An appointment like Witkoff’s is truly surreal: a friend who made his career in real estate is being sent to negotiate a U.S.-Russia agreement, despite having virtually no diplomatic experience—though he has no shortage of grand visions. This isn’t an ordinary business negotiation. It’s a U.S.-Russia power struggle involving a ceasefire in Ukraine, sanctions relief, arms control and stability, and Europe’s security architecture. Even a veteran who’s spent decades at the State Department would need to work through the issues repeatedly with teams covering law, intelligence, the military, and coordination with allies. When someone with no relevant track record suddenly takes center stage, of course people will ask: What makes him the right person for the job?

Applebaum’s criticism is harsh, but it isn’t baseless. Her point isn’t that “businesspeople can’t go into politics.” It’s this: When foreign policy starts revolving around private interests, personal relationships, and political loyalty, who ultimately pays the price? Frontline soldiers? Ordinary families affected by sanctions? Allies who depend on U.S. security commitments? Or taxpayers who will have to clean up the mess down the road? There have been successful cases of unconventional envoys, but they usually rely on a clear mandate, a professional team, and verifiable safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest. By contrast, if you treat negotiations between countries like real estate deals, putting “Can we close the deal?” ahead of “Will the deal hold up over time?”, you risk underestimating the dangers.

It’s like investing: the day your account doubles, you’re most tempted to go all in because you think you’ve figured it out and luck is on your side. The same goes for countries. The more you think “we can get a deal done,” the easier it is to overlook the other side’s core demands, domestic political constraints, and the cost of carrying it out. U.S.-Russia problems can’t be solved just by signing a letter of intent. Sanctions, NATO’s eastward expansion, energy dependence, territory, and security guarantees are all deeply interconnected. Having no experience isn’t what’s scary; what’s scary is reducing a complex power struggle to the art of a personal deal, and treating diplomatic outcomes as assets that can be quickly delivered.

So the real question isn’t how hard Witkoff is working personally, but whether the appointment process put expertise and conflict-of-interest screening first. If you see it differently, explain why.