with Putin, pressure on Ukraine to consider difficult compromises, and at the same time additional economic sanctions aimed at Moscow. Whether those tracks can be combined into an effective negotiating strategy remains unresolved.
Events on the ground have further complicated the peace push. During the YES conference weekend, Kyiv was under air-raid alerts, and Russian attacks continued elsewhere in Ukraine. On September 13 — the day after the conference ended — a Russian drone struck a passenger train near the Ukrainian-Polish border, about two kilometers from Poland. The same route is frequently used by foreign officials traveling to and from Kyiv, and a train carrying former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and other European figures had passed through the area shortly beforehand.
A separate Russian strike hit near the Yahodyn crossing, less than a mile from Polish territory, temporarily disrupting border operations. There were no reported casualties in the train strike. The attacks were significant because Poland is a NATO member and the border crossings serve as major routes for civilian movement, humanitarian assistance and military support to Ukraine.
Poland subsequently reinforced protection around crossings including Dorohusk, Medyka and Korczowa. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said intelligence from NATO, Ukraine and the United States suggested Russia could be preparing additional hybrid attacks involving drones or missiles against countries supporting Ukraine. Those warnings describe potential deniable or ambiguous provocations rather than a confirmed plan for a conventional Russian invasion of NATO territory, but they have intensified concern along the alliance's eastern flank.
The border attacks also undercut any impression that negotiations have produced a broad de-escalation. Russia and Ukraine agreed to a limited pause in certain air attacks around the envoys' September trip, but fighting and long-range strikes quickly resumed. A Reuters report on September 7, citing people familiar with the talks, said Putin remained unwilling to make meaningful concessions despite the renewed U.S. initiative.
For Ukraine, the territorial issue is particularly sensitive because Moscow is asking Kyiv to relinquish land that Russian forces have not fully captured. Zelenskyy has maintained that Ukraine will not voluntarily surrender additional territory simply to meet Russia's stated negotiating line. Ukrainian officials have also argued that any ceasefire without credible enforcement mechanisms could give Russia time to rearm before resuming hostilities.
Russia, by contrast, continues to insist that a settlement must reflect what it calls the realities on the ground and its claims over occupied Ukrainian regions. The Kremlin has publicly welcomed the role of Witkoff and Kushner at times, describing their participation as constructive, while also accusing Washington of failing to follow through on understandings Moscow says were reached previously between Trump and Putin.
The Kushner-Witkoff approach has attracted criticism because both men come from business backgrounds rather than conventional diplomatic careers. Kushner has frequently emphasized economics, reconstruction and postwar investment as incentives for a deal. At the YES conference, he argued that greater prosperity and commercial opportunity could help create a sustainable postwar framework once the fighting stops. Critics in Ukraine and Europe worry that this framework can make a war of aggression sound too much like a commercial dispute in which both parties simply need an acceptable transaction.
Supporters of Trump's negotiating style make the opposite argument: that conventional diplomatic channels have failed to stop a war that has lasted more than four and a half years, and that trusted presidential emissaries may be able to communicate more directly with leaders on both sides. The September mission did at least reopen high-level channels between Washington, Moscow and Kyiv after months of stagnation.
There are signs that those channels may remain active. Ukrainian officials have said preparations are under way for another round of U.S.-Russia-Ukraine talks, potentially in October, although Moscow has been more cautious about confirming dates or locations. The status of the Donbas remains the principal unresolved issue, and no public evidence suggests either Russia or Ukraine has accepted the other's core territorial position.
That reality makes Trump's old "24-hour" promise a useful measure of just how resistant this war has been to quick solutions. Campaign rhetoric implied that personal leverage over Putin and Zelenskyy could rapidly produce a deal. The negotiations of 2025 and 2026 have instead shown that ending the war requires decisions about territory, sanctions, security guarantees, reconstruction, military posture and the credibility of any ceasefire.
The laughter that followed Kushner's description of Putin as committed to negotiations was therefore more than an awkward conference moment. It exposed the central trust gap in the peace process: Washington is trying to construct an agreement between two sides that do not trust each other, while the war continues to generate new evidence for that distrust.
For now, Kushner and Witkoff remain part of Trump's negotiating effort, and the administration has not announced a replacement strategy. There is also no substantiated basis for claims that Kushner has been deliberately positioned to absorb blame for a failed peace mission. What can be documented is more straightforward: the September shuttle diplomacy reopened talks but produced no settlement, Kushner's territorial comments triggered sharp criticism in Kyiv, Russia continued attacking Ukraine, and the United States has now added new sanctions pressure on Moscow.
The next round of negotiations, if it takes place, will test whether the administration can convert renewed contact into concrete concessions from both sides. Until then, the gap between Trump's promise of a rapid end to the war and the difficult reality confronting his envoys remains one of the clearest features of the U.S. peace effort.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
