Fyodor Lukyanov: Here’s why it’s hard for Witkoff and Kushner to close the Russia-Ukraine deal
Analysis Summary
The article argues that Donald Trump’s approach to ending the Ukraine war is too focused on deal-making and doesn’t address deeper geopolitical issues, especially Russia’s security concerns. It suggests that real peace requires understanding these root causes, framing Russian grievances about NATO expansion as a key part of the conflict. The piece presents Trump’s diplomacy as well-intentioned but limited by its lack of strategic depth.
FATE Analysis
Four dimensions of psychological manipulation: how content captures Focus, exploits Authority, triggers Tribal identity, and engineers Emotion.
Focus signals
"Diplomatic efforts to end an acute and bloody armed conflict should always be welcomed and the persistence of Donald Trump’s administration, which has pursued this goal for more than a year and a half, also deserves recognition, even if the results so far can hardly be called outstanding."
The phrase 'acute and bloody armed conflict' immediately captures attention by emphasizing severity, though this is proportionate given the context of an ongoing war. The focus is on diplomatic persistence, not on制造 a false sense of novelty or breaking news, so the attention capture is moderate and within standard analytical framing.
Authority signals
"This article was first published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by RT."
The citation of 'Russia in Global Affairs' as the original publisher signals an institutional source, but the article does not invoke credentials, experts, or scientific bodies to override debate. The author relies on geopolitical reasoning rather than appeals to authoritative expertise, and the sourcing is transparent. This is standard attribution, not authority manipulation.
Tribe signals
"Trump repeatedly insists that the war would never have begun had he been president in 2022 with the implication that Joe Biden and the Democrats were simply too incompetent to prevent it."
The article reports on Trump’s framing of Biden and Democrats as incompetent, which introduces a domestic U.S. political 'us vs. them' dynamic. While the article does not endorse this view, it incorporates a tribal narrative that aligns with partisan divisions in American politics. The article does not amplify it emotionally or endorse it, but the inclusion of this framing introduces a tribal element, particularly given RT’s editorial positioning and potential resonance with audiences predisposed against Western liberal democracies.
"American and NATO policy towards Ukraine wasn’t created by one administration or a handful of officials in Washington and Brussels, rather it developed over decades from a particular conception of Western strategic interests."
The repeated reference to 'the West', 'Washington and Brussels', and 'Western strategic interests' constructs a collective actor opposed implicitly to Russia. While this is analytically valid, in the context of RT — a Russian state-aligned outlet — such framing can serve to reinforce a civilizational divide. The article avoids overt demonization but consistently delineates 'the West' as a unitary actor, contributing to a mild tribal dichotomy.
Emotion signals
"The crisis that entered its most acute phase in 2022 was, from Moscow’s perspective, the culmination of processes underway since the end of the Cold War."
The phrase 'from Moscow’s perspective' allows the article to present Russia’s viewpoint without direct endorsement, but it subtly invites the reader to adopt a relativist stance toward Western actions, potentially fostering a sense of moral equivalence. This could cultivate intellectual or moral superiority in readers who see themselves as understanding 'the real causes' overlooked by mainstream Western media. However, the tone remains analytical, limiting emotional manipulation.
"The shuttle diplomacy of a presidential son-in-law and a trusted business partner may eventually serve as a catalyst for serious negotiations, however, if that moment comes, the settlement will have to be negotiated by officials and institutions possessing state legitimacy..."
The conditional 'if that moment comes' introduces a subtle undercurrent of fragility and urgency, implying that informal diplomacy may fail without institutional backing. This raises stakes emotionally but within restrained, analytical bounds. It does not spike fear or outrage, but gently underscores the precariousness of current efforts.
Narrative Analysis (PCP)
How the article reshapes thinking: Perception (what beliefs are targeted), Context (what information is shifted or omitted), and Permission (what behavior is being encouraged).
The article aims to instill the belief that Trump's diplomatic approach to the Ukraine conflict, while persistent and well-intentioned, is fundamentally flawed due to its transactional and decontextualized nature. It positions Trump and his envoys as technically competent but strategically naive actors who fail to grasp the deeper geopolitical roots of the war, particularly from Russia's perspective. The reader is led to believe that durable peace requires understanding 'root causes'—a framing that implicitly validates the Russian narrative about NATO expansion and Western strategic overreach.
