Amercia’s acting Ambassador to Ukraine Julie Davis will resign from her role by the end of the month as the Kremlin appears to accuse the Trump administration for ending its efforts broker peace peace talks.
Davis will leave her post in the coming weeks due to growing differences between her and the administration over how to handle the war in Ukraine, three people familiar with the matter told the Financial Times.
She served from May of last year after her predecessor, Bridget Brink, resigned for similar reasons.
Davis informed the State Department of her decision some weeks ago, and will officially retire from diplomatic service after over 30 years.
During her time as chargé d’affaires in Kyiv, she was still the ambassador to Cyprus. In October, US President Donald Trump announced that he had nominated John Breslow, an American businessman, for the post. Davis reportedly was not notified of the nomination in advance and felt blindsided by it, the three people told the FT.
US's chargé d’affaires to Ukraine leaving role over differences with Trump
The State Department said that the reports that Davis is leaving her post over differences with Trump were incorrect.
"It is false to suggest Ambassador Davis is resigning 'over differences with Donald Trump,'" the statement said.
"Ambassador Davis has been a steadfast proponent of the Trump Administration's efforts to bring about a durable peace between Russia and Ukraine. She is retiring after a distinguished 30-year tenure as a career foreign service officer."
Notably, one career diplomat told the FT that those who advocated for Ukraine in the Trump State Department “get a target on their back." The outlet gave several examples from the first Trump administration of career diplomats who were later
Ukraine-Russia peace talks at impasse, again
This comes as peace talks between Russia and Ukraine hit yet another snag.
Trump has recently gone so far as to say that Ukraine is “doing pretty well” and that Zelensky was “holding his own, at least,” in the war, which has sparked worries and harsher language from the Kremlin.
Since then, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused Trump of forgetting about his efforts to help mediate the war.
Lavrov said the US was “seemingly stepping back from the role of an objective mediator,” and called for “clarity” around the US’s role in talks.
Notably, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, when asked if Moscow considered the US a neutral mediator, said there was no such thing as absolute neutrality because the US was still selling weapons and providing technological support to Ukraine.
On Thursday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that no deal had been reached in Alaska.
"There was a proposal in Alaska, but there was no agreement in Alaska. If there had been an agreement, we would have had an end of the war," Rubio said.
Kremlin hits out at US, calls for 'clarity' in America's role in peace talks
In response, Lavrov said that he was confused by the US’s intentions.
"In Anchorage, he (Putin) told President Trump: ‘There are certain nuances here, but I’ll take responsibility for them; I accept your proposals.’ That was already a compromise. And now they’re telling us: ‘Listen, it’s not working out yet – let’s come up with another concession.’"
On Thursday, Lavrov said that Putin went through a series of US proposals that Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff had brought to Moscow days earlier, listing them point by point and checking with Witkoff – who was present at the summit along with Trump and Rubio — that he, Putin, had noted them correctly.
Lavrov, who was also at the meeting, said Witkoff had answered each time in the affirmative.
"Therefore, when my colleague M. Rubio says that there were only proposals in Alaska but no agreement, it raises a question regarding what we actually mean by 'agreement'," Lavrov said.
"If one side - in this case, the US - put on the table its proposals for a settlement and a way to approach this crisis, and the other side expressed its consent to those proposals, then claiming there was no agreement seems rather inelegant."
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha told reporters on Sunday that Russia’s belief in the “Alaska understandings,” had been wrong.
"The reality makes one thing clear: if the 'Spirit of Anchorage' even existed, it is certainly dead now," Sybiha said.
"For Russia, the lesson of Anchorage is that any peace plan developed without Ukraine is doomed to become a spirit and disappear.”
On Saturday, two G7 officials told Axios that Trump expressed his frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin and said that he may walk back the “Alaska understandings.”
According to Axios, the president was "skeptical about everything regarding Putin, and talked about pressure on Russia, but other leaders do not believe he will actually do something about it," one official told Axios.
The “Alaska understandings” refers to Russia’s interpretation of the meetings in Anchorage, Alaska last year. Kremlin officials believe that the meetings lead to an understandin that the US would pressure Ukraine to withdraw completely from the Donbas region in return for a freeze on all other areas of frontline fighting.
Ukraine has repeatedly said that withdrawing from Donbas is a nonstarter.
Still, as Ukraine continues to strike deeper into Russia with drone strikes and the Kremlin struggles to balance its economy, it remains unclear if additional pressure on Russia will bring it back to the negotiating table or harden Russian sentiment , dragging the war on for even longer.