Putin Didn’t “Choose” Witkoff. He Engineered Him.
The psychological profiling playbook behind a preferred envoy-and why “Come alone, no CIA” is the tell.
Putin Didn’t “Choose” Witkoff. He Engineered Him.
The psychological profiling playbook behind a preferred envoy-and why “Come alone, no CIA” is the tell.
The Jack Hopkins Now Newsletter #702: Christmas Eve, 2025.
When you read the reporting on how Vladimir Putin moved to make Steve Witkoff the preferred channel into Trump’s orbit…
…when you really read it…you’re not looking at diplomacy.
You’re looking at selection.
Not the innocent kind. The kind with sharp edges.
The Wall Street Journal account (also echoed by other outlets summarizing it) includes a detail so revealing it might as well be a neon sign:
Putin’s side wanted Witkoff to come alone…no CIA handlers…no diplomats…not even an interpreter. The Wall Street Journal+1
That is not a quaint preference. That is not “protocol.”
That is tradecraft.
And the reporting says Putin’s camp had been studying psychological profiles of officials around Trump…explicitly including Keith Kellogg…and flagged “red flags” suggesting he’d be hostile to Russia’s aims. Political Wire+2Benzinga+2
Let’s translate that into plain American:
Putin’s operation wasn’t asking, “Who can we talk to?”
It was asking, “Who can we use?”
Not “use” as in blackmail fantasies and spy-movie nonsense.
Use as in:
Who is structurally likely to accept our framing?
Who is easiest to isolate from institutional guardrails?
Who has access to the decision-maker?
Who is most likely to treat geopolitics like a deal table?
That’s what “psychological profiling” means in this context. Not a clinical diagnosis. Not a DSM label.
Operational selection.
The biggest misconception people have about authoritarian power
People hear “Putin doesn’t care about rules” and assume that means Putin is impulsive.
Wrong.
Putin’s style is not “I do whatever I want.”
It’s “I build conditions so you do what I want.”
Read that again. It’s critical in understanding Vladimir Putin.
That’s why the “preferred envoy” story matters. Because it illustrates a core Russian influence concept that Western democracies keep learning the hard way:
Reflexive control…shaping an opponent’s decision-making so they choose the outcome you prefer.
RAND has described how Russian reflexive control theory aims to alter perceptions and decision environments so the target’s choices become predictable and exploitable. RAND Corporation
Putin doesn’t need to force a U.S. administration to choose a channel.
He just needs to make one channel:
easier…
more rewarding…
more “productive,”
and less policed by institutions.
Then the target…“chooses” it themselves.
That’s why “Come alone, no CIA” is such a flashing warning light. It’s the moment you can see the gears.
“Come alone” isn’t a request. It’s a system hack.
If you want to understand what that demand is doing…think like a prosecutor or a salesman.
A prosecutor asks:
Who benefits if there are no witnesses? Who benefits if there is no record?
A salesman asks:
How do I reduce objections? How do I keep the prospect from consulting the people who will say “don’t do it”?
Now apply that to a high-stakes geopolitical channel:
No CIA = fewer people trained to spot manipulation.
No diplomats = fewer people trained to insist on documented commitments… sequencing…and verification.
No interpreter = you are dependent on their language environment and social control…and you lose a crucial layer of independence and record-keeping. The Wall Street Journal+1
This is not about convenience.
This is about control of context.
Because context is where persuasion lives.
You don’t need to hypnotize anyone if you control:
who is in the room…
what is said…
what is recorded…
what is not recorded…
what gets “remembered” afterward.
That’s how influence works in the real world.
The profiling piece: what it likely means (and what it doesn’t)
Let’s be responsible and precise here.
When the reporting says Putin’s side studied “psychological profiles” of Trump’s officials and found “red flags” about Kellogg…it does not mean a therapist in Moscow diagnosed anyone.
It likely means:
public record review (prior statements, affiliations, ideology)
incentives mapping (who benefits from what outcome)
temperament assessment (risk tolerance, ego dynamics, need for approval)
operational constraints (who is embedded in institutions; who isn’t)
network analysis (who has access to the principal decision-maker)
In plain English:
They were scoring candidates for “usability.”
