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 influence the global landscape—former U.S. President (during Donald Trump's second term) Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky held closed-door talks here. In stark contrast to their first meeting on February 28, 2025, which ended in discord, this meeting began in a relaxed atmosphere, and both sides later expressed optimism that a peace framework was nearing completion. However, behind the positive rhetoric lies intense competition among the U.S., 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 challenges. 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 multiple dimensions, including the meeting's background, key 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. One day before the meeting (December 27), Russia launched a large-scale airstrike 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 confront the harsh reality of being unable to advance or hold ground, making the promotion of peace negotiations a practical choice for the Zelenskyy government.

Second, Ukraine's internal and external difficulties and Zelenskyy's personal political demands. Internally, the corruption scandal among Ukrainian high-level officials exposed in October 2025 severely damaged the approval rating of Zelenskyy's government. The latest poll shows that former Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, enjoys a support rate as high as 64%, while Zelenskyy's stands at 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 Zelenskyy in the next presidential election. Externally, the shift in U.S. aid policy toward Ukraine and the wavering of European allies have continuously weakened Ukraine's external support. Against this backdrop, Zelenskyy urgently needs to pave a dignified 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 behind-the-scenes maneuvering between the United States and Russia. During Trump's second term, promoting a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine became one of his core diplomatic priorities, aiming to showcase his diplomatic capabilities by leading peace negotiations. More importantly, before and after the meeting, Trump engaged in two lengthy, positive, and productive phone calls (each exceeding 1 hour) with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump not only conveyed to Putin the necessity of reaching an agreement but also publicly stated that Putin was genuinely committed to ending the war. This direct high-level communication between the U.S. and Russia set the tone for the Trump-Zelensky meeting, offering a glimpse into the underlying dynamics of major-power negotiations behind 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 this special summit, the core progress announced by both sides primarily focuses on two major aspects: consensus on the peace plan and the security guarantee agreement. While it appears to have achieved substantial breakthroughs, a closer analysis reveals that many agreements remain superficial and have yet to address the core contradictions.

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

The core topic of this meeting is Ukraine's revised 20-point peace plan, the predecessor of which was the 28-point plan drafted under the leadership of Trump's envoy, Witkov, and his son-in-law, Kushner. The evolution of these two plans essentially reflects the concentrated manifestation of the U.S.-Ukraine power struggle: The 28-point plan was criticized by European media as almost a surrender document due to its severe bias toward Russia. It included provisions such as recognizing Donbas and Crimea as belonging to Russia, freezing the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions along the battlefield contact lines, requiring Ukraine to reduce its military size to 600,000 troops (pre-conflict levels), and implicitly abandoning the pursuit of NATO membership permanently. These terms plunged Zelenskyy into a situation of internal and external difficulties.

Against this backdrop, Ukraine made a groundbreaking revision based on the 28-point plan, resulting in a 20-point plan, which was unilaterally and prematurely announced by Zelensky on December 23. Ukraine's move carries 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 and compel the U.S. and Europe to provide genuine, rather than merely verbal, security guarantees; third, to address domestic political pressure, as after the exposure of corruption scandals, announcing a plan aligned with Ukraine's demands aims to garner public and media support. Domestic public opinion in Ukraine even views this plan as a victory for the country.

After the meeting, Zelenskyy publicly announced that both sides had reached 90% consensus on the 20-point peace plan, with the security guarantee section achieving 100% agreement; Trump also stated that we are very close, perhaps very close, and firmly believes we will reach a deal. This positive statement quickly drew global attention and was interpreted by some public opinion as a signal that the Russia-Ukraine conflict is nearing an end.

However, a deeper analysis reveals that this 90% consensus is more of a rhetorical compromise. The 20-point plan adopted an avoidance strategy regarding the core territorial issues. It merely proposed that a ceasefire would take immediate effect upon reaching an agreement, recognized the military frontlines in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions as contact lines, demanded Russia's withdrawal from the occupied territories in Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Sumy, and Kharkiv oblasts first. As for the final status of disputed regions like Donbas, it only offered vague proposals such as establishing demilitarized zones and free economic zones. This avoidance essentially postpones the core contradictions rather than genuinely reaching a consensus, also sowing hidden dangers for subsequent negotiations.

