Trump and Zelensky Meet in --: A Difficult Game Under Optimistic Rhetoric

On December 28, 2025, Mar-a-Lago in Florida, USA, hosted a meeting that would shape the global landscape—a closed-door talk between former U.S. President (during his second term) Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In stark contrast to their first meeting on February 28, 2025, which ended in discord, this encounter began in a relaxed atmosphere, with both sides afterward releasing optimistic signals that a peace framework was nearing completion. However, behind the positive rhetoric at the surface lies intense competition among the United States, Ukraine, and Russia over territorial claims, security guarantees, and control of strategic assets, along with multiple complex variables such as the wavering stance of European allies and Ukraine's domestic political dilemmas. Whether this meeting marks a turning point toward the end of the Russia-Ukraine conflict or is merely a procedural performance driven by great-power negotiations requires analysis from various dimensions: the meeting's background, core developments, focal points of contention, underlying logic, and future risks.On December 28, 2025, Mar-a-Lago in Florida, USA, hosted a meeting that would shape the global landscape—a closed-door talk between former U.S. President (during his second term) Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In stark contrast to their first meeting on February 28, 2025, which ended in discord, this encounter began in a relaxed atmosphere, with both sides afterward releasing optimistic signals that a peace framework was nearing completion. However, behind the positive rhetoric at the surface lies intense competition among the United States, Ukraine, and Russia over territorial claims, security guarantees, and control of strategic assets, along with multiple complex variables such as the wavering stance of European allies and Ukraine's domestic political dilemmas. Whether this meeting marks a turning point toward the end of the Russia-Ukraine conflict or is merely a procedural performance driven by great-power negotiations requires analysis from various dimensions: the meeting's background, core developments, focal points of contention, underlying logic, and future risks.

I. Meeting Background: The Overlap of War Urgency and the Dilemmas of All Parties

The convening of this special summit is not a coincidental diplomatic interaction, but an inevitable outcome of the escalating Russia-Ukraine conflict and mounting pressures from all sides approaching a critical point, against a backdrop marked by the concentrated eruption of three core contradictions. The convening of this special summit is not a coincidental diplomatic interaction, but an inevitable outcome of the escalating Russia-Ukraine conflict and mounting pressures from all sides approaching a critical point, against a backdrop marked by the concentrated eruption of three core contradictions.

First, the pressure from the battlefield and the urgency of negotiations forced the situation. The day before the meeting (December 27), Russia launched a large-scale air strike on Ukraine's capital, Kyiv. The intensive attack involving nearly 500 drones and 40 missiles caused widespread power outages and casualties, highlighting the brutality and urgency of the war. At the same time, Russian forces continued to advance on key battlefields such as Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, capturing towns one after another. On December 25, Russian forces also attacked Odesa, Ukraine's only seaport, further compressing Ukraine's strategic space. The passive situation on the battlefield forced Ukraine to face the harsh reality of "being unable to attack effectively and unable to hold defenses," making the promotion of peace negotiations a realistic choice for the Zelenskyy government. First, the pressure from the battlefield and the urgency of negotiations forced the situation. The day before the meeting (December 27), Russia launched a large-scale air strike on Ukraine's capital, Kyiv. The intensive attack involving nearly 500 drones and 40 missiles caused widespread power outages and casualties, highlighting the brutality and urgency of the war. At the same time, Russian forces continued to advance on key battlefields such as Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, capturing towns one after another. On December 25, Russian forces also attacked Odesa, Ukraine's only seaport, further compressing Ukraine's strategic space. The passive situation on the battlefield forced Ukraine to face the harsh reality of "being unable to attack effectively and unable to hold defenses," making the promotion of peace negotiations a realistic choice for the Zelenskyy government.

