“We were able to win the following concession: That the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in NATO,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
The compromise, which emerged from Trump’s Alaska summit with the Russian strongman, “was the first time we had ever heard the Russians agree to that,” he said.
The arrangement Witkoff laid out would involve countries, including European allies and the US, agreeing to defend Ukraine if it is attacked in the future.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio sounded notably less committed about whether or not the US would be part of the security arrangement for Ukraine.
“It would be a very big move by the president if he were to offer a US commitment to a security guarantee. That will be his decision to make,” Rubio told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures. “If he does it, it tells you how badly he wants peace, how much he values peace, that he would be willing to make a concession like that.”
NATO’s Article 5 stipulates that an attack on one member will be treated as an attack on all — resulting in a collective defense.
One of Putin’s longtime grievances cited in the invasion of Ukraine was the country’s ambition of joining the EU and NATO to defend itself from Russian attacks.
A security guarantee to guard against future Russian attacks appears to be a key piece of the peace deal that Trump is pursuing.
However, Putin suggested China — a Kremlin ally — could be one of the security guarantors, Axios reported.
“Putin has said that a red flag is NATO admission,” he added. “We were discussing was assuming that that held, assuming that the Ukrainians could agree to that, and could live with.”
Back in 1994, Russia, the US, the UK and others agreed to the “Budapest Memorandum” with Ukraine, making security guarantees in exchange for Kyiv giving up its Soviet nuclear weapons.
Witkoff also defended Trump’s apparent pivot away from pursuing a ceasefire in Ukraine, arguing that a full-fledged peace deal would end the war “quicker.”
The special envoy, who sat in on Trump’s meeting with Putin on Friday, contended that the details that would need to be negotiated for a ceasefire are very similar to the ones that would have to be hashed out for a peace deal.
Witkoff also defended Trump’s apparent pivot away from pursuing a ceasefire in Ukraine, arguing that a full-fledged peace deal would end the war “quicker.”
“We made so much progress at this meeting with regard to all the other ingredients necessary for a peace deal that President Trump pivoted to that,” Witkoff said
“We are intent on trying to hammer out a peace deal that ends the fighting permanently, very, very quickly. Quicker than a ceasefire.”
When pressed by CNN anchor Jake Tapper about whether a peace deal can actually be negotiated faster than a cease-fire, Witkoff argued that “the thesis of a ceasefire is that you’d be discussing all of these issues that we resolved in Alaska.”
“We cut through all kinds of issues that would be that would have to be discussed and agreed to during a cease-fire period,” he said.
Ahead of his face-to-face with Putin, Trump told Fox News that he “won’t be happy” if Putin didn’t agree to a cease-fire.
Despite Putin failing to agree to a ceasefire, Trump left the meeting touting significant “progress,” without delving into specifics.
Witkoff, whose meeting with Putin earlier this month led to the summit with Trump in Alaska on Friday, stressed that “the Russians made some concessions at the table with regard to all five” of the disputed so-called oblast territories.