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

The most substantive progress from this meeting is the United States' commitment to provide Ukraine with 15 years of security assurances, a promise that precisely addresses the core demand repeatedly emphasized by Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy clearly stated at the press conference that security guarantees are a prerequisite for Ukraine's participation in peace negotiations, and this U.S. commitment is viewed by Ukraine as a major victory from this meeting.

From the content of the 20-point plan, Ukraine's demands for security guarantees are more specific. It requires the United States, NATO, and European signatory states to provide security guarantees similar to NATO's Article 5 (collective defense clause), meaning that if Russia attacks Ukraine again, the guarantor nations must jointly defend it. At the same time, to align with the Trump administration's opposition to Ukraine joining NATO, the 20-point plan completely avoids the issue of Ukraine's accession to NATO, reflecting Ukraine's pragmatic compromise.

However, it is important to note that there remain many ambiguities in the U.S. security guarantee commitments: The Trump side has only stated that Europe will play a primary role in the security guarantees, but has not publicly disclosed key details such as specific responsibility divisions, the scale of assistance, or trigger mechanisms. The stance of European allies is particularly crucial at this moment. Although countries like France and Germany have committed to providing security guarantees for Ukraine, even proposing the formation of a multinational force, there is a lack of consensus within Europe, and the establishment of defense capabilities is progressing slowly. French President Macron indicated that discussions on security guarantees would continue in January 2026, while Germany stated that the scale of assistance depends on the progress of negotiations. This ambiguity and uncertainty make the U.S. 15-year security guarantee commitment resemble a long-term promissory note, with doubts remaining about whether it can be fulfilled.

(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. Additionally, Trump has expressed willingness to visit Kyiv and address the Ukrainian parliament if necessary. This series of follow-up arrangements demonstrates the United States' attempt to maintain a leading role in the Russia-Ukraine peace process, while also reflecting Trump's intention to steer the negotiations toward an outcome aligned with U.S. interests by reinforcing his position 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, 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, capable of derailing the peace process at any moment. Behind these issues lies the deep power struggle among the four forces: the United States, Ukraine, Russia, and Europe. Although both sides have released optimistic signals, 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, capable of derailing the peace process at any moment. Behind these issues lies the deep power struggle among the four forces: 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 negotiation, and also represents 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 show 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 Russia's actual control over the territories it currently 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 on territorial issues cannot be reached, the entire peace plan may be submitted to a national referendum. This move aims to transfer the responsibility for potential territorial concessions to public opinion, ensuring a smooth transition for himself. However, the effectiveness of this strategy still depends on Russia's attitude and the pressure exerted by the United States.

The United States plays a dual role as both a balancer and a pressure-applier. Trump's core task is to force Zelenskyy to make further concessions on the 20-point plan, bringing it closer to the 28-point plan acceptable to Russia, and then persuade Russia in turn to accept the revised proposal. Meanwhile, the European allies maintain a relatively ambiguous stance on territorial issues. On one hand, they worry that the division of Ukrainian territory would undermine 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, control over 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 military control since March 2022. In October 2025, Putin signed a decree designating it as a federal asset of Russia. On December 23, its Unit 1 was granted a 10-year operating license by Russia, solidifying de facto Russian control over the plant. The 28-point plan proposes joint management by Ukraine, the United States, and Russia, with proportional distribution of benefits. In contrast, the 20-point plan suggests cooperative operation by the United States and Ukraine, excluding Russia, with benefits allocated to Ukraine and the U.S. This proposal clearly contradicts Russia's interests, and Russia has explicitly stated that it will not return control of the already occupied areas to Ukraine. 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 within 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 military). Ukraine intends to achieve self-defense, exert pressure on Russia, and use this as leverage to secure more economic aid from Europe by maintaining a strong military force. Meanwhile, Russia is concerned that an 800,000-strong military would mean Ukraine retains significant military confrontation potential in the long term, undermining Russia's desired goal of military restraint. The essence of this issue is 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 funding of 800 billion dollars and seeks 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 dollars, placing immense fiscal pressure and making it difficult to bear the huge reconstruction costs; Europe's economic foundation is even weaker, and internal disagreements over aiding Ukraine continue to widen, leaving it equally unable to shoulder the burden alone. Some analyses suggest that out of the approximately 300 billion dollars 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 amount. The shortage of post-war reconstruction funds will not only affect the implementation of peace agreements 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 this special summit, it is not difficult to discern the essence of the current Russia-Ukraine peace process—a great power game centered on major power transactions, with Ukraine finding itself in a passive situation.Through the various details and focal points of this special summit, it is not difficult to discern the essence of the current Russia-Ukraine peace process—a great power game centered on major power transactions, with Ukraine finding itself in a passive situation.