Second, Ukraine's internal and external difficulties and Zelensky's personal political demands. Internally, the high-level corruption scandal in Ukraine exposed in October 2025 severely damaged the approval rating of the Zelensky government. The latest polls show that the former Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, enjoys a support rate as high as 64%, while Zelensky's is only 36%. Zaluzhnyi, having been removed from the core power circle in March 2024, avoided responsibility for subsequent battlefield failures and has become a potential strong opponent to Zelensky in the next presidential election. Externally, the shift in U.S. aid policy towards Ukraine and the wavering stance of European allies have continuously weakened Ukraine's external support. In this context, Zelensky urgently needs to pave a "graceful exit" for himself by promoting peace negotiations and striving for substantive security guarantees, in order to avoid being held politically accountable after leaving office. Second, Ukraine's internal and external difficulties and Zelensky's personal political demands. Internally, the high-level corruption scandal in Ukraine exposed in October 2025 severely damaged the approval rating of the Zelensky government. The latest polls show that the former Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, enjoys a support rate as high as 64%, while Zelensky's is only 36%. Zaluzhnyi, having been removed from the core power circle in March 2024, avoided responsibility for subsequent battlefield failures and has become a potential strong opponent to Zelensky in the next presidential election. Externally, the shift in U.S. aid policy towards Ukraine and the wavering stance of European allies have continuously weakened Ukraine's external support. In this context, Zelensky urgently needs to pave a "graceful exit" for himself by promoting peace negotiations and striving for substantive security guarantees, in order to avoid being held politically accountable after leaving office.

Third, the diplomatic agenda of the Trump administration and the impetus behind the U.S.-Russia behind-the-scenes maneuvering. During Trump's second term, promoting a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire became one of his core diplomatic agendas, attempting to showcase his diplomatic capabilities by leading peace negotiations. More crucially, around the time of the meeting, Trump held two "good and productive" lengthy calls (exceeding one hour) with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump not only conveyed to Putin the message that "an agreement must be reached" but also publicly stated that Putin was "serious about ending the war." This direct high-level communication between the U.S. and Russia set the tone for the Trump-Zelensky meeting and offered a glimpse into the nature of great-power bargaining underlying this peace process.Third, the diplomatic agenda of the Trump administration and the impetus behind the U.S.-Russia behind-the-scenes maneuvering. During Trump's second term, promoting a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire became one of his core diplomatic agendas, attempting to showcase his diplomatic capabilities by leading peace negotiations. More crucially, around the time of the meeting, Trump held two "good and productive" lengthy calls (exceeding one hour) with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump not only conveyed to Putin the message that "an agreement must be reached" but also publicly stated that Putin was "serious about ending the war." This direct high-level communication between the U.S. and Russia set the tone for the Trump-Zelensky meeting and offered a glimpse into the nature of great-power bargaining underlying this peace process.

Furthermore, the composition of the attendees highlighted the importance both sides placed on this meeting. The U.S. delegation included key figures such as Secretary of State Nubio, Secretary of Defense Hedges, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Kane, White House Chief of Staff Wells, Presidential Envoy Vitkov, and Trump's son-in-law Kushner. The Ukrainian side was accompanied by crucial officials including Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Merov, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces Gnatov, and Minister of Economy Soholev, covering multiple core areas such as military, diplomatic, and economic affairs, thereby ensuring the comprehensive advancement of the talks.

II. Core Progress: The "Illusion of Consensus" in the Peace Framework and Breakthroughs in Security Guarantees

Following the special Zelensky meeting, the core progress announced by both sides focused on two major aspects: consensus on the peace plan and the security guarantee agreement, seemingly achieving a substantial breakthrough. However, upon careful deconstruction, it is not difficult to find that many "consensuses" remain superficial and have yet to touch upon the core contradictions. Following the special Zelensky meeting, the core progress announced by both sides focused on two major aspects: consensus on the peace plan and the security guarantee agreement, seemingly achieving a substantial breakthrough. However, upon careful deconstruction, it is not difficult to find that many "consensuses" remain superficial and have yet to touch upon the core contradictions.

(1) Peace Framework: The Evolution from "Point" to "Point" and the Moisture of % Consensus

此次会谈的核心议题是乌克兰修订后的“20点和平计划”，该计划的前身是特朗普特使维特科夫与女婿库什纳主导起草的“28点计划”。The evolution of the two plans essentially reflects the concentrated manifestation of the U.S.-Ukraine game.：“28点计划”因严重偏向俄罗斯，被欧洲媒体批评为“几乎投降书”，其中包含承认顿巴斯、克里米亚归俄罗斯所有、扎波罗热和赫尔松按战场接触线“冻结”、要求乌克兰将军队规模压缩至冲突前60万人水平、暗含永久放弃加入北约条款等内容，让泽连斯基陷入内外交困的境地。

