Interview with David Gorman, HD's Eurasia Regional Director (© Die Zeit, Jana Simon, July 23, 2025)

Translated from the original article in German

“Trump’s Intentions Were Right”

There is little progress in the negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Why is it still important to keep talking? Peace mediator David Gorman says: Both countries cannot afford a permanent enmity.

David Gorman, 56, is an American who has worked for more than 25 years as an independent peace mediator for the non-governmental organization Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) in Geneva. HD is funded by countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, and Norway, as well as foundations and private donors. It is the largest NGO in this field. Since 2012, Gorman has served as Regional Director for Eurasia at HD, mediating between Ukraine, Russia, Europe, and the United States.

DIE ZEIT: Donald Trump announced he would impose tariffs on Russia and its trading partners if there was no ceasefire in Ukraine within 50 days. You were in Moscow shortly after. Do you get the sense that the Russian side takes the ultimatum seriously?

David Gorman: The Russian side usually does not respond well to pressure. But they are taking President Trump’s intervention very seriously. Still, they follow a consistent policy: if one wants a comprehensive ceasefire, one must address their interpretation of the conflict’s root causes. Their interpretation—or rather, their demands—are, as they call them: “denazification,” neutrality, and demilitarization of Ukraine.

ZEIT: Were you surprised by Trump’s announcement? For many, it looks like a political turnaround.

Gorman: No. Trump is used to putting pressure on both sides in negotiations—first on Ukraine, now on Russia.

ZEIT: So it’s a tactic. What do you think he’s aiming for?

Gorman: I believe he genuinely wants to end the war. And it frustrates him. That’s why he’s applying pressure. He has clearly put the ball in Russia’s court. But Russia currently sees itself in a military advantage. So I expect a lull now in negotiations over a potential ceasefire.

ZEIT: You’ve worked for over 25 years at the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue in Geneva. You’ve mediated in war zones like Bosnia, Liberia, Libya, and since 2012 in Russia and Ukraine. Do you speak first with the Ukrainians and then with the Russians because they don’t speak to each other?

Gorman: Only when the Ukrainians ask to convey something to Russia, and vice versa. I can explore willingness for certain solutions to find a way to end the conflict. Also because I’m not an official diplomat or politician. It’s not always about delivering encouraging messages. When I was in Moscow in early June, just before the second direct talks in Istanbul between Russia and Ukraine, I had to deliver a hard message afterward.

ZEIT: The message being: Russia does not want peace?

Gorman: The message was that they would not move from their original positions, nor soften them, and that no breakthroughs should be expected in this regard. I told our Russian counterparts: This will not go down well.

ZEIT: Did you expect anything different?

Gorman: Lately, I had assumed the process would move forward, especially considering the changing US–Russia relations. I didn’t think Russia would want to jeopardize its relationship with the US to this extent. At least I expected some softening of traditional positions.

ZEIT: How can you advise all sides in such hostile times?

Gorman: I wouldn’t call it advising—more like exchanging ideas. As an independent mediator without a mandate from any one party, I have the freedom to explore what may or may not be possible. Official diplomacy is also about advocacy. And because the situation is now so polarized, some see it as useful that someone engages discreetly without a personal agenda. In the past, there were many European actors in this space. But now they’re seen as part of the conflict. I don’t know many currently who travel to both Ukraine and Russia.

“The best solution right now would be some kind of lasting ceasefire”

ZEIT: Who do you talk to in Russia?

Gorman: I speak with Russian government officials and experts—not the opposition. And we only discuss potential negotiation options, not military or domestic political matters.

ZEIT: Your French colleague Laurent Vinatier was arrested in Moscow in 2024 and sentenced to three years in prison for violating the “foreign agents” law. How are you still able to work in Russia?

Gorman: The Russian side has assured me that I am not under investigation and that it’s not dangerous. Cutting off contact would not be helpful. But Laurent is in prison. He still has about 16 months left. He was accused of working for a foreign-funded NGO without registering with authorities. He pleaded guilty, expecting a lighter sentence—but got nearly the maximum. That was shocking and disappointing. We believe Laurent is innocent. I’m not afraid for myself, but his case worries me.

ZEIT: In 2022, HD, the UN, and Turkey initiated the Black Sea Grain Initiative. The agreement between Russia and Ukraine allowed for the safe export of Ukrainian grain, food, and fertilizers from key Black Sea ports.

Gorman: I was heavily involved in that agreement for a while. It didn’t always look like it would succeed. But when the military situation changed, Ukraine recaptured the strategic Snake Island, and the Global South demanded action due to growing grain needs, the tone shifted. Russia realized it couldn’t take Odessa anyway. So, at that moment, an agreement was in both sides’ interest.

