In early April 2025, reports emerged that U.S. Special Envoy Steven Witkoff had proposed dividing Ukraine into “zones of responsibility,” reminiscent of post-World War II Berlin. This suggestion, first reported by The Times  and echoed by Novaya Gazeta Europe, sparked significant backlash.

Witkoff later clarified that his remarks were misrepresented. However, this incident highlighted a deeper issue: throughout April, the U.S., Russia, and other stakeholders engaged in intensive, closed-door negotiations aiming for a ceasefire. These talks were fragmented, opaque, and internally conflicted.

A Mosaic of Talks: Washington, St. Petersburg, and JeddahApril 3, Washington, D.C.: Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and a close associate of President Putin, visited Washington after a temporary suspension of U.S. sanctions. He met with Witkoff and Republican senators to discuss potential ceasefire terms .April 11, St. Petersburg: Witkoff held a four-hour meeting with President Putin. While details remain scarce, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov described the discussions as focusing on aspects of a peaceful settlement in Ukraine .Parallel Talks in Jeddah: Simultaneously, U.S. National Security Advisor Michael Waltz engaged in discussions with Ukrainian officials in Saudi Arabia. These talks were more technical, addressing Black Sea security and logistics .Lack of Coordination: U.S. Negotiations in Silos

Within the U.S. administration, a unified stance on Ukraine was absent. General Keith Kellogg, the official envoy to Ukraine, was notably absent from both the St. Petersburg and Washington meetings. He publicly criticized the idea of partitioning Ukraine, labeling it as “destructive and undermining allied trust” .

Reports indicate that some within Trump’s circle are considering a “freeze” of the conflict, potentially recognizing the current frontlines in exchange for a ceasefire .

Ukraine’s Exclusion from Key Discussions

President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed concern that critical decisions were being made without Kyiv’s involvement. Although Ukrainian representatives participated in the Jeddah talks, The Atlantic noted their role was more observational than participatory. In response to the U.S.-Russia dialogues, Ukraine intensified its diplomatic engagements with Paris and Berlin, seeking assurances of inclusion in any ceasefire framework .

Political Timing and Electoral Considerations

The U.S. negotiations occur against the backdrop of the presidential campaign. Trump’s allies aim to showcase their ability to “end the war” more effectively than the current administration. Speculations about partition proposals may serve to pressure domestic audiences and influence European partners. The simultaneous negotiations across different regions underscore a lack of centralized strategy, which analysts at CEPA identify as a significant barrier to sustainable peace .

Beyond the Statement: The Real Challenge

The controversy surrounding the “partition” proposal ignited public debate but wasn’t the core issue. The primary threat lies in the disjointed coordination among allies, fragmented negotiation platforms, and the marginalization of Ukraine’s formal participation. Peace discussions are ongoing, but agreements are being forged in separate rooms, making any potential ceasefire vulnerable to collapse and exploitation.