Against this backdrop, Ukraine made "disruptive" revisions based on the "28-point plan," resulting in the "20-point plan," which was unilaterally and prematurely announced by Zelensky on December 23.This move by Ukraine has clear strategic considerations.: First, to respond to Trump's ultimatum demanding Ukraine advance the signing of a peace agreement before December 25; second, to turn the tables by publicizing the plan to build momentum for negotiations, forcing the U.S. and Europe to provide "real" rather than "verbal" security guarantees; third, to address domestic political pressure—after the exposure of corruption scandals, by announcing a plan that aligns with Ukraine's demands to gain public and media support. Ukrainian public opinion even views this plan as a "victory for Ukraine." Against this backdrop, Ukraine made "disruptive" revisions based on the "28-point plan," resulting in the "20-point plan," which was unilaterally and prematurely announced by Zelensky on December 23.This move by Ukraine has clear strategic considerations.: First, to respond to Trump's ultimatum demanding Ukraine advance the signing of a peace agreement before December 25; second, to turn the tables by publicizing the plan to build momentum for negotiations, forcing the U.S. and Europe to provide "real" rather than "verbal" security guarantees; third, to address domestic political pressure—after the exposure of corruption scandals, by announcing a plan that aligns with Ukraine's demands to gain public and media support. Ukrainian public opinion even views this plan as a "victory for Ukraine."

After the meeting, Zelenskyy publicly announced that both sides had reached a "%" consensus on the "point peace plan," with the security guarantee portion achieving "%" agreement. Trump also stated, "We are very close, maybe very close," and expressed confidence that "we will reach an agreement." This positive statement quickly drew global attention and was interpreted by some public opinion as a signal that the Russia-Ukraine conflict is nearing its end.

However, a deeper analysis reveals that this "consensus" is more of a rhetorical compromise.The "20-point plan" adopts an "avoidance strategy" towards the core territorial issue. It merely proposes that the ceasefire takes effect immediately upon agreement, designates the military frontlines between Russia and Ukraine in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions as the "contact line," demands that Russia first withdraw its troops from the occupied areas of Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Sumy, and Kharkiv oblasts. As for the final status of disputed regions like Donbas, it only puts forward vague proposals such as establishing "demilitarized zones" and "free economic zones."This "avoidance" essentially postpones the core contradictions rather than genuinely reaching a consensus, and it also sows hidden dangers for subsequent negotiations.However, a deeper analysis reveals that this "consensus" is more of a rhetorical compromise.The "20-point plan" adopts an "avoidance strategy" towards the core territorial issue. It merely proposes that the ceasefire takes effect immediately upon agreement, designates the military frontlines between Russia and Ukraine in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions as the "contact line," demands that Russia first withdraw its troops from the occupied areas of Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Sumy, and Kharkiv oblasts. As for the final status of disputed regions like Donbas, it only puts forward vague proposals such as establishing "demilitarized zones" and "free economic zones."This "avoidance" essentially postpones the core contradictions rather than genuinely reaching a consensus, and it also sows hidden dangers for subsequent negotiations.

(II) Security Assurance Agreement: Breakthroughs in Annual Commitments and the Ambiguity of the European Role

The most substantive progress of this meeting is the United States' commitment to providing Ukraine with 15 years of security guarantees, This commitment precisely targets the core demands that Zelensky has repeatedly emphasized.. Zelensky clearly stated at the press conference that security guarantees are a prerequisite for Ukraine's participation in peace negotiations, and this commitment from the United States is regarded by Ukraine as a major victory of this meeting. The most substantive progress of this meeting is the United States' commitment to providing Ukraine with 15 years of security guarantees, This commitment precisely targets the core demands that Zelensky has repeatedly emphasized.. Zelensky clearly stated at the press conference that security guarantees are a prerequisite for Ukraine's participation in peace negotiations, and this commitment from the United States is regarded by Ukraine as a major victory of this meeting.

Judging from the content of the "Point Plan," Ukraine's demands for security guarantees are more specific, requiring the United States, NATO, and European signatory states to provide "security guarantees similar to NATO Article 5 (collective defense clause)." This means that if Russia attacks Ukraine again, the guarantor states must jointly defend it. At the same time, to align with the Trump administration's opposition to Ukraine joining NATO, the "Point Plan" completely avoids the issue of Ukraine's NATO membership, reflecting Ukraine's pragmatic compromise.

