Russia calls talks with US envoys “useful”

The word "useful" from a Russian official is diplomatic code for "we haven't slammed the door yet." After months of stalled negotiations, the fact that Putin sat down with two U.S. envoys—including Jared Kushner, a figure with no formal diplomatic portfolio—signals that both Moscow and Washington are at least willing to keep channels open. But "useful" is not "promising." It's a term that allows both sides to claim progress without committing to anything concrete. This meeting highlights a recurring theme in international diplomacy: the use of informal emissaries when formal channels falter. Kushner's involvement, in particular, raises questions about the role of family members in U.S. foreign policy. Critics argue that such appointments bypass professional diplomats and accountability, while supporters see them as a way to cut through bureaucratic inertia. The fact that the envoys brought "ideas" rather than a formal proposal suggests this was an exploratory session, not a negotiation. The broader context is the grinding war in Ukraine, now in its third year. Both sides have entrenched positions: Russia demands recognition of its territorial gains and guarantees against NATO expansion; Ukraine insists on the restoration of its borders and security guarantees. The U.S. has shifted its stance under the current administration, moving from "as long as it takes" to a more transactional approach, pressing for a quick resolution. This has created friction with Kyiv, which fears being pressured into an unfavorable deal. What makes this meeting noteworthy is not the outcome—which remains murky—but the signal it sends. Russia's willingness to engage with U.S. envoys, even as its military continues offensive operations, suggests that Moscow sees value in maintaining a dialogue with Washington, perhaps to test the limits of American patience or to sow division between the U.S. and its allies. Meanwhile, the lack of any Ukrainian representation at the talks is a glaring omission. Any durable peace must include Kyiv at the table, and the U.S. risks undermining its credibility if it negotiates over Ukraine's head. As with all such diplomatic overtures, the devil is in the details. The "ideas" floated by Witkoff and Kushner could range from a frozen conflict along current lines to a more creative arrangement involving demilitarized zones or international oversight. Until those details emerge, "useful" remains a placeholder for "we haven't given up." For now, the world watches, hoping that this dialogue—however tentative—might eventually lead to a reduction in bloodshed. But history cautions us: many "useful" meetings have ended in stalemate or worse.