What did the leaked transcript of Steve Witkoff’s call with Yuri Ushakov actually contain, and where was it published?
Executive summary
Bloomberg published full transcripts and said it reviewed audio of two intercepted October phone calls: an October 14 exchange between Trump envoy Steve Witkoff and Kremlin foreign‑policy aide Yuri Ushakov in which Witkoff coaches Ushakov on how to frame a Russia‑Ukraine peace pitch to President Trump, and an October 29 call between Ushakov and Kremlin interlocutor Kirill Dmitriev in which Dmitriev outlines Moscow’s informal conditions for a settlement; the publication and the recording’s provenance prompted intense political backlash and debate about who leaked the material [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What the Witkoff–Ushakov transcript actually contains
The transcript Bloomberg published records Witkoff advising Ushakov on tactical messaging — suggesting Putin present a “20‑point” peace proposal and coach his language to appeal to Trump, urging a more “hopeful” tone, proposing a Trump–Putin call before a planned Zelensky White House visit, and acknowledging contentious issues such as Donetsk and possible land swaps while advocating pragmatic framing to “move the needle” toward a deal [1] [4] [5].
2. The second transcript and Moscow’s conditions
Bloomberg additionally released a separate transcript of an October call between Ushakov and Kirill Dmitriev in which Dmitriev appears to provide a list of Russia’s positions or “informal” paper that could shape a peace plan — material that reporters and analysts say implies Kremlin efforts to launder its demands into U.S. drafts [1] [2] [6].
3. Where and how the material was published
Bloomberg is the outlet that published the transcripts and reported it had reviewed the audio recording, presenting both a written transcript and audio‑based reporting; multiple other outlets then republished, summarized, or hosted full transcripts (Bloomberg as primary publisher is reported across Reuters, Meduza and others) [1] [3] [6] [7]. One web site also posted a full transcript, citing Bloomberg’s publication and the October 14 date [5].
4. Questions about provenance and authenticity
Reporters and former intelligence officials told The Guardian and other outlets that Bloomberg’s access to raw audio — not just a transcript — suggests a source with direct access to an intercept (possibly intelligence collection), and analysts have speculated a European service or an upset partner might be responsible; however, outlets uniformly state the origin of the leak remains unknown and that publishing audio risks closing an intelligence window if it came from monitoring Ushakov’s devices [8] [1] [3].
5. Political fallout and competing interpretations
The leak touched off immediate political consequences: lawmakers demanded firings, critics called Witkoff a pro‑Kremlin actor, and the Kremlin denounced the leak as unacceptable “hybrid warfare” intended to hinder negotiations; by contrast, defenders cast the exchanges as standard negotiation posture and President Trump publicly backed Witkoff — underscoring partisan division over whether the transcripts reveal improper advocacy or routine diplomatic coaching [9] [3] [4] [10].
6. Limits of available reporting
The published reporting documents what Bloomberg presented and how other outlets relayed it, but none of the provided sources proves who intercepted or leaked the recording, nor do they independently verify every line of the transcripts beyond Bloomberg’s account; where sources note technical details — such as Ushakov sometimes using encrypted government channels and sometimes WhatsApp — they flag that interception methods and responsibility are matters of speculation [8] [11] [3].