However, it should be noted that the U.S. security guarantee commitment still has many ambiguities.: The Trump side only indicated that Europe would play a "primary role" in security guarantees, but did not disclose key details such as specific responsibility allocation, aid scale, and trigger mechanisms. The attitude of European allies is particularly crucial at this moment. Although countries like France and Germany have pledged to provide security guarantees for Ukraine and even proposed forming a multinational force, there is a lack of consensus within Europe, and the establishment of defense capabilities is progressing slowly. French President Macron stated that discussions on security guarantees would continue in January 2026, while Germany said the scale of aid depends on the progress of negotiations.This ambiguity and uncertainty make America's annual security commitment more like a "post-dated check," with doubts remaining about whether it will be honored.However, it should be noted that the U.S. security guarantee commitment still has many ambiguities.: The Trump side only indicated that Europe would play a "primary role" in security guarantees, but did not disclose key details such as specific responsibility allocation, aid scale, and trigger mechanisms. The attitude of European allies is particularly crucial at this moment. Although countries like France and Germany have pledged to provide security guarantees for Ukraine and even proposed forming a multinational force, there is a lack of consensus within Europe, and the establishment of defense capabilities is progressing slowly. French President Macron stated that discussions on security guarantees would continue in January 2026, while Germany said the scale of aid depends on the progress of negotiations.This ambiguity and uncertainty make America's annual security commitment more like a "post-dated check," with doubts remaining about whether it will be honored.

(3) Follow-up Arrangements: Continuation of the Diplomatic Process and Strengthening of Trump's Role

To facilitate the finalization of the agreement, Trump plans to host a meeting between Zelenskyy and European leaders in Washington (or another location) in January 2026 to continue advancing peace negotiations; simultaneously, Trump has also expressed willingness, if needed, to visit Kyiv and address the Ukrainian parliament.This series of subsequent arrangements demonstrates the United States' attempt to continue dominating the peace process between Russia and Ukraine. It also reflects Trump's hope of pushing the negotiations toward an outcome that aligns with American interests by reinforcing his role as the "ultimate arbiter."To facilitate the finalization of the agreement, Trump plans to host a meeting between Zelenskyy and European leaders in Washington (or another location) in January 2026 to continue advancing peace negotiations; simultaneously, Trump has also expressed willingness, if needed, to visit Kyiv and address the Ukrainian parliament.This series of subsequent arrangements demonstrates the United States' attempt to continue dominating the peace process between Russia and Ukraine. It also reflects Trump's hope of pushing the negotiations toward an outcome that aligns with American interests by reinforcing his role as the "ultimate arbiter."

III. Focus of the Game: Unresolved Core Obstacles and the Struggle Among Multiple Forces

Although both sides have released optimistic signals, However, this meeting did not resolve the core contradictions of the Russia-Ukraine conflict., thorny issues such as territorial disputes, control over strategic assets, and post-war reconstruction funds remain like ticking time bombs, which could derail the peace process at any moment. Behind these issues lies a profound power struggle among the United States, Ukraine, Russia, and Europe.Although both sides have released optimistic signals, However, this meeting did not resolve the core contradictions of the Russia-Ukraine conflict., thorny issues such as territorial disputes, control over strategic assets, and post-war reconstruction funds remain like ticking time bombs, which could derail the peace process at any moment. Behind these issues lies a profound power struggle among the United States, Ukraine, Russia, and Europe.

(1) Territorial Issues: The Most Intractable Core Contradiction and the Bottom-Line Game Among All Parties

The territorial issue is the "most difficult" topic in this round of negotiations, It is also the core bottom line for both Russia and Ukraine.. On the Russian side, Putin inspected the joint command center in military uniform, clearly stating that if the Kyiv authorities are unwilling to resolve the issue peacefully, Russia will achieve all objectives of the special military operation through military means; Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov also criticized the Zelenskyy administration for being manipulated behind the scenes by Europe and failing to demonstrate a constructive willingness to negotiate. Regarding disputed regions such as Donbas, Russia's stance is extremely firm, rejecting Ukraine's ambiguous proposals and insisting that Ukraine acknowledge its actual control over the territories it already holds. The territorial issue is the "most difficult" topic in this round of negotiations, It is also the core bottom line for both Russia and Ukraine.. On the Russian side, Putin inspected the joint command center in military uniform, clearly stating that if the Kyiv authorities are unwilling to resolve the issue peacefully, Russia will achieve all objectives of the special military operation through military means; Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov also criticized the Zelenskyy administration for being manipulated behind the scenes by Europe and failing to demonstrate a constructive willingness to negotiate. Regarding disputed regions such as Donbas, Russia's stance is extremely firm, rejecting Ukraine's ambiguous proposals and insisting that Ukraine acknowledge its actual control over the territories it already holds.