From the perspective of U.S. strategy, the Trump administration adopted a multifaceted approach: militarily, instead of directly providing weapons to Ukraine, it allowed European countries to purchase American weapons and then transfer them to Ukraine, with the U.S. profiting 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, weakening 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 with minimal cost and maximize U.S. strategic interests in Europe.

Russia has continuously increased its bargaining chips through a dual approach of military pressure and diplomatic negotiations. On one hand, it has steadily advanced on the battlefield, using large-scale airstrikes and the capture of towns to signal to the United States, Europe, and Ukraine that it can continue the fight. On the other hand, through direct communication with Trump, it has clearly articulated its core demands, aiming to pressure Ukraine into making concessions under U.S. influence. Putin's primary goal is to consolidate territorial gains through peace negotiations, prevent NATO's eastward expansion into Ukraine, and safeguard Russia's strategic security boundaries.

In the great power game, Ukraine is gradually losing 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, Ukraine relies on aid from the United States and Europe but cannot control the direction of their policies, leaving it to passively accept the outcomes of great 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 create a slight breathing space for its dignified exit and Ukraine’s future. As relevant analyses point out, the current negotiations involve a dual-layered 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, whose likely outcome is being forced to accept a deal dominated by great powers and losing part of its 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, the prospects for peace between Russia and Ukraine remain bleak, and many uncertain factors could still lead to the collapse of the peace process, or even trigger 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 genuine intentions, and Europe's role-sharing remain the greatest uncertainties, especially given the fundamental conflict between Russia's hardline stance on territorial issues and Ukraine's bottom-line demands. If Zelensky 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 off, and Russia's military pressure may escalate to force Ukrainian concessions. Third, the U.S. 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 internal 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 there are no signs of significant breakthroughs in this meeting, with progress being more rhetorical optimism. In fact, this special meeting appears more like a new starting point for Russia-Ukraine negotiations rather than an endpoint. Genuine peace requires substantive compromises from all parties on core interests and demands. However, judging from the current dynamics of the game, the likelihood of such compromises 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 smaller nation, Ukraine finds itself in a difficult position between the West and Russia, lacking the strategic wisdom to balance the interests of all parties. Ultimately, it may become a casualty in the power struggles among major nations.

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

The meeting at the Tesehai Lake Estate on December 28, 2025, pushed the peace process of the Russia-Ukraine conflict into a new phase, but it also made people see more clearly the brutality of great power competition and the helplessness of small nations. The peace consensus presented by this meeting appears more like a superficial consensus constructed by all parties to alleviate their own pressures, with unresolved territorial disputes, intense interest struggles, and complex power contests lying beneath.

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 US-Europe-Ukraine meeting hosted by Trump in January 2026 convenes, the Russia-Ukraine peace process will enter a more critical phase. However, regardless of the negotiation outcomes, this Trump-Zelensky meeting has already left 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 in the name of peace ultimately comes at the expense of the interests of smaller nations, does such peace truly possess justice?** These questions are not only crucial for the final direction of the Russia-Ukraine conflict but also for the restructuring and development of the future global international order.