Zelensky knows better than to trust security promises

His meeting with Donald Trump raises as many questions about the future of the war as it answers

- Keir Giles

Just like the summit meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin a few days previously, Monday's extended meetings of the US, Ukrainian and European leaders ended with all concerned claiming success – but major questions remain over what exactly was agreed.

Just like the summit meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin a few days previously, Monday's extended meetings of the US, Ukrainian and European leaders ended with all concerned claiming success – but major questions remain over what exactly was agreed. Sir Keir Starmer came away from the talks claiming there had been “real progress” towards peace in Ukraine, with “two material outcomes”: the prospect of a direct meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian leaders, and of security guarantees to protect Ukraine.

But on both of these issues, it is unclear how these outcomes match up with what Russia thinks is happening next. The notion of “security guarantees” has caused deep confusion and extensive speculation since Trump envoy Steven Witkoff floated the idea of “Nato-like” backing for Ukraine on Sunday. The fact that this would represent a stunning reversal of not just Nato but also US policy, combined with Witkoff’s track record of a poor grasp of the key issues and misunderstanding what he has been told by the Russian side, should have set alarm bells ringing despite the excitable media reaction.

Any realistic protection for Ukraine would thwart Putin’s ambition to address what he calls “the root causes of the crisis” – namely Ukraine’s existence as a sovereign, independent nation able to determine its own future. And sure enough, Monday’s meetings ended with no public clarity on what kind of backing for Ukraine was under discussion, making it impossible to tell if this amounts to meaningful protection or something that can be comfortably ignored by Moscow.