Ukrainians have given a lukewarm reaction to this week’s White House summit.

There is bafflement and unease here after US President Donald Trump switched sides to support his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, dropping calls for a ceasefire and proposing that Ukraine surrender territory.

While allies are talking up the prospects of progress, people here remain unconvinced.

Ukraine war latest – Trump rules out using US troops

The Trump administration’s contradictory statements on possible security guarantees are causing concern here.

MP Lesia Vasylenko told Sky News it is not at all clear what the allies have in mind.

“Who is going to be there backing Ukraine in case Russia decides to revisit their imperialistic plans and strategies and in case they want to restart this war of aggression?”

For many Ukrainians, there is a troubling sense of deja vu.

In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine agreed to give up not land but its nuclear arsenal, inherited from the Soviet Union, in return for security assurances from Russia and other powers.

They know how that ended up to their enormous cost. Putin reneged on Russia’s side of the bargain, with his invasion of Crimea in 2014 and once again with his full-scale attack three and a half years ago.

We met veteran Ukrainian diplomat Yuri Kostenko, who helped lead those negotiations in the 90s.

He said there is a danger the world makes the same mistake and trusts Vladimir Putin when he says he wants to stop the killing, something Mr Trump said he now believes.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈        

“It’s not true, it’s not true, Russia never, never, it’s my practices in more than 30 years, Russia never stop their aggression plans to occupy all Ukraine and I think that Mr Trump, if he really believes Mr Putin, it will be a very big mistake, Mr Trump, a very big mistake.”

Before the Alaska summit, allies agreed the best path to peace was forcing Mr Putin to stop his invasion, hitting him where it hurts with severe sanctions on his oil trade.

But Mr Trump has given up calls for a ceasefire and withdrawn threats to impose those tougher sanctions.

Instead, he has led allies down a different and more uncertain path.

Read more on Sky News:
Putin wasn’t there, but influenced summit
Peace further away, not closer
Five takeaways from White House talks

Ukrainians we met on the streets of Kyiv said they would love to believe in progress more than anything, but are not encouraged by what they are hearing.

While the diplomacy moves on in an unclear direction, events on the ground and in the skies above Ukraine are depressingly predictable.

Russia is continuing hundreds of drone attacks every night, and its forces are advancing on the front.

If Vladimir Putin really wants this war to end, he’s showing no sign of it, while Ukrainians fear Donald Trump is taking allies down a blind alley of fruitless diplomacy.

Promises of security guarantees for Ukraine have been lauded as “game-changing” and “historic” in the hope of bringing an end to the war with Russia.

As all eyes moved from Donald Trump’s summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska to talks with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Washington, the White House claimed Russia has agreed to the US providing ‘NATO-style protection’ when the fighting ends.

Trump rules out US troops in Ukraine; latest updates

Although there has been no confirmation from the Kremlin, Ukraine, the UK, and other Western allies say details of a post-war security agreement will be finalised in the coming days.

What has been said so far?

Security guarantees have long been talked about as a way of ensuring peace in Ukraine when fighting comes to an end.

Since March, when the UK and France spearheaded a largely European ‘coalition of the willing’ and potential peacekeeping force, many have claimed it would be ineffective without American backing.

The US has repeatedly refused to be drawn on its involvement – until now.

Two days after Mr Putin travelled to Alaska for talks with the Trump team, US special envoy Steve Witkoff claimed Russia had agreed to Ukrainian security guarantees.

He claimed that during the summit, the Kremlin had conceded the US “could offer Article-5 like protection”, which he described as “game-changing”. Article 5 is one of the founding principles of NATO and states that an attack on any of its 32 member states is considered an attack on them all.

This was bolstered by the US president himself after he met his Ukrainian counterpart in Washington on Monday. He said the pair had “discussed security guarantees”, which would be “provided by the various European countries” – “with coordination with the United States of America”.

Writing on X the following day, the Ukrainian leader said the “concrete content” of the security agreement would be “formalised on paper within the next 10 days”.

US reports say security agreement talks will be headed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

What would security guarantees look like?

Very few details have emerged so far, despite the series of high-profile meetings.

Speaking to Fox News on Tuesday, Mr Trump said European nations are going to “frontload” the security agreement with soldiers.

“They want to have boots on the ground”, he told the broadcaster, referring to the UK, France, and Germany in particular.

He insisted the US would not send ground troops, adding: “You have my assurance and I’m president.”

Sir Keir Starmer said the coalition of the willing is “preparing for the deployment of a reassurance force” in the event of “hostilities ending”.

This was the original basis for the coalition – soldiers from various European and allied nations placed strategically across Ukraine to deter Russia from launching future attacks.

But troops alone are unlikely to be enough of a deterrent for Vladimir Putin, military analyst Sean Bell says.

“This is all about credibility and I don’t think boots on the ground is a credible answer,” he tells Sky News.

Stationing soldiers along Ukraine’s 1,000-mile border with Russia would require around 100,000 soldiers at a time, which would have to be trained, deployed, and rotated, requiring 300,000 in total.

