Following last week's summit in Alaska, the Trump administration announced that Russian President Vladimir Putin had agreed to allow Ukraine to receive "NATO-style" security guarantees from Western nations. This development was initially met with widespread approval. However, Moscow clarified on Wednesday that these guarantees would be contingent upon granting Russia and China the authority to veto any future defense efforts for Ukraine, effectively undermining their value.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated at a press conference in Moscow that the Kremlin would only accept international security guarantees for Ukraine if they aligned with proposals made during the Istanbul peace talks in early 2022. During those talks, Russian negotiators insisted that Ukraine sever all security alliances and significantly reduce its military forces. In return, Ukraine would receive protection from a group of guarantor states, including Russia and other partners, who would hold veto power over any intervention by other nations.

"We will safeguard our legitimate interests in a firm and harsh manner," Lavrov said, emphasizing that discussions about security guarantees without the involvement of Russia are futile. He also insisted that China should be treated as an equal partner in these negotiations.

Despite Lavrov's claims, Ukraine has never accepted the terms proposed during the 2022 Istanbul talks and has consistently rejected any such arrangements. The effectiveness of security guarantees is compromised if the aggressor nation can block them. Accepting these conditional guarantees could be more detrimental than having no assurances at all. If Ukraine's allies were to respond to a renewed invasion while contending with a legitimized Russian veto, it could delay critical military support during the early stages of conflict. Furthermore, Moscow could portray this support as an illegal intervention, casting the West in a negative light.

In the aftermath of the failed 2022 Istanbul talks, pro-Russian advocates have claimed that a peace agreement would have been reached if not for interference from the West. Such narratives often rely on obscure details that can be easily manipulated for propaganda purposes. Given this backdrop, the Trump administration's negotiating team should have sought clarification on Putin's remarks regarding "NATO-like" security guarantees, particularly concerning the inclusion of China and potential veto powers.

It appears that this crucial question was overlooked, despite warnings from political commentators about the risks associated with this so-called concession. This oversight raises concerns about the preparedness of Trump's team regarding Eastern European affairs. Since January, two factions within the White House have emerged regarding Ukraine. One faction is led by retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, the U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Ukraine, while the other is represented by real estate mogul Steve Witkoff, who initially focused on the Middle East but has since expanded his role to include Russia. Currently, Witkoff seems to hold more influence in these discussions.