In a development that could mark the beginning of the end for America’s open-ended support of Ukraine, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and special envoy Jared Kushner followed high-level talks in Brussels this week with a surprising message: Washington now aims to address the security concerns of “all sides” in the conflict — a phrase that pointedly includes Moscow.
Kushner’s statement came after consultations with Ukraine, NATO, and European partners, setting the stage for the first trilateral peace negotiations between the United States, Russia, and Ukraine since February. Those talks are scheduled for November 10–11 in Abu Dhabi, with Kushner and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly representing Washington.
Kushner outlined five principal goals for a broader European security framework in a post on X: permanent security consultations, reliable crisis communications, greater military transparency, reciprocal measures to reduce escalation risks, and a lasting framework for European security and stability. He emphasized that Europe and Russia have struggled “for more than 30 years” to establish sustainable security arrangements, and that the war in Ukraine has made solving that puzzle even more difficult.
“Decades of mistrust, competing security concerns, and the devastating consequences of this war make this an extraordinarily difficult challenge, but one that is essential to lasting peace,” Kushner wrote.
The most striking element of Kushner’s approach is the explicit inclusion of Russian security interests, which marks a departure from the previous administration’s posture that treated Moscow’s objections as illegitimate. Moscow has spent years pushing for assurance that NATO will stop expanding and keep its forces away from Russia’s borders, insisting that no nation should buy its own security at its neighbor’s expense. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov repeated that theme Tuesday, calling for European security to be built on fair and mutual guarantees rather than a new arms race.
European governments, however, have been excluded from next week’s Abu Dhabi talks. Lavrov argued that Europe has repeatedly failed to honor previous peace deals, warning that its “track record cannot be ignored.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow has received no European proposals on security guarantees. He acknowledged that Europe would eventually need to participate in security discussions, but complained that European leaders have not agreed on who speaks for them.
At the same time, Kushner insisted that any deal must honor every nation’s sovereignty and borders, as well as its freedom to choose its own security arrangements. “Each country will retain authority over its own security and alliances, and no country would have a veto over another’s sovereign choices,” he wrote, adding that NATO would remain the cornerstone of Europe’s collective defense.
This language is especially important to Kyiv because Moscow has been fighting Ukraine’s NATO bid for years. Kushner said the plan would work within existing institutions instead of replacing them, but it’s anyone’s guess how Washington will reconcile Russia’s demands with Ukraine’s right to choose its own alliances.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke with Kushner and Witkoff for 90 minutes Wednesday and said Kyiv had submitted its proposals to Washington. He insisted that any postwar security guarantees must be binding and enforceable — and pushed Washington for even more Patriot interceptors as Russian strikes continue pounding Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure.
Meanwhile, after meeting Russian presidential envoy Kirill Dmitriev at the White House on Thursday, Trump hinted at a bigger deal reaching beyond Ukraine, one that he said “might involve all of Europe.” The Kremlin, however, says it has received no details.
Whether the era of blank checks for Kyiv is truly ending remains to be seen. But with Kushner — a real estate dealmaker by trade — now co-leading negotiations that explicitly acknowledge Russian concerns, the contours of American policy toward Ukraine are shifting in ways that would have been unthinkable under the previous administration. For American taxpayers who have spent years covering the bill for an open-ended war, a negotiator who views this as a deal to be closed instead of a cause to be funded may be the most welcome change of all.
Sources for this article include: