U.S. Engages in Diplomatic Efforts on Ukraine, Driven by Trump's Stance
High-Level Meetings with Ukrainian Negotiators Focus on Potential Path to Negotiated End to War
Renewed Push for Negotiations
Senior officials associated with former President Donald Trump are involved in renewed efforts to advance a negotiated end to the war between Russia and Ukraine. These efforts include meetings with Ukrainian counterparts to discuss potential frameworks for a ceasefire and subsequent peace talks. The initiatives are unfolding as President Trump continues to assert that his administration could resolve the conflict rapidly.
The driving force behind this diplomatic activity is a document known as a "mandate for negotiations." This framework is intended to outline the starting positions and conditions for potential future talks between Ukraine and Russia. The discussions are described as preliminary and are focused on establishing a basis for formal negotiations, should the political decision to engage in them be made.
Key Figures and the Proposed Framework
A central figure in this process is retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, who served as Chief of Staff of the National Security Council under President Trump. General Kellogg has been publicly associated with a proposed plan for ending the war. This plan includes a key condition: a ceasefire that would be linked to the immediate start of negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv.
According to the framework, the ceasefire would take effect based on the current battle lines, without an immediate Russian withdrawal. Simultaneously, the United States would pause any further expansion of the NATO alliance, specifically delaying the consideration of Ukraine's membership. The proposal also suggests that the future status of Ukrainian territories currently occupied by Russia would be resolved through negotiations, not by military force.
The Ukrainian Response and Stance
Ukrainian officials have engaged with these U.S. envoys but maintain a firm public position. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his government have consistently stated that any peace plan must be based on his own 10-point formula. This formula includes the full withdrawal of Russian troops from all internationally recognized Ukrainian territory, including Crimea and the Donbas regions.
The Ukrainian government has rejected the idea of a ceasefire that would freeze the current front lines, arguing that this would merely provide Russia with time to regroup its forces for a future offensive. For Ukraine, any negotiation that legitimizes Russia's territorial gains is considered unacceptable. Their participation in these talks appears to be a tactical effort to understand the potential policies of a future U.S. administration while holding to their established principles.
The Role of the U.S. Congress and Allies
These diplomatic overtures occur alongside ongoing debates in the U.S. Congress regarding military aid for Ukraine. A significant aid package was passed earlier this year after considerable delay, highlighting a political divide on the issue. Some lawmakers advocate for continued robust support for Ukraine until a victory is achieved, while others express concerns about the cost and the potential for prolonged conflict.
European allies are monitoring these developments with attention. There is a concern within NATO capitals about any potential shift in U.S. policy that might pressure Ukraine into accepting terms it views as unfavorable. Allied nations have reaffirmed their commitment to supporting Ukraine for "as long as it takes," but they also acknowledge the significant influence of the United States in any future peace process.
The Trump Administration's Strategic Perspective
The diplomatic efforts reflect a stated priority of former President Trump to end the war through a negotiated settlement. This approach is based on a view that the conflict is a destructive stalemate that drains U.S. resources and diverts attention from other global priorities, such as strategic competition with China.
This perspective often involves a different assessment of the roles of the involved parties. It tends to emphasize the need for a pragmatic deal between the two sides rather than a full military victory for Ukraine. The proposed framework is presented as a way to halt the immediate fighting and create a pathway to a more stable, long-term solution, even if that solution involves concessions from both Ukraine and Russia.
Challenges to a Negotiated Outcome
Several major obstacles stand in the way of the proposed framework becoming a reality. The most significant is the diametrically opposed goals of Kyiv and Moscow. Russia's stated aims in the war remain unchanged and are incompatible with Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. Any agreement that appears to reward Russian aggression would be politically untenable for the government in Kyiv.
Furthermore, the proposed pause on NATO expansion is a core Russian demand. Agreeing to this would be seen by many allies as capitulating to Kremlin pressure and undermining the fundamental principle of sovereign states choosing their own security alliances. This makes such a concession highly controversial within the transatlantic community.
Implications for the Future of the Conflict
The ongoing discussions indicate that planning for a potential political resolution to the war is becoming more active, even as military operations continue. The involvement of figures close to a leading U.S. presidential candidate adds a significant dimension to these efforts, giving them a potential credibility that official, but non-binding, diplomatic channels may lack.
The outcome of the upcoming U.S. presidential election is now a central factor in the strategic calculations of both Ukraine and Russia. The current diplomatic activity can be seen as an attempt to create a viable policy option that could be implemented swiftly should there be a change in administration. This introduces a new element of uncertainty into the conflict's timeline and potential endgame.
The Path Ahead for Diplomacy
For the moment, these talks remain exploratory. They do not represent formal negotiations, and the U.S. State Department continues to operate under the official policy of supporting Ukraine's military efforts and its position in any future peace talks. The discussions led by General Kellogg and others are occurring in an unofficial, Track II diplomatic capacity.
The immediate future of the conflict will likely continue to be determined on the battlefield. The success or failure of current and planned Ukrainian defensive operations will influence the leverage each side has at any potential negotiating table. Diplomatic efforts will run parallel to these military realities, with the prospect of more substantive talks remaining dependent on a convergence of political will and strategic circumstances that does not yet exist.
