WASHINGTON -- US President Donald Trump has confirmed that he will send his envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, to Kyiv in the coming weeks in what will mark their first visit to Ukraine since taking leading roles in the administration's efforts to end Russia's full-scale invasion.
RFE/RL spoke with Kurt Volker, the former US special representative for Ukraine during Trump's first administration and former US ambassador to NATO who is currently a distinguished fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, about the significance of the visit, whether Washington's approach to Ukraine is changing, and how NATO should respond to Russia's escalating attacks.
RFE/RL: Witkoff and Kushner are visiting Kyiv in the coming weeks. Why is this trip significant, and what should we be watching for?
Kurt Volker: [It's significant] because they've never been to Ukraine. They've gone to Russia many times. They've met with Putin in Russia many times. They've been fed Russia's narrative about the war, about Ukraine, and they've never seen it with their own eyes.
They have no idea what Ukraine actually is. So, to go there, to see it -- a beautiful country, a large country, lots of people, a functioning economy -- you know, the only images they would see would be what you get out of the media, which portrays destruction.
Kurt Volker
Then you get there and realize that Kyiv is a big, functioning city and Russia is just attacking it with weapons. It's crazy. I think that will have an impact on them.
RFE/RL: Trump has backed Patriot missile production licenses for Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has returned from Washington, and Congress is advancing tougher sanctions on Russia. Has the political mood in Washington fundamentally shifted in Kyiv's favor?
Volker: The mood has shifted to be more positive toward Ukraine and more critical and skeptical of Russia. I don't think it's going to lead to US assistance to Ukraine. I do think the sanctions bill will pass, the Graham Sanctions Act. I think that will pass, and then the president has discretion over how much to apply, which I think he'll use.
It's definitely better, and it's because Ukraine is doing better, and Putin keeps wanting the war, and Zelenskyy is very clear about wanting a cease-fire. But it's eliminating a negative. It's not necessarily adding a big positive.
RFE/RL: The United States still has no Senate-confirmed ambassador to Ukraine or special representative focused on the war. Does that weaken Washington's influence at such a pivotal moment?
Kurt Volker: I don't think it would matter, honestly. The way things work in the second Trump administration is that Trump does everything himself.
Having an ambassador in Kyiv, he or she still would not be able to say anything because it would be Trump who would give the direction as to what to say or do. So I don't think that's a big deal right now.
SEE ALSO:
Ukraine Hits Russian Logistics Hubs As Trump Weighs Patriot Missile LicenseRFE/RL: Russia has intensified its missile attacks even as Ukraine gains more Western support, and a suspected Russian cruise missile reportedly entered Polish airspace. Is Moscow testing NATO's resolve, and how should the alliance respond?
Kurt Volker: There are two different aspects to this. In terms of why this is happening, there are a number of possible reasons, and it might be all of them. Electronic warfare plays a part in redirecting drones, maybe missiles as well, but certainly redirecting drones, and they can inadvertently end up crossing the border. GPS interference can do the same thing. It could also be deliberate on Russia's part -- to send a signal saying this could get a lot worse. Testing NATO's reactions is another possible explanation.
How should NATO react? NATO should put in place the means to shoot these things down as soon as they come into NATO airspace. The moment they cross, there should be air defenses ready to go. That means a higher state of readiness.
We should declare that policy, and we should implement that policy, and not tolerate that this might happen. A better way for NATO to react, in addition to that, is to integrate Ukraine's and NATO's air-defense picture fully and declare a joint no-fly zone about 200 kilometers into Ukrainian territory.
That would be protection for NATO. NATO should say: "We don't want anything dangerous flying within 200 kilometers of NATO territory. We'll call it an exclusion zone. And if anything does, we will work with Ukraine to make sure it gets shot down." That would not mean directly entering the war on Ukraine's behalf, but NATO, on its own behalf, doing more for air defense so that the war does not expand to NATO territory.