As US President Donald Trump’s envoys host Ukrainian officials in Miami – a session billed as high-stakes negotiations over the next phase of talks with Russia – America’s closest allies are watching with rising panic.
Their fear is less about what will be said than how the US is approaching the talks.
The Miami session, though informal on paper, has effectively become the de facto venue where Washington will signal its intentions for the war’s endgame.
Trump’s negotiating team, according to European and US officials, is being run not by career diplomats or the national security apparatus but by two confidants with no formal experience in foreign policy: Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
One is a longtime associate and friend of the president; the other is the president’s son-in-law, who served in the first Trump administration. Both come from the world of New York City real estate, where they’re accustomed to negotiating over land and property with equals from the business community.
Neither has any background in Russian politics or European security, and for the US’ core NATO or EU allies whose fate is being negotiated without their participation, this lack of experience risks being an enormous liability.
European and US diplomats have told Kyiv Post that Witkoff and Kushner’s experience is in stark contrast to the Trump administration official who should be running point on US-Russia talks but is now relegated to the sidelines: Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
“Rubio’s absence is deafening,” a senior Western diplomat told Kyiv Post. “If the Secretary of State isn’t at the table for war-ending talks, something is very wrong.”
For European capitals, Rubio isn’t just another Cabinet official – he’s the architect of the administration’s entire European strategy, or was until this week.
That anxiety spilled into public view after Der Spiegel published what it said was a leaked transcript of a private call between German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and President Volodymyr Zelensky.
According to the report, Merz and Macron warned Zelensky bluntly that Washington may be preparing to “betray” Ukraine with rushed concessions to Moscow.
Macron cautioned that the Trump–Vance administration could “trade territory without clarity on security guarantees,” while Merz urged Zelensky to be “extremely careful in the coming days,” adding that the US was “playing games, both with you and with us.”
Rubio’s name is never mentioned in the transcript, according to a source familiar with it. However, Witkoff and Kushner are cited repeatedly by several European leaders including Macron, Merz, Stubb, Rutte and Meloni, underscoring the centrality of the two US developers to these negotiations.
Neither Berlin nor Kyiv would comment on the leak. But across Europe, the message landed like a klaxon. What Europe fears is not just a bad deal – it’s a deal made without them.
Freelance diplomacy vs. strategic leverage
Diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic fear that the Miami talks are being approached without the tools or experience needed to negotiate effectively.
Ambassador Daniel Fried, the former assistant secretary of state and longtime Russia expert, underscored the stakes: Trump may have the opportunity to end Russia’s war on Ukraine, but to do so, the US must negotiate from strength and use the leverage it already possesses.
“Don’t want the deal more than the Russians,” Fried advised. “When you want it bad, you get it bad. Don’t answer Kremlin stonewalling with more and better offers. Stop chasing the Russians but increase the pressure on them.”
That means enforcing existing energy sanctions, supporting European plans for military aid, unlocking funds for Ukraine from immobilized Russian assets, and holding Moscow accountable for sabotage or harassment in Europe.
Taken together, these steps strengthen the US position and create the conditions for serious diplomacy. As Fried put it: “Taking them won’t distract from diplomacy. It will enable it.”
Yet the Miami negotiations appear to lack that strategic approach, and the alarm has only intensified in the wake of the Der Spiegel leak.
Ambassador Michael Carpenter, who served as senior director for Europe at the National Security Council under the Biden administration until early this year, said the documents highlight just how worried European leaders are about the Miami talks.
He noted that Witkoff and Kushner’s negotiations are widely seen as endangering both Ukraine and European security, and that their proposal to return some of Russia’s frozen assets could fund future Russian military operations – a scenario that deeply concerns both European capitals and Americans like Rubio and Scott Bessent.
A senior EU official put it bluntly: “If Witkoff and Kushner are running Ukraine diplomacy, and the secretary of state is kept out, what are we even doing here?”