The article normalizes the idea that the war cannot be resolved through conventional diplomacy because it is 'fateful' for the principal parties, thereby making prolonged conflict seem inevitable and rational. By emphasizing that 'too much is at stake' for Russia and Ukraine, it shifts the context from one where peace is urgent and achievable to one where compromise is structurally difficult, thus making continued warfare appear as the default outcome of legitimate national interests.
The article omits documented evidence of Russian war crimes, illegal annexations, and the overwhelming consensus among international bodies (such as the UN General Assembly resolutions) condemning Russia’s invasion as a violation of international law. It also omits that Trump himself has expressed admiration for Putin and suggested he would encourage Russia to attack NATO allies, undermining the portrayal of his approach as neutral or peace-oriented. The absence of these facts allows the article to present Trump’s diplomacy as a credible alternative without confronting his history of alignment with Russian interests.
The reader is nudged toward accepting that the war may not be resolvable through Western-led diplomacy and that alternative, informal channels—like those led by Kushner and Witkoff—might be necessary precursors to any settlement. It implicitly grants permission to view Russian security concerns as legitimate and central to any resolution, while downplaying the need for accountability or justice for aggression, thus normalizing a settlement based on power balances rather than legal or moral principles.
SMRP Pattern
Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.
"The article refers to the conflict as an 'acute and bloody armed conflict' but immediately subordinates the human cost to abstract geopolitical analysis, focusing instead on diplomatic mechanics and great power interests. It minimizes the nature of the war by treating it as a 'puzzle' and avoids any mention of civilian casualties, displacement, or atrocities, thereby downplaying the severity of the ongoing violence."
"The article rationalizes Russian actions by stating that 'from Moscow’s perspective, [the war] was the culmination of processes underway since the end of the Cold War,' and notes Trump’s acknowledgment that 'NATO’s long expansion eastward contributed to the crisis.' This provides a strategic justification for Russian aggression without challenging the premise, effectively normalizing invasion as a response to perceived encirclement."
"The article projects responsibility for the war’s continuation onto Western policy, stating that 'American and NATO policy towards Ukraine wasn’t created by one administration' and that 'Washington continues to underestimate how much the outcome matters to the principal participants.' This shifts blame from Russian aggression to decades of Western strategic decisions, implying that the West bears significant responsibility for provoking the conflict."
Red Flags
High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.
Techniques Found(4)
Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.
"This article was first published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by RT."
The inclusion of the source attribution at the end—naming 'Russia in Global Affairs' and 'RT'—serves to associate the article with a specific institutional voice aligned with the Russian state perspective. While sourcing is standard, the placement and framing implicitly appeal to the authority of these outlets to lend legitimacy to the analysis, particularly in a context where RT is widely recognized as a platform for Russian state narratives. This constitutes an appeal to authority when used to bolster the credibility of the argument without independent verification.
"an acute and bloody armed conflict"
The phrase 'acute and bloody armed conflict' uses emotionally charged descriptors that emphasize the severity and violence of the war. While the conflict is indeed violent, the pairing of 'acute' and 'bloody' serves a rhetorical function beyond factual description, intensifying the emotional weight at the outset. This qualifies as loaded language because it frames the conflict in a way that primes the reader toward a particular emotional response, especially when used early in the article to set tone.
"Trump repeatedly insists that the war would never have begun had he been president in 2022 with the implication that Joe Biden and the Democrats were simply too incompetent to prevent it."
The article presents Trump's claim—that the war could have been prevented solely by his leadership—as a reduction of a complex geopolitical conflict to a single cause: the perceived incompetence of Biden and Democrats. While reporting Trump's position, the article does not challenge this reductive logic, effectively allowing a causal oversimplification to stand unqualified, thus making it part of the persuasive framing.
"the persistence of Donald Trump’s administration, which has pursued this goal for more than a year and a half, also deserves recognition"
The statement appeals to the value of perseverance and diplomatic effort, suggesting that sustained action by the Trump administration merits recognition regardless of outcomes. This frames persistence itself as a moral or civic virtue, leveraging shared values around duty and commitment to justify giving credit to the administration’s role, even in the absence of tangible success.