ZEIT: What do you think was the turning point in those negotiations?

Gorman: I believe it was when Martin Griffiths, then UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, and I met Rustem Umerov, now Ukraine’s chief negotiator. The Ukrainians feared the UN-established corridor could allow Russian intrusion into Ukrainian territory. We assured them: “No, that won’t happen.” The Russians, in turn, feared the corridor could be used for weapons deliveries to Ukraine.

ZEIT: Russia withdrew from the agreement in 2023. What’s the current situation with Ukrainian grain exports?

Gorman: There is a tacit agreement not to attack civilian ships, and it’s largely being upheld.

ZEIT: Recently, Russia has intensified its attacks. Now, Russia and Ukraine are meeting again for direct talks. Do you foresee a turning point toward a ceasefire or even peace?

Gorman: Since the first talks in Istanbul in 2022, I’ve felt that a comprehensive political solution is unlikely in the near future. The positions on territorial integrity and Ukraine’s sovereignty are irreconcilable at the moment. The best solution now would be some kind of lasting ceasefire that gradually evolves into a political settlement. This could include elements of “constructive relations” in many areas—even without a final peace agreement.

ZEIT: What do you mean by “constructive relations”?

Gorman: First, a military withdrawal would be needed. Then constructive relations could be built—political or even economic—by trading vital goods like gas, ammonia, or other products. Ultimately, the two countries share a 2,000-kilometer border and can’t afford to live in permanent hostility. Many family ties still exist. Over time, a lasting political agreement might emerge. But neither side is ready for that now.

ZEIT: Why not?

Gorman: Because Ukraine wants justice and needs security guarantees for its sovereignty and territorial integrity before rapprochement is possible. Meanwhile, Russia wants to gain influence over Ukraine before it trusts in real independence. But right now, Russia sees itself militarily advantaged and is willing to exploit that.

“There is the political level and the military level”

ZEIT: So there’s no solution?

Gorman: Not a political one at the moment. But eventually, the bitter fighting will either stop or the conflict will be frozen because the fighting yields no gains. That means halting combat operations with lasting security guarantees. The other alternative is to keep fighting—something that will exhaust both countries.

ZEIT: Was there a real chance to end the war during the first talks in 2022?

Gorman: I was in Kyiv at the time, negotiating humanitarian corridors with all sides. Just as the Istanbul talks were happening, news about the events in Bucha emerged. That drastically limited the Ukrainian president’s room for compromise. I don’t think he could have agreed to neutrality and demilitarization at that point. And I can’t imagine the Ukrainian public would have supported a peace agreement. They had made their decision: to defend Ukraine and fight. And their confidence in their military was growing.

ZEIT: You were in Bucha shortly after the massacre. What changed for you?

Gorman: Once the bloodshed begins—and it’s that deep and serious—it becomes very hard to walk anything back. What Ukraine and Russia had discussed before—neutrality and demilitarization—was suddenly off the table. People wanted justice, not diplomacy.

ZEIT: When you speak with Russians and Ukrainians, are there differences in how they communicate?

Gorman: There is the political level and the military level. I find that the military level often has a more pragmatic understanding of what the situation really is and what’s necessary and possible. For example, in negotiations over prisoner or body exchanges: when the military side has the mandate to talk with the other side, those talks tend to be more constructive. On the political level, everything is more complicated and emotionally charged.

ZEIT: What has your experience been with the Trump administration? Why do they work with you?

Gorman: They wanted new ideas. They approach things with a fresh perspective—unconventionally, creatively, and boldly. Trump was very determined to get a ceasefire and end the fighting. I think that’s an ambitious but good goal. Trump’s intentions and instinct were right—in the sense that we should try to pressure both sides. At least Ukraine and Russia are talking again. That’s progress.

ZEIT: In Germany, parties like BSW and AfD argue that Russia also has legitimate security interests.

Gorman: I think many people still believe Russia felt threatened by NATO. NATO is a defensive alliance, but many people understand Russia’s or Putin’s perception that NATO expansion is a threat. It’s not about whether one thinks NATO actually threatened Russia—but about Moscow’s perception. I can understand that perception too. But my job is to find a path that all sides can see as an opportunity.

ZEIT: So how do you think this war could end?

Gorman: There aren’t enough resources to sustain this war at its current pace for much longer. So how will it end? I see a gradual reduction in fighting, simply because the political positions are so far apart. Right now, everyone is focused on getting a first ceasefire. And if we’re talking about a thousand deaths and injuries a day, stopping the fighting would already be a good thing.