On the Ukrainian side, Zelensky is well aware that "ceding territory" would brand him as a "historical sinner," so he has adopted a strategy of "trading time for space," shifting responsibility by avoiding clear territorial claims and proposing referendums. Zelensky stated that if an agreement cannot be reached on territorial issues, the entire peace plan may be submitted to a national referendum. This move aims to transfer the potential responsibility for "ceding territory" to public opinion, thereby achieving a smooth transition for himself.However, whether this strategy will be effective still depends on Russia's attitude and the intensity of pressure from the United States.On the Ukrainian side, Zelensky is well aware that "ceding territory" would brand him as a "historical sinner," so he has adopted a strategy of "trading time for space," shifting responsibility by avoiding clear territorial claims and proposing referendums. Zelensky stated that if an agreement cannot be reached on territorial issues, the entire peace plan may be submitted to a national referendum. This move aims to transfer the potential responsibility for "ceding territory" to public opinion, thereby achieving a smooth transition for himself.However, whether this strategy will be effective still depends on Russia's attitude and the intensity of pressure from the United States.

The United States plays a dual role as both a "balancer" and a "pressure applier," Trump's core mission is to pressure Zelensky into making further concessions on the "point plan," bringing it closer to a version acceptable to Russia, and then, in turn, persuade Russia to accept the revised proposal.. Meanwhile, the stance of European allies on the territorial issue is relatively ambiguous. On one hand, they worry that the division of Ukrainian territory could impact European security order; on the other hand, they are unable to bear the cost of continuously aiding Ukraine, leaving them in a dilemma. The United States plays a dual role as both a "balancer" and a "pressure applier," Trump's core mission is to pressure Zelensky into making further concessions on the "point plan," bringing it closer to a version acceptable to Russia, and then, in turn, persuade Russia to accept the revised proposal.. Meanwhile, the stance of European allies on the territorial issue is relatively ambiguous. On one hand, they worry that the division of Ukrainian territory could impact European security order; on the other hand, they are unable to bear the cost of continuously aiding Ukraine, leaving them in a dilemma.

(2) Strategic Assets and Military Issues: The Game of Control over the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and Military Size

In addition to territorial issues, the control of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and the size of the Ukrainian military are also key focal points in the negotiations between the two sides. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant has been under Russian control since March 2022. In October 2025, Putin signed a decree designating it as a Russian federal asset. On December 23, its Unit 1 also received a 10-year operating license issued by Russia. Russia's control over the nuclear power plant has effectively become a fait accompli. The "28-point plan" proposes joint management by Ukraine, the United States, and Russia with proportional distribution of benefits, while the "20-point plan" suggests cooperative operation by the United States and Ukraine, excluding Russia, with benefits going to the U.S. and Ukraine.This proposal clearly contradicts Russia's interests and demands. Russia has explicitly stated that it will not return control of the already occupied territories to Ukraine, and the differences between the two sides on this issue are difficult to reconcile.In addition to territorial issues, the control of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and the size of the Ukrainian military are also key focal points in the negotiations between the two sides. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant has been under Russian control since March 2022. In October 2025, Putin signed a decree designating it as a Russian federal asset. On December 23, its Unit 1 also received a 10-year operating license issued by Russia. Russia's control over the nuclear power plant has effectively become a fait accompli. The "28-point plan" proposes joint management by Ukraine, the United States, and Russia with proportional distribution of benefits, while the "20-point plan" suggests cooperative operation by the United States and Ukraine, excluding Russia, with benefits going to the U.S. and Ukraine.This proposal clearly contradicts Russia's interests and demands. Russia has explicitly stated that it will not return control of the already occupied territories to Ukraine, and the differences between the two sides on this issue are difficult to reconcile.

On the issue of military size, the "28-point plan" requires the Ukrainian army to be limited to 600,000 personnel, while the "20-point plan" proposes maintaining the Ukrainian armed forces at 800,000 during peacetime (roughly equivalent to the current actual strength of the Ukrainian army). Ukraine intends to achieve self-defense, exert pressure on Russia, and use this as leverage to seek more economic aid from Europe by maintaining a powerful military force. Russia, on the other hand, worries that an 800,000-strong military means Ukraine will retain significant military confrontation potential in the long term, undermining Russia's desired goal of military restraint.The essence of this issue lies in the direct conflict between Ukraine's future security capabilities and Russia's strategic security demands.On the issue of military size, the "28-point plan" requires the Ukrainian army to be limited to 600,000 personnel, while the "20-point plan" proposes maintaining the Ukrainian armed forces at 800,000 during peacetime (roughly equivalent to the current actual strength of the Ukrainian army). Ukraine intends to achieve self-defense, exert pressure on Russia, and use this as leverage to seek more economic aid from Europe by maintaining a powerful military force. Russia, on the other hand, worries that an 800,000-strong military means Ukraine will retain significant military confrontation potential in the long term, undermining Russia's desired goal of military restraint.The essence of this issue lies in the direct conflict between Ukraine's future security capabilities and Russia's strategic security demands.

