Putin’s Openness to “Permanent Peace”: If true, that’s significant — but as with all such statements, the devil is in the details. Russia’s definition of “peace” might include territorial concessions or sanctions relief, which Ukraine and the West may not accept.
Trump’s Involvement: The article mentions Steve Witkoff — primarily known as a real estate developer — acting as Trump’s special envoy. That’s an unusual choice for such a high-stakes diplomatic role, and might raise eyebrows among career diplomats.
Commercial Interests: The emphasis on U.S.-Russia business opportunities being part of peace talks is noteworthy. It implies that economic incentives are being considered as a stabilizing factor — a move that could face criticism if it’s seen as sidelining Ukraine’s sovereignty in favor of business gains.
Reality Check: Despite these talks, there’s been no major breakthrough. Putin rejected a ceasefire proposal just last month, and is still leveraging sanctions in any negotiations — suggesting that this “permanent peace” talk might be more about optics than real change, at least for now.
Overall, it’s a cautious flicker of hope in an otherwise stagnant and brutal war — but a lot depends on what “peace” means to each side, and whether Ukraine is actually involved in shaping the terms.
Would you like a breakdown of the likely next steps or how this might affect broader U.S.-Russia or NATO dynamics?