August 9, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Trump’s envoy apparently misreported Putin’s latest position

Institute for the Study of War

The Trump Administration has described Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reported demands for a ceasefire in Ukraine in four different ways since August 6. The exact details of Putin’s position remain unclear. German outlet BILD reported on August 9 that US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff misunderstood Putin’s demand for Ukraine to withdraw from the remainder of Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts, in addition to the remainder of Donetsk Oblast, as an offer for Russia to withdraw from occupied Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts during the August 6 Putin-Witkoff meeting.[1] BILD reported that Witkoff also misunderstood Putin’s proposal for an energy infrastructure and long-range strikes ceasefire, and that Witkoff interpreted Putin’s offer as a general ceasefire that would curtail frontline military activity. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that European officials familiar with the conversation and call stated that US President Donald Trump, presumably after being briefed by Witkoff, told Ukrainian and European officials on August 6 that Putin would withdraw from occupied Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts in exchange for Ukraine ceding unoccupied areas of Donetsk Oblast.[2] The officials told WSJ that Witkoff walked back Trump’s statement during a call with European officials on August 7 and stated that Russia would “both withdraw and freeze” the frontline, presumably referring to Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts. European officials reportedly asked Witkoff to further clarify Putin’s demand during a call on August 8, and Witkoff stated that the “only offer” on the table was for Ukraine to unilaterally withdraw from Donetsk Oblast in exchange for a ceasefire. Ukrainian outlet Kyiv Independent reported that a source in Ukraine’s Presidential Office briefed on the Putin-Witkoff meeting, presumably by Witkoff himself, stated that Putin also offered to withdraw from northeastern Kharkiv and Sumy oblasts as a “sign of goodwill” in exchange for Ukraine ceding the remainder of unoccupied Donetsk Oblast.[3] The source stated that Putin reportedly told Witkoff that Putin would be willing to freeze the frontline in Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts. Bloomberg reported on August 8 that unnamed sources stated that Putin demanded that Ukraine withdraw from the entirety of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and concede occupied Crimea to Russia in exchange for freezing the frontline in Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts and beginning negotiations on a ceasefire agreement.[4] It remains unclear, based on Western reporting, if Putin ever truly offered to withdraw from occupied Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky rejected Putin’s demand.[5]

The only element of Putin’s reported position common to all reports is Putin’s continued demand for Ukraine to withdraw from unoccupied areas of Donetsk Oblast — a major Ukrainian concession. Conceding to such a demand would force Ukraine to abandon its “fortress belt,” the main fortified defensive line in Donetsk Oblast since 2014 — with no guarantee that fighting will not resume.[6] Ukraine’s fortress belt stymied Russian advances in Donetsk Oblast in 2014 and 2022 and is still impeding Russia’s efforts to seize the remainder of Donetsk Oblast in 2025, as ISW has recently described. The fortress belt is a significant obstacle to Russia’s current path of advance westward in Ukraine, and surrendering the remainder of Donetsk Oblast as the prerequisite of a ceasefire with no commitment to a final peace settlement would position Russian forces extremely well to renew their attacks on more favorable terms, having avoided a long and bloody struggle for the ground.[7]

Ukrainian and European officials reportedly presented a counterproposal to US officials on August 9 as European officials continue to issue statements of support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. WSJ reported on August 9 that Ukraine and European leaders proposed a counteroffer to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s demands for Ukrainian territorial concessions as a precondition to ceasefire during a meeting with US Vice President JD Vance in the United Kingdom (UK) on August 9.[8] WSJ reported that the counteroffer stipulates that a full ceasefire in Ukraine must be implemented prior to territorial negotiations, in accordance with US President Donald Trump’s previously articulated preferred timeline for an end to Russia’s war against Ukraine.[9] WSJ reported that the counteroffer also states that territorial exchanges should be conducted in a reciprocal manner and that Ukraine must receive robust security guarantees in exchange for any Ukrainian territorial concessions to prevent future Russian aggression against Ukraine. WSJ reported that Finnish President Alexander Stubb presented the Ukrainian-European counterproposal to Trump during a phone call on August 9. European leaders, including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys, Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braze, and Romanian Foreign Minister Toiu Oana, expressed support for Ukraine’s efforts to achieve a just and lasting resolution to Russia’s war on August 9.[10]

Russian officials welcomed the announcement that US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet in Alaska on August 15 and referenced Russian narratives about Russia’s historical claims to Alaska. Russian Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov claimed that Alaska is a logical meeting place due to the fact that the United States and Russia are close neighbors across the Bering Strait and share economic interests in Alaska and the Arctic region.[11] Leading Russian negotiator and Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) CEO Kirill Dmitriev, who attended the August 6 meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff, described Alaska on August 9 as “a Russian-born American” and claimed that Alaska reflects the ties between the United States and Russia.[12] Dmitriev also noted Alaska’s historic ties to the Russian Orthodox Church and Russia’s past military and economic presence in Alaska.[13] Russian officials and state media have previously claimed that the United States should return Alaska to Russia. Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev claimed in January 2024 that Russia has been waiting for the United States to return Alaska “any day” in response to a US Department of State statement to the contrary.[14] Russian TV hosts and propagandists Vladimir Solovyov and Olga Skabeyeva repeatedly claimed in 2024 that the United States should return Alaska to Russia.[15] Russian State Duma Chairperson Vyacheslav Volodin claimed in July 2022 that Russia would claim Alaska as its own if the United States froze foreign-based Russian assets.[16] Russian state media outlet RT claimed in October 2018 that Russia should demand Alaska back from the United States after the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.[17]

Ukraine continues its long-range drone strike campaign against Russian military and defense industrial base (DIB) facilities. Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) reported on August 9 that it conducted a drone strike against a Russian Shahed drone warehouse in Kzyl Yul, Republic of Tatarstan and that the drone strike started a fire at the warehouse.[18] The SBU stated that Russia stored Shahed drones and related foreign-sourced components at the facility. Kzyl Yul is located roughly 43 kilometers from the Alabuga Special Economic Zone (SEZ) near Yelabuga, Republic of Tatarstan, where Russia has based a large-scale Shahed drone production facility.[19] Ukrainian outlets Suspilne and Militarnyi reported that sources within Ukraine’s Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) stated that GUR conducted a sabotage operation in Afipsky, Krasnodar Krai on August 8, causing two explosions near a checkpoint on the Russian 90th Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade’s (49th Combined Arms Army [CAA], Southern Military District [SMD]) base.[20]

Key Takeaways:

  • The Trump Administration has described Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reported demands for a ceasefire in Ukraine in four different ways since August 6. The exact details of Putin’s position remain unclear.
  • The only element of Putin’s reported position common to all reports is Putin’s continued demand for Ukraine to withdraw from unoccupied areas of Donetsk Oblast — a major Ukrainian concession.
  • Ukrainian and European officials reportedly presented a counterproposal to US officials on August 9 as European officials continue to issue statements of support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
  • Russian officials welcomed the announcement that US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet in Alaska on August 15 and referenced Russian narratives about Russia’s historical claims to Alaska.
  • Ukraine continues its long-range drone strike campaign against Russian military and defense industrial base (DIB) facilities.
  • Russian milbloggers claimed that the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) replaced Northern Grouping of Forces and Leningrad Military District (LMD) Commander Colonel General Alexander Lapin with Chief of Staff of the Russian Ground Forces Colonel General Yevgeny Nikiforov.
  • Ukrainian forces advanced near Kupyansk.

Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.