(3) Post-war Reconstruction and Economic Issues: The Challenge of Raising Billions of Dollars in Funds

The "20-Point Plan" proposes that Ukraine's post-war reconstruction requires a massive $800 billion in funding and hopes to gain preferential access to the European market in the short term.However, this demand faces severe practical challenges.: U.S. national debt has exceeded $38 trillion, creating immense fiscal pressure and making it difficult to bear the huge reconstruction costs; Europe's economic foundation is weaker, and internal disagreements over aid to Ukraine continue to widen, leaving it equally incapable of bearing the burden alone. Analysis suggests that of the approximately $300 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets, at most $100 billion can be utilized, covering only one-eighth of the reconstruction funds, with no clear plan for raising the remaining capital.The shortage of post-war reconstruction funds will not only affect the implementation of the peace agreement but may also lead to Ukraine's post-war economic collapse, further exacerbating regional instability.The "20-Point Plan" proposes that Ukraine's post-war reconstruction requires a massive $800 billion in funding and hopes to gain preferential access to the European market in the short term.However, this demand faces severe practical challenges.: U.S. national debt has exceeded $38 trillion, creating immense fiscal pressure and making it difficult to bear the huge reconstruction costs; Europe's economic foundation is weaker, and internal disagreements over aid to Ukraine continue to widen, leaving it equally incapable of bearing the burden alone. Analysis suggests that of the approximately $300 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets, at most $100 billion can be utilized, covering only one-eighth of the reconstruction funds, with no clear plan for raising the remaining capital.The shortage of post-war reconstruction funds will not only affect the implementation of the peace agreement but may also lead to Ukraine's post-war economic collapse, further exacerbating regional instability.

IV. Deep Logic: Ukraine's Passive Situation Underlying the U.S.-Russia Transaction

Through the various details and focal points of the game in this special meeting, it is not difficult to discern the essence of the current Russia-Ukraine peace process—A great power game centered around major power transactions, with Ukraine finding itself in a passive situation.Through the various details and focal points of the game in this special meeting, it is not difficult to discern the essence of the current Russia-Ukraine peace process—A great power game centered around major power transactions, with Ukraine finding itself in a passive situation.

From the perspective of U.S. strategy, the Trump administration adopted a multi-pronged approach: militarily, it ceased direct weapons supplies to Ukraine, instead having European countries purchase American weapons and then donate them to Ukraine, allowing the U.S. to profit by acting as an arms dealer; diplomatically, it promoted peace plans such as the "28-point" and "20-point" proposals, with negotiations led by Trump's close associates, bypassing traditional diplomatic systems like the State Department; in terms of intelligence, it exposed high-level corruption in Ukraine, undermining the political foundation of the Zelenskyy government and forcing Ukrainian concessions in negotiations.The core objective of this series of strategies is to dominate the Russia-Ukraine peace process at minimal cost, thereby maximizing the strategic interests of the United States in Europe.From the perspective of U.S. strategy, the Trump administration adopted a multi-pronged approach: militarily, it ceased direct weapons supplies to Ukraine, instead having European countries purchase American weapons and then donate them to Ukraine, allowing the U.S. to profit by acting as an arms dealer; diplomatically, it promoted peace plans such as the "28-point" and "20-point" proposals, with negotiations led by Trump's close associates, bypassing traditional diplomatic systems like the State Department; in terms of intelligence, it exposed high-level corruption in Ukraine, undermining the political foundation of the Zelenskyy government and forcing Ukrainian concessions in negotiations.The core objective of this series of strategies is to dominate the Russia-Ukraine peace process at minimal cost, thereby maximizing the strategic interests of the United States in Europe.

