U.S. officials emerged from President Trump’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this month in Alaska touting a major concession: Moscow was willing to allow “NATO-like” security guarantees for Ukraine as part of a comprehensive peace deal.
Ten days later, that commitment is looking empty, with Russia now demanding an effective veto over what those security guarantees would look like.
The Kremlin has also drawn a red line on any potential involvement of foreign forces in Ukraine, effectively ruling out a security pact similar to NATO’s Article 5, which says an attack on one member is an attack on all.
Following the Alaska summit, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff said Russia had agreed the U.S. and Europe could “effectively offer Article 5-like language to cover a security guarantee.”
In the days since, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has thrown that claim into question.
Lavrov said last week that any security guarantees that involved European forces in Ukraine were “absolutely unacceptable.” And he has insisted that Russia and China should be included among the guarantors of Ukraine’s security, outlining a model similar to the U.S. Security Council, which would give Moscow veto power over deployments and other decisions.
However, Vice President Vance on Sunday doubled down on Witkoff’s assessment during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“I think the Russians have made significant concessions to President Trump for the first time in three and a half years of this conflict,” Vance told host Kristen Welker.
Among those concessions, he said, was recognizing Russia could not install a puppet regime in Ukraine and “importantly, they’ve acknowledged that there is going to be some security guarantee to the territorial integrity of Ukraine.”
Branislav Slantchev, a political science professor at the University of California, San Diego, said there seemed to be a disconnect between Russia’s actual position and how it’s being portrayed by the Trump administration.
“The Russians have not offered any concessions. They have the exact same position as before they met in Alaska,” he said.
Slantchev raised two possible explanations for the dissonance: Either Trump officials were intentionally mischaracterizing Moscow’s positions to eventually blame Ukraine for peace talks falling apart, or they just aren’t accurately interpreting what’s being said.
“I’m inclined to the explanation that they actually do not understand what the Russians are telling them,” he said. “But these are not concessions.”
If the Trump administration is setting up Ukraine to take the blame, he added, “the Russians seem very reluctant to play ball in a way that would make that believable.”
It’s also possible that Russia misled U.S. interlocutors, or is sending mixed private and public signals. Trump on Tuesday said some public comments from Russian officials were “posturing” and “bulls—.”
Both France and the United Kingdom have expressed a willingness to deploy their troops inside Ukraine as part of a postwar security arrangement. Trump has said the U.S. is prepared to play a role in these guarantees, reportedly through air defenses and intelligence support.
Ukraine has insisted on an ironclad security pact as part of any comprehensive peace agreement, as a deterrent against future Russian aggression.
In exchange for these guarantees, Kyiv has signaled a willingness to freeze the current front lines of the war, effectively ceding almost 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory to Russia, though without formal recognition.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said security arrangements must also include commitments to a strong Ukrainian army.
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas this week warned that Putin was setting a “trap” with his territorial demands in Ukraine.
“We are forgetting that Russia has not made one single concession and they are the ones who are the aggressor here,” Kallas said.
Andrey Makarychev, a professor of regional political studies at the University of Tartu in Estonia, said Russia was putting itself in the “awkward position” of always saying no.
Makarychev credited Trump with “creating better preconditions” for peace talks and expanding the “spectrum of possibilities” by forcing Europe to formulate concrete plans for protecting Ukraine after the war.
“It’s a measure of psychologically and militarily pressurizing on Russia, which is an important part of the negotiation process, because Russia understands only force, hard power,” he said.
“So some small progress has been achieved already, but not sufficiently enough for making a breakthrough so far.”
Trump has pushed Putin and Zelensky to meet in person. Ukraine has said it’s ready to meet; Russia has said the conditions aren’t right and questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy.
Immediately following his separate meetings with Putin in Alaska and Zelensky in Washington, Trump expressed confidence that they would meet soon. During a meeting with South Korea’s president on Monday, he toned down that optimism.
“I don’t know that they’ll meet — maybe they will, maybe they won’t. It’s going to be up to them. It takes two to tango,” Trump said.
Asked if he would impose new sanctions on Russia if Putin refuses to meet, Trump said it depended on who is to blame.
Makarychev said additional pressure will be needed to force Russia to engage in good-faith negotiations. He warned against giving Russia a say in Ukraine’s security, saying it would create a “vicious circle of negotiating.”
He even suggested sending foreign forces into Ukraine before a mutual ceasefire — a move that has not been publicly contemplated by even Ukraine’s staunchest allies.
“They’re just trying to buy time,” he said of Russia. “They’re trying to postpone any decisions, and that can take months or years, and that’s the game that Russians are trying to play. And the question is, how the West can respond to this? I think only by doing things instead of just talking.”
Slantchev said such a move was politically “impossible,” given the risk of direct conflict with Russian forces.
“This will be a declaration of war. You cannot get involved in hostilities directly,” he said, adding European leaders would have a hard enough time winning public support for boots on the ground in Ukraine after the war.
“The political reality is that while the Europeans support Ukraine, they are not ready to fight Russia.”
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
Comments