Miami Meeting with Sanctioned Russian Envoy Deepens U.S. Concerns

In October, a private meeting in Miami brought together figures tied to the former president and a sanctioned Russian official to produce a draft 28 point plan aimed at ending the war in Ukraine, a development that has unsettled U.S. policymakers and strained relations with Kyiv and European allies. The gathering reportedly included special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, and involved Kirill Dmitriev, who leads the Russian Direct Investment Fund and was blacklisted in 2022 under U.S. sanctions.

The meeting and the plan that emerged from it surprised a number of U.S. officials and lawmakers, according to reporting, and has drawn criticism from Ukraine and several European capitals. Critics say the draft appears to reflect positions favorable to Moscow, reigniting concerns that private diplomacy outside official channels could undercut a unified Western response to Russia's invasion.

The involvement of a sanctioned Russian figure foregrounds both legal and diplomatic complications. Engagement with individuals subject to the U.S. sanctions regime can create compliance and reputational risks, and it raises questions about whether conversations crossed lines that are supposed to be policed by the executive branch and Congress. Lawmakers have expressed unease and may seek additional inquiry into how the meeting was arranged and what demands, if any, were presented and absorbed into the draft plan.

For Kyiv the stakes are high. Ukrainian officials have warned against any settlement that would cement territorial losses or circumvent international law obligations. European allies likewise fear a settlement negotiated without their participation could fracture transatlantic unity, weaken deterrence and set a precedent for resolving conflicts through external pressure rather than negotiated compromise that respects sovereignty and legal norms.

The episode also illustrates the complex mix of private initiative and public diplomacy that has characterized aspects of the Ukraine crisis. Individuals outside formal government roles have periodically attempted to broker understandings, sometimes filling perceived gaps and sometimes creating parallel tracks that complicate official policy. Where such initiatives contradict allied positions they risk undermining the coordinated measures, including arms transfers and sanctions, that Western capitals have relied on to support Ukraine.

Questions remain about the specifics of the draft plan, what concrete demands were advanced at the Miami meeting and whether those were incorporated into the document. Transparency from all participants and from officials who have reviewed the draft could help determine whether the initiative constitutes a legitimate peace proposal or an effort that privileges Russian goals at Ukraine's expense.

As Washington weighs its response, the episode is likely to intensify scrutiny of informal diplomacy in fraught geopolitical conflicts. The balance between seeking ceasefires and preserving international norms is politically and legally fraught, and any proposal that appears to reward aggression will face steep opposition both domestically and among allies whose cohesion remains central to managing the long term repercussions of the war.