Russia, through the dual means of "military pressure + diplomatic negotiations," continuously enhances its own bargaining chips. On one hand, it advances steadily on the battlefield, using large-scale airstrikes and the capture of towns to send a signal to the US, Europe, and Ukraine that "it can continue fighting." On the other hand, through direct communication with Trump, it clarifies its core demands, striving to pressure Ukraine into making concessions under US influence.Putin's core objective is to consolidate territorial gains through peace negotiations, prevent NATO's eastward expansion to Ukraine, and safeguard Russia's strategic security boundaries.Russia, through the dual means of "military pressure + diplomatic negotiations," continuously enhances its own bargaining chips. On one hand, it advances steadily on the battlefield, using large-scale airstrikes and the capture of towns to send a signal to the US, Europe, and Ukraine that "it can continue fighting." On the other hand, through direct communication with Trump, it clarifies its core demands, striving to pressure Ukraine into making concessions under US influence.Putin's core objective is to consolidate territorial gains through peace negotiations, prevent NATO's eastward expansion to Ukraine, and safeguard Russia's strategic security boundaries.

In the great power game, Ukraine has gradually lost its dominant position in negotiations. Militarily, there is no hope for a counteroffensive, and the battlefield situation is passive; politically, domestic approval ratings are declining, and corruption scandals persist; diplomatically, relying on aid from the United States and Europe yet unable to control the direction of U.S. and European policies, it can only passively accept the outcomes of major power deals. The sole demand of the Zelensky government is to secure a legally binding security guarantee agreement (jointly signed by the European Union, NATO, and the United States) to carve out a slight breathing space for its own "dignified exit" and Ukraine's future. As relevant analysis points out, the current negotiations involve a dual-layer structure: the first layer consists of behind-the-scenes deals between the United States and Russia, and the second layer involves the United States coordinating with the European Union and Ukraine, The biggest victims are precisely Zelensky and Ukraine, who will most likely be forced to accept a deal brokered by major powers, losing part of their territory.In the great power game, Ukraine has gradually lost its dominant position in negotiations. Militarily, there is no hope for a counteroffensive, and the battlefield situation is passive; politically, domestic approval ratings are declining, and corruption scandals persist; diplomatically, relying on aid from the United States and Europe yet unable to control the direction of U.S. and European policies, it can only passively accept the outcomes of major power deals. The sole demand of the Zelensky government is to secure a legally binding security guarantee agreement (jointly signed by the European Union, NATO, and the United States) to carve out a slight breathing space for its own "dignified exit" and Ukraine's future. As relevant analysis points out, the current negotiations involve a dual-layer structure: the first layer consists of behind-the-scenes deals between the United States and Russia, and the second layer involves the United States coordinating with the European Union and Ukraine, The biggest victims are precisely Zelensky and Ukraine, who will most likely be forced to accept a deal brokered by major powers, losing part of their territory.

V. Risk Assessment and Peace Prospects: Multiple Uncertainties Behind the Illusion

Overall, although this special meeting between the two leaders has achieved some superficial progress, However, the prospects for peace between Russia and Ukraine remain bleak, and numerous uncertain factors could still derail the peace process or even lead to a larger-scale escalation of conflict.Overall, although this special meeting between the two leaders has achieved some superficial progress, However, the prospects for peace between Russia and Ukraine remain bleak, and numerous uncertain factors could still derail the peace process or even lead to a larger-scale escalation of conflict.

On the positive side, this meeting represents the most substantive diplomatic progress toward peace in Ukraine during Trump's second term. The preliminary agreement on security guarantees and the consensus on a peace framework indicate strengthened U.S.-Ukraine coordination and lay the groundwork for subsequent negotiations. The meeting between Zelenskyy and European leaders, which Trump plans to host, if successfully convened, will further facilitate the alignment of positions among all parties and create conditions for the implementation of a peace agreement. Additionally, direct communication channels between high-level U.S. and Russian officials have been established, with both sides appearing to express a clear willingness to end the war, offering the possibility of resolving core conflicts.