Former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves added that the leak underscores two key problems: European leaders feel the need to protect Ukraine from US officials prioritizing financial or political interests over conflict resolution, and Witkoff and Kushner have neither impressed Russian President Vladimir Putin nor advanced the prospects for ending the war.
In doing so, he said, they have alienated NATO and EU allies and eroded US credibility. Ilves questioned why two real estate developers with private business ties are negotiating Europe’s postwar security architecture with a hostile Russia.
A West European security official told Kyiv Post on the condition of anonymity that Witkoff is being “played by the Kremlin” and that sidelining Europe on critical security decisions is creating “needless headaches” for both Trump and the US.
Rubio, by contrast, has pushed for negotiations informed by expertise, history, and the full measure of America’s leverage. His absence leaves the US negotiating posture weaker and European allies increasingly unsettled.
“Rubio is the one person Putin doesn’t want in the room,” a senior Central European diplomat said. “And coincidentally, he’s not.”
Inside the White House: Vance narrative takes hold
Inside the White House, US Vice President J.D. Vance and his circle have increasingly argued that Ukraine’s military fortunes are collapsing and that Kyiv should “accept reality” in the Donbas – a line now appearing in the president’s own remarks.
Vance’s framing has quietly become the gravitational center of internal debates — even as career officials warn it misreads both Moscow’s intentions and Kyiv’s resilience.
Trump has reportedly told advisers, “Every time Zelensky comes, he’s got less territory. Why should we pretend otherwise?”
A NATO diplomat called that logic “dangerously circular,” warning that the feedback loop strengthens Russian advances: the US pressures Ukraine, weakening its defenses, which becomes proof that Ukraine is losing.
Rubio, by contrast, has pushed back hard on any narrative that Ukraine is doomed – noting that if Ukraine “does the right things,” – its economy could surpass Russia’s within a decade.
In a recent interview with Fox News, Rubio emphasized that a just peace deal must do more than stop the war – it must guarantee Ukraine’s long-term security, sovereign independence, and the conditions for economic revival and growth.
He said the aim is to help Ukraine rebuild not just to its previous state, “but to build it back in a way that will be stronger and more prosperous than it’s ever been.”
Rubio also stressed that ending the war is only the first step: what follows must be a plan that allows Ukraine to recover, thrive, and become a “prosperity story.”
Under that vision, he argued, Ukraine could become a stronger, more dynamic economy – one capable of overtaking Russia economically if it avoids future invasions and preserves its sovereignty.
But without him in Miami, allies fear the room will be dominated by a one-sided argument favoring concessions, not leverage.
And for America’s allies, that’s the heart of the crisis: not just who’s in the room in Miami, but who unmistakably isn’t.
“Protect Zelensky” – Europe’s new mantra
The Der Spiegel transcript shows Merz and Macron urging one another to “protect Zelensky” – a phrase that has taken on symbolic weight in European capitals.
“This isn’t about physical protection,” a senior French diplomat said. “It’s about preventing Ukraine from being cornered into a deal the US wants for political reasons – not because it secures Europe.”
Privately, European leaders are scrambling to reinsert themselves into the process, urging Rubio to assert the State Department’s authority, and working backchannels to Kyiv to resist concessions unless security guarantees are ironclad.
But for now, the core problem remains: the Miami meeting is happening without the one US official Europeans trust.
According to Fried, the difference between a dangerous negotiation and a potentially historic breakthrough is leveraging America’s position, negotiating with knowledge, and avoiding the trap of letting the Kremlin steer the process. Without these elements, even the right intentions may fail.
The Miami talks aren’t just a diplomatic reset; they are a gamble on whether access and loyalty can substitute for experience and leverage – and whether Washington can negotiate peace from weakness or from strength.
For Rubio, tonight may be a master class in the uncomfortable truth of the Trump administration: expertise matters less than access, but history shows that misjudging Russia can cost more than anyone is willing to pay.
Europe, for its part, isn’t counting on miracles in Miami. It’s just hoping the world’s most powerful superpower shows up with something better than freelance diplomacy and a prayer – because this time, the margin for error is gone.