Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, has said Moscow will not accept the security-guarantee framework for Ukraine now being explored by the United States and European allies, arguing that any credible arrangement must include Russia and should draw on the draft discussed in Istanbul in 2022. He described talks about guarantees without Russia as “a road to nowhere”.
Lavrov referred to the Istanbul outline, under which Ukraine would adopt neutrality, forgo NATO membership and receive security assurances from permanent members of the UN Security Council, with possible participation by other states such as Germany and Turkey. Kyiv later distanced itself from that approach amid concerns that Russia’s role as a guarantor would amount to a de facto veto over allied responses.
His remarks follow a week of intensive diplomacy. On 16 August, President Donald Trump met Vladimir Putin at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska. Subsequent engagements in Washington involved President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders, focused on potential security arrangements to accompany any ceasefire or peace deal. The Alaska meeting ended without a formal agreement.
Trump has signalled support for providing Ukraine with “NATO-like” assurances while ruling out Ukraine’s entry into the Alliance and excluding the deployment of US ground forces, suggesting US assistance could emphasise air power. European leaders have broadly welcomed discussion of long-term guarantees, while seeking clarity on scope and enforcement.
According to US and European reporting, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been tasked with leading a US working group to develop options for collective guarantees in coordination with European partners and Ukraine. Public descriptions of the concept indicate an “Article 5 without NATO membership” model under consideration, potentially combining air defence, armaments supply, force reconstitution and ceasefire-monitoring mechanisms.
NATO military chiefs are convening to examine security-guarantee scenarios and the operational implications of any arrangement that might accompany negotiations. Briefings to allied defence leaders are expected to include readouts from the Alaska meeting and planning assumptions for deterrence and support to Ukraine.
Moscow has restated its opposition to any presence of NATO forces on Ukrainian territory as part of a guarantees package. Lavrov’s position suggests the Kremlin would insist on a settlement framework that preserves its say over the design and activation of any protective measures for Ukraine—an approach that diverges from current Western thinking on credible, automatic responses to renewed aggression.
The 2022 Istanbul draft has remained a reference point for Russian officials. For Ukraine and many of its partners, however, the war’s subsequent course—full-scale missile and drone strikes, occupation and annexation claims—has altered baseline assumptions about risk, enforcement and trust. Western proposals now being debated aim to reduce uncertainty by specifying rapid assistance triggers and monitored compliance, while avoiding formal NATO accession. Lavrov’s intervention therefore highlights a central obstacle: Russia’s demand to be a party to the guarantee architecture.
In practical terms, the gap between these positions complicates any near-term move from exploratory diplomacy to a negotiated text. Should Western governments proceed to elaborate guarantees absent Russian participation, Moscow is signalling it would not treat such commitments as a basis for talks. Conversely, any framework that includes Russia as a guarantor would need safeguards acceptable to Kyiv and its partners to ensure it cannot be paralysed by a Russian veto if hostilities resume.
Meeting In Alaska: A Big Deal Without Any Peace Deal, by Mykhailo Gonchar