However, from a risk perspective, multiple uncertainties still dominate: First, territorial concessions, Russia's true intentions, and the division of roles among European countries remain the greatest uncertainties., especially as Russia's hardline stance on territorial issues fundamentally conflicts with Ukraine's bottom-line demands. If Zelenskyy is forced to make excessive territorial concessions, it could trigger strong opposition from the Ukrainian public and even lead to the collapse of his regime. Second, Russia's continued bombing of Ukraine after the meeting indicates that an actual ceasefire remains far from reach. Russia's military pressure may continue to escalate to force Ukrainian concessions. Third, the United States' security guarantee commitments lack specific details, and European allies' positions are wavering. If a unified security guarantee mechanism cannot be established subsequently, Ukraine may refuse to sign the final agreement. Fourth, Ukraine's domestic political divisions and corruption issues may affect the implementation of the peace agreement and even trigger internal turmoil. However, from a risk perspective, multiple uncertainties still dominate: First, territorial concessions, Russia's true intentions, and the division of roles among European countries remain the greatest uncertainties., especially as Russia's hardline stance on territorial issues fundamentally conflicts with Ukraine's bottom-line demands. If Zelenskyy is forced to make excessive territorial concessions, it could trigger strong opposition from the Ukrainian public and even lead to the collapse of his regime. Second, Russia's continued bombing of Ukraine after the meeting indicates that an actual ceasefire remains far from reach. Russia's military pressure may continue to escalate to force Ukrainian concessions. Third, the United States' security guarantee commitments lack specific details, and European allies' positions are wavering. If a unified security guarantee mechanism cannot be established subsequently, Ukraine may refuse to sign the final agreement. Fourth, Ukraine's domestic political divisions and corruption issues may affect the implementation of the peace agreement and even trigger internal turmoil.

Multiple media outlets have clearly pointed out that this meeting "shows no signs of major breakthroughs," with progress being more about rhetorical optimism. In fact, This "special meeting" appears to be more of a new starting point for Russia-Ukraine negotiations rather than an endpoint.. Genuine peace requires all parties to make substantive compromises on their core interests and demands. However, judging from the current state of the game, the possibility of such compromise remains low. As relevant analyses have warned, the United States and Russia may reach a consensus to jointly exert influence on Ukraine and Zelenskyy. As a small nation, Ukraine finds itself in a difficult position between the West and Russia, lacking the strategic wisdom to balance the interests of all parties, and may ultimately become a casualty in the great power game. Multiple media outlets have clearly pointed out that this meeting "shows no signs of major breakthroughs," with progress being more about rhetorical optimism. In fact, This "special meeting" appears to be more of a new starting point for Russia-Ukraine negotiations rather than an endpoint.. Genuine peace requires all parties to make substantive compromises on their core interests and demands. However, judging from the current state of the game, the possibility of such compromise remains low. As relevant analyses have warned, the United States and Russia may reach a consensus to jointly exert influence on Ukraine and Zelenskyy. As a small nation, Ukraine finds itself in a difficult position between the West and Russia, lacking the strategic wisdom to balance the interests of all parties, and may ultimately become a casualty in the great power game.

VI. Conclusion: The Price of Peace and the Inquiry of History

The meeting at Tezehai Lake Manor on December 28, 2025, pushed the peace process of the Russia-Ukraine conflict into a new stage, but it also allowed people to see more clearly the cruelty of great power games and the helplessness of small nations.The "consensus for peace" presented at this meeting appears more like a superficial consensus constructed by various parties to alleviate their own pressures, behind which lie unresolved territorial disputes, intense competition for interests, and complex power struggles.The meeting at Tezehai Lake Manor on December 28, 2025, pushed the peace process of the Russia-Ukraine conflict into a new stage, but it also allowed people to see more clearly the cruelty of great power games and the helplessness of small nations.The "consensus for peace" presented at this meeting appears more like a superficial consensus constructed by various parties to alleviate their own pressures, behind which lie unresolved territorial disputes, intense competition for interests, and complex power struggles.

For Ukraine, the price of peace may be the loss of some territory and the erosion of national sovereignty; for Russia, the goal of peace is to consolidate strategic security boundaries and vested interests; for the United States, peace serves as a tool to demonstrate its diplomatic dominance and reduce the cost of aiding Ukraine; for Europe, peace is a reluctant choice to balance security order and economic costs. In this game of multiple interests, what is truly overlooked may be the Ukrainian people's longing for peace and the profound devastation brought by the war—Ukraine's population has sharply declined from nearly 40 million before the war to about 30 million, with a large number of women and children fleeing abroad, cities left in ruins, and the economy on the brink of collapse.

In the future, as the U.S.-Europe-Ukraine meeting chaired by Trump takes place, the Russia-Ukraine peace process will enter a more critical stage. However, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, this Trump-Zelensky meeting has already left behind profound historical questions: **In an international order dominated by major powers, how can the security and sovereignty of smaller nations be genuinely safeguarded? If a negotiation conducted in the name of "peace" ultimately comes at the expense of the interests of smaller nations, can such peace truly be considered just?** These questions are not only relevant to the ultimate direction of the Russia-Ukraine conflict but also to the restructuring and development of the future global international order.