Kremlin Says Putin Invited to Trump-Led U.N. Gaza ‘Board of Peace’

Putin invited to join Trump’s Gaza board, Kremlin says

The Kremlin said Monday that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been invited to join President Donald Trump’s new “Board of Peace” for Gaza, a United Nations–mandated body emerging as a central mechanism for overseeing the territory’s postwar future.

“President Putin has indeed received through diplomatic channels a proposal to join the ‘Council of Peace’ for Gaza,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in Moscow on Jan. 19. “We are currently studying all the details of this proposal and hope for contacts with the American side to clarify all nuances,” he said.

The disclosure confirms that Trump has asked the Russian leader—still directing a full-scale war in Ukraine and under sweeping Western sanctions—to sit on a board meant to supervise cease-fire arrangements, reconstruction, and longer-term political management in the devastated coastal enclave.

A U.N.-mandated structure with Trump at the center

Created under U.N. Security Council Resolution 2803 in November, the Board of Peace is formally tasked with supporting the administration, rebuilding, and economic recovery of Gaza following the 2025 Gaza Peace Agreement. Trump, who returned to the White House last year, announced on Jan. 15 that “THE BOARD OF PEACE has been formed,” calling it on social media “the greatest and most prestigious board ever assembled at any time, any place.”

In practice, the board is being built around a three-tier structure that concentrates authority at the top in Trump’s hands and includes a mix of serving officials, former leaders, and business figures. Putin’s potential participation would underscore both the global ambitions of the project and the strains it is creating for traditional Western efforts to isolate Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine.

Under Resolution 2803, adopted Nov. 17, 2025, the Security Council endorsed a comprehensive plan for Gaza that followed a U.S.-brokered cease-fire. The resolution authorized a temporary international stabilization force, welcomed the formation of a Board of Peace, and endorsed a Palestinian technocratic body—the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG)—to handle day-to-day governance.

The Board of Peace sits above that Palestinian committee. According to people familiar with its draft charter and public announcements, the main board is composed primarily of heads of state and government and is chaired by Trump. Beneath it is an Executive Board focused on diplomacy and finance, and a Gaza Executive Board that works directly with the NCAG and a newly appointed High Representative for Gaza.

Appointees, allies, and regional players

So far, Trump has tapped U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, World Bank President Ajay Banga, former U.N. Middle East envoy Nickolay Mladenov, real estate developer Steve Witkoff, and Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan for senior roles. Israeli billionaire Yakir Gabay and senior officials from Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates have been named to the Gaza-focused tier.

The arrangement is legally grounded in the U.N. resolution, but internal documents describe a broader mission to promote stability in “areas affected or threatened by conflict” well beyond Gaza. That has raised concerns in some capitals that Trump is constructing a parallel, personality-driven institution that could compete with or sideline existing U.N. structures in future crises.

Funding model draws criticism

Financial design has been another flash point. According to public comments from Trump allies and reporting by European and Middle Eastern outlets, countries can join the Board of Peace at no cost for an initial three-year term. But a permanent seat is linked to a $1 billion contribution, with the U.S. president granted wide discretion over how funds are managed and how seats are allocated.

Critics in Washington and European capitals say that model risks monetizing postwar governance and blurring the line between humanitarian reconstruction and political access. The Trump administration argues the scale of Gaza’s devastation—and the broader ambitions of the board—require large, upfront commitments from governments and investors.

The Putin factor, and Ukraine’s shadow

The invitation to Putin comes as Russia remains under U.S. and European sanctions for its 2022 invasion of Ukraine and faces accusations of war crimes and aggression in international forums. Western governments have sought to limit Moscow’s role in global decision-making, while Kyiv and its allies argue that any normalization of Russia’s status should be conditioned on a withdrawal from Ukrainian territory.

Against that backdrop, Peskov’s confirmation that Trump has asked Putin to join a high-profile peace initiative has drawn close scrutiny. Russian state media and pro-Kremlin commentators have portrayed the invitation as recognition that Russia remains indispensable to major international security questions despite Western attempts to isolate it.

Analysts in Moscow have suggested that a seat on the Board of Peace could give Russia another platform to promote what it calls a “multipolar” world order, where U.S. and European powers are balanced by Russia, China, and key regional states. Russian officials, however, have emphasized they need to see the “parameters and terms” of participation before deciding.

Regional reactions: unease in Israel, mixed views among Palestinians

In the Middle East, Russia has positioned itself over the past decade as a power broker with working ties to Israel, Iran, and Arab states. Since the start of the Gaza war in October 2023, the Kremlin has increasingly criticized Israel’s military campaign, with Putin describing the situation as a “catastrophe” and calling for a cease-fire. Russian officials have also cultivated relations with Palestinian factions, including Hamas, which has rejected Resolution 2803 as a form of “foreign guardianship.”

For Israel, the Board of Peace is already a source of unease. The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has complained that some appointments “were not coordinated with Israel and were contrary to its policy,” according to officials familiar with internal discussions. Israeli leaders have been wary of expanded roles for Turkey and Qatar in Gaza’s security and governance, and have resisted any arrangement they see as diluting Israel’s control of security matters around the enclave.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and other far-right ministers have called on Israel to reassert full military rule over Gaza and consider reestablishing Jewish settlements there. They have denounced the Board of Peace and the Gaza Executive Board as undermining Israeli sovereignty.

Palestinian reactions have been mixed and fragmented. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas welcomed the 2025 cease-fire and the U.N. resolution, expressing hope they would revive a path toward a two-state solution. But the PA’s role within the new architecture remains undefined, and Palestinian political leaders are not represented at the top of the Board of Peace hierarchy.

Hamas, which retains armed capabilities despite Israeli operations and has not agreed to disarm, rejected Resolution 2803 and the Trump plan that underpins it. The group said the arrangement replaces Israeli occupation with foreign administration. Palestinian technocrats appointed to the NCAG have said they are focused on restoring basic services and shelter, but civil society figures have voiced concern that decisions about Gaza’s future are being made above their heads by foreign governments and financiers.

Europe weighs participation

In Europe, the reaction has been cautious. European Union officials say they want a role on the board’s oversight bodies to match the bloc’s large reconstruction pledges for Gaza, but internal assessments warn that the new structure risks sidelining longer-term Palestinian statehood discussions. France has reportedly declined to join, citing worries over the board’s vague global remit and its concentration of power in the hands of a single national leader.

Supporters of the Board of Peace within the Trump administration counter that the existing multilateral system failed to prevent years of stalemate and repeated rounds of conflict, and that a more flexible, investment-oriented model is needed. They argue that involving a broad range of actors, including Russia, will improve the chances of enforcing cease-fires and mobilizing resources.

What comes next

Whether Putin ultimately takes up Trump’s offer remains unclear. Russian officials have given no timeline for a decision. If he accepts, it would place the Russian leader at the same table as U.S. allies discussing the future of Gaza even as Russian forces continue operations in Ukraine. If he declines, it could weaken Trump’s attempt to present the Board of Peace as a truly global conflict-management forum.

For residents of Gaza, still grappling with destroyed neighborhoods, mass displacement, and fragile security, the maneuvering among Washington, Moscow, and other capitals may feel distant. Yet the composition and conduct of the Board of Peace—and whether it includes Russia—will help determine who controls the flow of reconstruction funds, how security is enforced, and how far Palestinians themselves are able to shape the territory that emerges from war.