About the Creator
Saad
I’m Saad. I’m a passionate writer who loves exploring trending news topics, sharing insights, and keeping readers updated on what’s happening around the world.
There’s an Internet Blackout in Iran. How Are Videos and Images Getting Out
When mass protests erupted across Iran, the government responded with a familiar tactic: cut the internet. Mobile data slowed to a crawl, international connections dropped, and social media platforms went dark. For millions inside the country, the blackout meant isolation — no messaging apps, no news, no way to tell the outside world what was happening. And yet, despite these sweeping restrictions, videos and images of protests, arrests, and street violence continue to surface online. Clips circulate on X, Instagram, and international news broadcasts, raising a pressing question: How is information escaping one of the most tightly controlled internet shutdowns in the world? Why Iran Turns Off the Internet Iran has repeatedly used internet shutdowns as a tool of control during periods of unrest. By restricting access, authorities aim to: Disrupt protest coordination Prevent footage from reaching global media Limit international scrutiny Control domestic narratives During previous protests in 2019 and 2022, near-total shutdowns coincided with some of the deadliest crackdowns. Human rights organizations argue that internet blackouts create conditions where abuses can happen unseen. In the current wave of protests, the blackout has been broader and more sustained than before — affecting not just social media but core mobile and broadband infrastructure. If the Internet Is Down, How Is Content Escaping? Despite the blackout, Iran is not completely sealed off. Information leaks through a combination of technology, ingenuity, and risk-taking. The most important factor? Satellite internet. Starlink: A Signal From Space Starlink, the satellite internet service operated by SpaceX, has become the most powerful tool for bypassing Iran’s blackout. Unlike traditional internet, which relies on cables and telecom towers controlled by the state, Starlink connects directly to satellites orbiting Earth. As long as a user has a receiver terminal and a clear view of the sky, they can access the global internet — even when national networks are shut down. Over the past few years, thousands of Starlink terminals have reportedly been smuggled into Iran, often at great personal risk. These devices are illegal under Iranian law, but activists say they are now essential for keeping the country digitally connected. Once connected, users can upload videos, send images, and communicate with journalists and human rights groups abroad — often in near real time. The Risks of Staying Connected Using satellite internet in Iran is extremely dangerous. Authorities have declared Starlink equipment illegal and have reportedly conducted raids to seize terminals. Possession can lead to arrest, interrogation, or worse. In some areas, users hide terminals on rooftops, power them briefly, upload content, then disconnect to avoid detection. The government has also attempted to jam satellite signals, disrupting connections in certain regions. While jamming can weaken service, it hasn’t fully eliminated access — turning the situation into a technological cat-and-mouse game. Every video that makes it out is a calculated risk. Old-School Methods Still Matter Satellite internet isn’t the only way information escapes Iran. Some protesters rely on slower, more traditional methods: Saving videos on memory cards or USB drives Physically transporting data across borders Sending footage through trusted intermediaries Uploading content during brief moments of restored connectivity These methods are far less efficient than satellite internet, but they still play a role — especially in areas where Starlink access is limited or heavily jammed. Why These Images Matter The footage coming out of Iran isn’t just viral content — it’s evidence. With foreign journalists largely barred from operating freely inside the country, citizen-recorded videos are often the only window into events on the ground. Human rights organizations rely on this material to document abuses, verify deaths, and pressure governments to respond. Without these images, the international community would be forced to rely almost entirely on official statements — a scenario that overwhelmingly benefits those in power. Experts warn that internet shutdowns often correlate with spikes in violence, precisely because visibility disappears. The continued flow of images disrupts that strategy. The Digital Battlefield What’s unfolding in Iran is part of a global trend. Governments around the world increasingly view the internet as a battlefield — a space to be controlled during unrest. Protesters, in turn, adapt with new tools, from encrypted messaging to satellite connectivity. Iran’s blackout shows both sides of this struggle: A state attempting to enforce digital silence Citizens using technology to break it This dynamic raises difficult questions about sovereignty, technology companies, and the future of information control. Can Iran Fully Seal the Blackout? So far, the answer appears to be no. While the government can dramatically reduce connectivity, total isolation is increasingly difficult in a world of satellites, portable tech, and global networks. Every advancement in censorship is met with an adaptation in resistance. Still, access remains uneven. Many Iranians are completely offline, unable to communicate with loved ones or access basic information. The videos reaching the world represent only a fraction of what’s happening inside the country. What Comes Next As protests continue and international pressure grows, the digital struggle will remain central to Iran’s crisis. The government will likely intensify efforts to block satellite access, while activists look for new ways to stay connected. What’s clear is this: the blackout has not achieved total silence. Each image uploaded, each video shared, and each message sent is a reminder that even the most aggressive internet shutdown cannot fully suppress human voices. Final Thoughts Iran’s internet blackout is not just a technical issue — it’s a human one. It reveals how deeply communication is tied to freedom, accountability, and power in the modern world. In an era where truth travels through pixels and signals, the battle over connectivity may be just as important as the protests themselves. And for now, despite the darkness, the signal is still getting through.
By Muhammad Hassan3 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.