Meeting with US envoys exposes limits of dialogue and repeats language already known from Kiev
Negotiations held in Miami, Florida, between representatives of and ended without announcements of concrete progress to end the war with , despite the diplomatic effort and the political symbolism of the meeting. The public tone adopted at the end of the conversations was cautious and practically identical on both sides, revealing more continuity than change in strategy.
At the head of the American delegation was Steve Witkoff, the president’s trusted name for sensitive diplomatic missions. On the Ukrainian side, Rustem Umerov, one of Kiev’s main interlocutors with Washington since the beginning of the war, participated.
After the meetings, Witkoff and Umerov resorted to the same public formulation: Ukraine “highly values” US support. The choice of words did not go unnoticed behind the scenes. This is already familiar language, frequently used by Ukrainian authorities at times when there are no practical results to present, but when the political link with Washington needs to be reaffirmed.
The talks did not result in agreements on a ceasefire, direct negotiations with Moscow or significant changes in the American position. The meeting was part of a broader round of contacts conducted by the US government with different actors involved in the conflict, but without the simultaneous presence of Russians and Ukrainians at the same table.
American officials confirmed that Russian representatives were also in Miami on the same days, in separate meetings. Among them was Kirill Dmitriev, linked to the Russian sovereign wealth fund and already known for acting as an informal channel of dialogue with the West. There was, however, no direct meeting between delegations from Ukraine and Russia, which in itself limits any possibility of immediate progress.
The format adopted by the United States reinforces a strategy of indirect mediation, in which Washington tries to test positions, measure negotiation margins and maintain open channels, without forcing a dialogue that neither party seems ready to undertake publicly. In practice, this keeps the process at an exploratory stage, far from structural decisions.
On the Ukrainian side, the priority remains to ensure continued military, financial and political support from the US. The repetition of the gratitude speech is not accidental. Amid internal uncertainties in Washington and the debate over the costs of the war, Kiev seeks to reaffirm its strategic relevance for the Americans and avoid signs of wear and tear in the alliance.
As for the White House, the talks in Miami act as a diplomatic temperature test. There is no indication that the United States is ready to impose a peace plan or openly pressure Ukraine for territorial concessions, one of the most sensitive points in the conflict. Central issues such as borders, security guarantees and the future of occupied areas remain beyond any consensus.
The practical result of the meeting, therefore, was limited. There was no joint statement with clear goals, nor announcement of new negotiation mechanisms. What remained was the public reaffirmation of the partnership between Washington and Kiev and the confirmation that, at least for now, the path to an agreement remains blocked.
For international observers, Miami exposed an already known reality: there is dialogue, there are open channels and there is a willingness to talk. But, when it comes to ending the war, positions remain distant and final statements remain carefully calibrated so as not to signal advances that, in practice, do not yet exist.
*This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Jovem Pan.