Kellogg, per the reporting summaries, showed “red flags”…which in influence language usually means:
too aligned with Ukraine
too institutionally anchored
too experienced to be isolated
too likely to insist on verification…NATO alignment…or conditions that Russia rejects
So they steer away from him.
They steer toward the person who is:
closer to Trump personally…
less tied to the foreign policy establishment…
more comfortable in private deal-making environments.
And the reporting portrays Witkoff as that channel. The Wall Street Journal+1
The intermediaries tell you the shape of the operation
The reporting doesn’t describe a straight line between Moscow and Washington.
It describes a routing problem being solved.
One account notes the outreach involved Kirill Dmitriev (linked to Russia’s sovereign wealth apparatus) and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as an intermediary. RSN+2Reuters+2
Reuters separately reported on Dmitriev’s role and status…including his appointment as a special envoy and his involvement in high-level talks…and also reported that MbS and Dmitriev were involved in the Marc Fogel prisoner-release negotiations that intersected with Witkoff’s role. Reuters+2Reuters+2
Again, read this like a strategist:
When you use intermediaries…you’re not just delivering messages.
You’re:
laundering credibility…
reducing direct attribution…
creating plausible deniability…
and selecting who gets to be in the loop.
It’s not just “who talks to whom.”
It’s who is excluded.
And exclusion is where leverage grows.
The “gift” move: a psychological operation in plain sight
There’s another reported moment that…if you understand power…makes your stomach tighten.
CBS reported that Putin gave Witkoff an award…the Order of Lenin…intended to be delivered to a senior CIA official whose son died in Ukraine fighting with Russian forces. The reporting framed it as “mind games” and a probing psychological tactic. CBS News+1
Whether you interpret this as cruelty…signaling…manipulation…or all of the above, here’s the functional point:
It forces the recipient system into an emotional and institutional dilemma:
accept and normalize the channel…or
reject and escalate conflict…or
accept quietly and swallow reputational poison…or
turn it into a public incident and risk other costs.
That’s reflexive control again: present choices where every option moves the board in your favor.
Putin doesn’t have to win every move.
He only has to make sure your choices are constrained and costly.
The reality check: “He doesn’t have to be compromised.”
This is the part where people lose their minds and ruin their own credibility.
They jump to: “So Witkoff must be compromised.”
Stop.
Putin doesn’t need kompromat if he has something cheaper and more reliable:
Structure.
If you can create a channel that bypasses institutional defenses…you can influence outcomes…even if the person in that channel is acting in good faith.
Good faith doesn’t stop manipulation when:
you’re isolated…
you’re rushed…
you’re flattered…
you’re positioned as “the only one who can fix this,”
and you’re operating without the professionals…whose job is to keep you from getting played.
That’s why “come alone” matters so much. The Wall Street Journal+1
It’s the tell that this is about bypassing the immune system of the state.
So… did Putin “hand pick” Witkoff?
Here’s the best, most accurate phrasing:
Putin did not “appoint” Witkoff.
He created conditions that made Witkoff the preferred conduit.
That’s selection by engineering…not selection by decree.
It’s like a casino that doesn’t force you to gamble…but designs the floor…so you end up at the blackjack table anyway.
And if the reporting is accurate…Putin’s side wasn’t passive about this. It was studying profiles…identifying “red flags,” and pushing toward the channel that served Moscow’s goals.
What this means for U.S. decision-making (the scary part)
The danger is not one meeting.
The danger is normalization.
Because once a “special channel” becomes routine…it starts to crowd out the official channel. Then the official channel becomes a formality. Then the formality becomes irrelevant.
And then you have policy being shaped by:
private relationships…
personal incentives…
and information environments controlled by the adversary.
That’s not how you win negotiations. That’s how you get walked into concessions…you can’t defend later.
If you want a signpost for this…look at the way critics have reacted to proposals associated with Witkoff’s approach in other reporting…describing them as giving Russia an unacceptable advantage. Newsweek
Whether you agree with that critique or not…the fact that this is the contested terrain tells you how high the stakes are.
The playbook, simplified: How a “preferred envoy” gets made
Let me lay it out in a way you can recognize instantly the next time:
Identify the principal (Trump) and the decision bottleneck.
Profile the orbit for:
loyalty patterns…
institutional anchoring…
ego needs…
and “deal orientation.”
