Following the recent summit in Alaska, the Trump administration claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin had agreed to allow Ukraine to receive "NATO-style" security guarantees from Western nations. This announcement was initially met with optimism. However, Moscow clarified on Wednesday that these guarantees would only be valid if Russia and China were granted veto power over any future defense efforts for Ukraine, effectively nullifying their value.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated at a press conference 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 discussions, Russian negotiators insisted that Ukraine dismantle its security alliances and significantly reduce its military forces. In return, Ukraine would receive protection from a group of guarantor states, including Russia, which would have the authority to veto any intervention by other members.

"We will safeguard our legitimate interests in a firm and harsh manner," Lavrov emphasized, asserting that any discussions about security guarantees without Russia are futile. He also insisted that China should be included as an equal partner in these negotiations.

Despite Lavrov's claims, Ukraine has never accepted the terms proposed in the 2022 Istanbul talks and has consistently rejected any arrangement that would allow Russia to block its security guarantees. The situation raises concerns that any agreement allowing for a Russian veto would be worse than having no guarantees at all. If Ukraine's allies were to respond to a renewed invasion while contending with a legitimized Russian veto, it could delay military aid during critical moments of conflict. Additionally, Moscow could portray such support as an illegal intervention, shifting blame onto the West.

In the wake of the failed Istanbul talks, pro-Russian advocates have argued that a peace deal could have been reached if not for interference from the West. This narrative often relies on obscure details that can be easily manipulated for propaganda purposes.

Given these developments, the Trump administration's negotiating team should have sought clarification on Putin's concession regarding "NATO-like" security guarantees, particularly after he suggested including China in the discussions. Questions about the expected veto powers should have been a priority. However, it appears that this critical inquiry was overlooked, despite warnings from political commentators about the potential risks.

The Trump administration's approach to Eastern European affairs has faced scrutiny, particularly as 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 Steve Witkoff, a real estate mogul with no prior diplomatic experience. Witkoff has been criticized for his close ties to Trump and his lack of qualifications for the role.

In a recent interview, Witkoff struggled to name the four Ukrainian provinces partially occupied by Russia, a basic detail essential to his position. He also claimed that referendums indicated a majority of residents in these provinces wished to join Russia, despite widespread condemnation of these votes by the international community.

Earlier this month, Witkoff traveled to Moscow for talks with Putin and returned with claims that the Kremlin was open to a "land swap" involving the withdrawal of Russian forces from certain Ukrainian territories. This led to a pause in new sanctions and the convening of the Alaska summit. However, it later became clear that Witkoff had misinterpreted Putin's intentions, as the Russian leader actually wanted Ukrainian forces to withdraw.

Kellogg was not part of the Alaska delegation, leaving the U.S. representatives without experienced oversight. Witkoff later declared the summit a success, claiming credible security guarantees were on the table, a statement that contradicts Lavrov's recent comments.

When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with Trump at the White House, accompanied by influential European leaders, they discussed security guarantees and appeared to be making progress toward peace. However, it now seems that much of that time was unproductive due to the U.S. representatives' inability to recognize Russia's tactics.

This pattern of missteps has drawn criticism from former officials, including those from the Trump administration, who have labeled Witkoff's performance as damaging to U.S. negotiating efforts. His actions reflect a broader issue within the administration, which has struggled to effectively engage with Russian adversaries.