The U.S. Must Reject Russian Narratives on Ukraine

By Rebeccah Heinrichs

Monday, November 09, 2026

 

The United States will try to mediate another round of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia starting tomorrow. If it is to be successful, the U.S. must depart from its current strategy. In President Trump’s eagerness for a deal to end the war in Ukraine, there has been a spate of U.S. actions that are favorable to Russia. U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff visited Russia and flattered Vladimir Putin, calling him a “humanitarian.” President Trump lifted sanctions on Russian diesel, waived enforcement of much of the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, and publicly pressured Ukraine’s president to take a deal.

 

This approach appears premised on two false narratives, which Russia is proffering to the U.S. special envoys: one, that the Russian government’s demands are reasonable and therefore open to compromise for the sake of peace, and two, that Russia’s defeat of Ukraine on the battlefield is only a matter of when, not if. The State Department, rather than the special envoys, should lead the effort to mediate an end to the war, and it should soundly reject both Russian narratives if it is to develop a strategy that could work.

 

Regarding the first erroneous narrative: Putin has attempted to construct this image of rationality with a sequence of well-timed “goodwill” gestures. On October 21, during Witkoff’s visit to St. Petersburg, Putin freed Stephen Hubbard, an American teacher whom Russia kidnapped from Ukraine and wrongfully detained, starved, and tortured in a Russian penal colony notorious for its brutality. After four years of imprisonment, Putin agreed to his release shortly after the White House announced that the U.S. would purchase Russian diesel and waive the Graham Act sanctions. On October 23, the White House announced that First Lady Melania Trump had brokered a cease-fire in the Russian-occupied city of Oleshky for humanitarian and civilian evacuations. Russia invaded and seized control of the city in February 2022, and, since 2023, Ukrainian residents, who are mostly elderly, have lacked adequate access to food, electricity, and medical care. Ukraine has repeatedly asked for a local cease-fire since May, but Russia has refused until now. It is Russia that created this crisis; agreeing to a temporary cease-fire now does not absolve it of this, nor should the United States permit Russia to weaponize the cease-fire to create propaganda to make it seem humane or reasonable.

 

Russia’s newfound space diplomacy follows a similar script. Russia casts itself as a responsible power, arguing against the “militarization of space” and insisting there is still time to stop an “arms race,” while it is racing and behaving aggressively. Just before its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia launched Cosmos 2553, a satellite linked to testing components for a potential nuclear anti-satellite weapon. Russia’s first attack against Ukraine in 2022 was a cyberattack against Ukraine’s satellites to degrade the government’s and military’s ability to communicate. Russian military satellites have routinely stalked American ones; in 2025, Russia placed a satellite in a co-orbital path with U.S. reconnaissance satellites for the fourth time in five years. Just two weeks ago, the State Department confirmed that a Russian military satellite displayed “threatening behavior” when it maneuvered within a kilometer of a commercial satellite that provides imaging to Ukraine’s military. Earlier this year, Russia wrongly accused Starlink of violating the Outer Space Treaty, when its real objection is that Starlink is essential for Ukraine’s defense. Meanwhile, a recent DIA assessment found that Russia and China are making a concerted effort to develop ways to “disrupt or destroy” U.S. satellites. Russia’s calls for restraint in space are designed to pocket concessions from the United States while its behavior goes unchanged and unchecked.

 

Nowhere are Russia’s lies as a “reasonable” actor friendly to the United States clearer than in Russia’s deepening alignment with Iran. The same week Putin agreed to the Oleshky cease-fire, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and declared, “I am confident that Iran’s cause, just like Russia’s, is just.” He also stated that trade between Russia and Iran expanded 21 percent in 2025 and more than 10 percent thus far in 2026 — amid the backdrop of the United States increasing Iranian sanctions and commencing Operation Economic Outcast. While Putin says he wants to work with the United States, he actively undermines U.S. efforts in Iran, throwing Tehran an economic lifeline by providing intelligence and military hardware and purchasing Iranian Shahed drones to attack Ukrainian cities.

 

Across Europe, Russia escalates sabotage, arson, and additional forms of state-sponsored terrorism against NATO allies. Between September and October, Russia conducted 17 terrorist attacks, including an attempted explosive drone attack at Germany’s Leipzig airport. In Ukraine, Russia is ramping up its attacks on civilians and economic targets, including port infrastructure and the metallurgical industry. In the Yelabuga special economic zone, Russia is engaging in human trafficking of Russian teenagers, young women from the Global South, and forced North Korean laborers to manufacture drones for the war. Russia’s conduct is clear. It presents one face to Washington and another to the rest of the world, aiming to cast Ukraine as the main obstacle to peace. The United States must judge Russia by what it does, not by the gestures it stages.

 

Putin’s second narrative is that Russia’s conquest of Ukraine is inevitable, and so any deal now is an act of mercy for Ukraine. But Ukraine remains free and sovereign and has repelled the Russians for four years. Ukraine destroyed a third of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, and after twelve years of pursuit, Ukraine has proven Russia can’t militarily take the fortified area of Donetsk. What’s more, Russia’s performance on the battlefield is declining, not improving, over time. One year into the full-scale invasion, Ukraine had already retaken about 50 percent of the territory Russian forces seized. Since then, Russia has failed to make meaningful territorial gains. In 2026, on net, Russia has stolen a meager 73 square kilometers, while, according to the director of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, a Russian recruit has an average life expectancy of 20 to 30 minutes after arriving on the battlefield. On top of that, the Russia–Ukraine casualty ratio has ballooned from two Russians for every one Ukrainian casualty to nearly eight Russians for a single Ukrainian.

 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly stated once again on October 23 that he is ready for the cease-fire that President Trump is demanding. It is Zelensky, and not Putin, who is open to a deal and is willing to stop the bloody war along the current lines of contact, agreeing to end a defensive military campaign to liberate Russian-occupied territories that belong to Ukraine. And it is Ukraine, and not Russia, that is improving its battlefield position. Any U.S.-led effort to end the war, or at least reach a temporary cease-fire, should be based on this reality, which means applying more pressure to Russia and providing concrete actions to deter a resumption of Russian aggression and to assure Ukraine.