Disqualify the hardened professionals (“red flags”). Political Wire+2Benzinga+2
Elevate the usable channel by:
creating a “breakthrough” moment (prisoner release, symbolic access),
framing the channel as uniquely productive. Reuters+1
Insist on conditions that strip away guardrails:
“come alone,” “no CIA,” “no interpreter.” The Wall Street Journal+1
Reward the channel with status and exclusive access.
Normalize it until the state’s immune system stops reacting.
That’s not conspiracy. That’s influence operations.
You can call it “active measures” in the Cold War sense…political warfare aimed at shaping foreign outcomes.
Or you can call it reflexive control…in modern Russian terms. RAND Corporation
Same animal. Different decade.
What to watch next (practical, not theatrical)
If you want to know whether this is just a one-off anecdote or an ongoing pattern, watch for these signals:
1) Isolation pressure
Do they keep pushing for meetings with fewer U.S. officials present?
2) Record degradation
Do meetings produce vaguer outcomes…fewer written commitments…more “understandings”?
3) Sequencing tricks
Do concessions get front-loaded while verification gets deferred?
4) Channel monopoly
Do alternative channels get sidelined…especially those staffed by professionals?
5) Public messaging alignment
Do talking points start sounding like Moscow’s preferred framing?
This is not about “predicting the future.” It’s about recognizing the shape of manipulation.
The bottom line
Putin doesn’t need Americans to love him.
He needs them to:
trust the wrong channel…
accept the wrong framing…
and make decisions inside an environment he controls.
“Come alone, no CIA” is the purest expression of that goal. The Wall Street Journal+1
And the psychological profiling piece…if accurately reported…tells you this wasn’t improvised. It was selected. Curated. Engineered.
Not because Witkoff is necessarily a villain.
But because he may be…structurally…useful.
And in Putin’s world…usefulness is everything.
#HoldFast
Back soon,
-Jack
Jack Hopkins
Resources & Reporting
Primary Reporting
The Wall Street Journal
How Putin Got His Preferred U.S. Envoy: Come Alone, No CIA
(Foundational reporting on Witkoff as a preferred channel and the “come alone” condition.)Reuters
Saudi Crown Prince, Russia’s Wealth Fund Chief Involved in U.S. Prisoner Release
(Details on intermediaries, including Mohammed bin Salman and Kirill Dmitriev.)Reuters
Putin Appoints Kirill Dmitriev as Special Envoy
(Background on Dmitriev’s formal role in Russian diplomatic and economic outreach.)CBS News
Putin Gives Witkoff Order of Lenin Linked to CIA Family Tragedy
(Reporting on the symbolic “gift” widely interpreted as psychological signaling.)
Analytical & Intelligence Context
RAND Corporation
Russia’s Reflexive Control Theory and Its Modern Applications
(Explains how Russian strategy seeks to shape opponents’ decision environments rather than coerce outcomes.)RAND Corporation
Russian Political Warfare and Active Measures
(Historical and modern framework for influence operations targeting Western institutions.)Routledge Handbook of Disinformation and National Security
Chapter on Cold War–era Active Measures
(Background on selection, influence, and non-kinetic political warfare.)
Supporting Coverage & Commentary
Reuters
Coverage of Witkoff-linked diplomatic initiatives and critiques of proposed negotiation frameworks.Responsible Statecraft / RSN
Summaries and excerpts of WSJ reporting for broader public access and analysis.
Notes on Methodology
This article relies on:
Public reporting from established outlets
Open-source intelligence (OSINT) analysis
Historical intelligence and influence-operation frameworks
No claims are made regarding classified information, personal medical or psychological diagnoses, or unlawful conduct. “Psychological profiling” is used in its operational sense…referring to incentive mapping, role analysis, and decision-environment assessment as commonly practiced in statecraft and intelligence.
Jack - I have wondered for weeks why Witkoff was the US negotiator. Your analysis answers my question. I am seriously concerned what it portends for Ukraine but I’m glad to get the big picture. Thank you.
Putin didn’t “choose” Witkoff—he engineered him. The least insulated, most Kremlin-friendly channel became the go-to, sidelining diplomats and leaving U.S. credibility on the line. This isn’t negotiation; it’s a gift to Moscow. Great one Jack.