The entire UK Army would only make up 10% of that, with France likely able to contribute a further 10%, Bell says.

Several European nations would feel unable to sacrifice any troops for an umbrella force due to their proximity to Ukraine and risk of further Russian aggression.

“You’re not even close to getting the numbers you need,” Bell adds. “And even if you could, putting all of NATO’s frontline forces in one country facing Russia would be really dangerous – and leave China, North Korea, Iran, or Russia free to do whatever they wanted.”

‘Article 5-like protection’

When Mr Witkoff first mentioned security guarantees again, he described them as “Article 5-like” or “NATO-style”.

Article 5 is one of the founding principles of NATO and states that an attack on any of its 32 member states is considered an attack on them all.

It has only ever been invoked once since its inception in 1949 – by the US in response to the 9/11 attacks of 2001.

Russia has repeatedly insisted Ukraine should not be allowed to join NATO and cited the risk of it happening among its original reasons for attacking Kyiv in 2022.

NATO general-secretary Mark Rutte has said Ukrainian membership is not on the table, but that an alternative “Article 5-type” arrangement could be viable.

The alliance’s military leaders are due to meet on Wednesday to discuss options.

It is not clear how such a special security agreement and formal NATO membership would differ.

Bell says that negotiations on this – and any surrendering of Ukrainian territory – will be the two most difficult in ending the war.

But he stresses they are both key in providing the “flesh on the bones” to what the coalition of the willing has offered so far.

“It will be about trying to find things that make the Western commitment to the security of Ukraine enduring,” Bell adds.

US airpower, intelligence and a better Ukrainian military

Other potential options for a security agreement include air support, a no-maritime zone, intelligence sharing, and military supplies.

Imposing either a no-fly over Ukraine or no-maritime zone across the Black Sea would “play to NATO’s strengths” – as US air and naval capabilities alone far outstrip Russia’s, Bell says.

Sharing American intelligence with Kyiv to warn of any future Russian aggression would also be a “massive strength” to any potential deterrence force, he adds.

Ukraine is already offering to buy an extra $90bn (£66.6bn) in US weapons with the help of European funds, Mr Zelenskyy said this week.

And any security agreement would likely extend to other military equipment, logistics, and training to help Ukraine better defend itself years down the line, Bell says.

“At first it would need credible Western support, but over time, you would hope the international community makes sure Ukraine can build its own indigenous capability.

“Because while there’s a lot of focus on Ukraine at the moment, in five years’ time, there will be different governments and different priorities – so that has to endure.”

Vladimir Putin wasn’t at the White House but his influence clearly was. At times, it dominated the room.

There were three key moments that revealed the Russian president‘s current hold over Donald Trump.

The first was in the Oval Office. Sitting alongside Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the US president told reporters: “I don’t think you need a ceasefire.”

Ukraine talks latest: Zelenskyy ‘ready to meet’ Putin after Trump summit

It was a stunning illustration of Mr Trump’s about-face in his approach to peace. For the past six months, a ceasefire has been his priority, but after meeting Mr Putin in Alaska, suddenly it’s not.

Confirmation that he now views the war through Moscow’s eyes.

The second was the format itself, with Mr Trump reverting to his favoured ask-what-you-like open-ended Q&A.

In Alaska, Mr Putin wasn’t made to take any questions – most likely, because he didn’t want to. But here, Mr Zelenskyy didn’t have a choice. He was subjected to a barrage of them to see if he’d learnt his lesson from last time.

It was a further demonstration of the special status Mr Trump seems to afford to Mr Putin.

👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈

The third was their phone call. Initially, President Trump said he’d speak to the Kremlin leader after his meeting with European leaders. But it turned out to be during it.

A face-to-face meeting with seven leaders was interrupted for a phone call with one – as if Mr Trump had to check first with Mr Putin, before continuing his discussions.

We still don’t know the full details of the peace proposal that’s being drawn up, but all this strongly suggests that it’s one sketched out by Russia. The White House is providing the paper, but the Kremlin is holding the pen.

Read more:
Four key takeaways from the White House Ukraine summit
Trump has taken peace talks a distance not seen since the war began

For Moscow, the aim now is to keep Mr Trump on their path to peace, which is settlement first, ceasefire later.

It believes that’s the best way of securing its goals, because it has more leverage so long as the fighting continues.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈      

But Mr Putin will be wary that Mr Trump is pliable and can easily change his mind, depending on the last person he spoke to.

So to ensure that his sympathies aren’t swayed, and its red lines remain intact, Russia will be straining to keep its voice heard.

On Monday, for example, the Russian foreign ministry was quick to condemn recent comments from the UK government that it would be ready to send troops to help enforce any ceasefire.

It described the idea as “provocative” and “predatory”.

Moscow is trying to drown out European concerns by portraying itself as the party that wants peace the most, and Kyiv (and Europe) as the obstacle.

But while Mr Zelenskyy has agreed to a trilateral meeting, the Kremlin has not. After the phone call between Mr Putin and Mr Trump, it said the leaders discussed “raising the level of representatives” in the talks between Russia and Ukraine. No confirmation to what level.