The core point:
1.Zelensky proposed "proportional exchange of territory" for the first time during the meeting in Washington, showing that the position forced by Russia's offensive and Trump's pressure was loosened.But the constitutional amendment left the territory facing domestic resistance, and the Ukrainian side insisted on a full withdrawal based on the real line of control rather than the Russian demand.
2.Ukraine demands "iron-like" security, the West pushes the "NATO-class fifth" mechanism, while Russia insists on no military presence and veto rights.The United States tends to support Ukraine through arms sales rather than military presence, and there are serious differences within Europe on military dispatch.
3.Trump relies on personal influence to drive negotiations, claiming to “solve six wars”, but lacks institutional mechanisms such as NATO and the UN.If the agreement is withdrawn, it is easy to overturn, and the Russian side therefore emphasizes the root solution and seeks a treaty-based security framework to ensure long-term interests.
4.Putin tested the western bottom line by reaffirming the ceasefire conditions, with the aim of low-costly consolidating the neutrality of Ukraine and the Russian-controlled zone, including the non-negotiable Crimea, the non-NATO status treaty and no Western presence.
Introduction: On August 18, Trump met with Zelensky in Washington. Did Trump sincerely promote peace mediation or just stage another "show diplomacy"? How will all parties compete? The "Insight into America" column jointly launched by the Beijing News and Tencent News invited Chen Yu, deputy director of the Eurasian Institute of China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, and Shao Yifei, assistant researcher at the Institute of Intellectual Intelligence International, to discuss the complexity of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Editor of this issue: Jin Yukai
Moderator:Both sides acknowledged that the meeting was “constructive”, but failed to reach an agreement on key issues such as ceasefire, territory, etc. Without any substantive agreement, does it mean that there are irreconcilable contradictions between the two sides on the core interests of the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations?
and Chen:The Alaska summit was not without results.The two sides discussed over three hours and made some progress.First of all, Russia persuaded Trump to abandon "ceasefire first and then negotiate" and agreed to explore a peace agreement "while fighting and talking". This was a major breakthrough for Russia. Secondly, on the territorial issue, Trump tends to recognize the current Russian-controlled areas, but specific details, such as whether to cede territory through a treaty or delineate it with a military demarcation line, but on the ownership of the remaining Ukrainian-controlled areas in Donetsk, the two sides did not reach a consensus and only formed a principled consensus based on the actual control line.In the security of Ukraine, the Russian side's position was softened, in the past demanded that Ukraine "de-militarize", limit the size of the army, weapons types and neutralization, prohibition to join NATO or the EU, this time Putin agreed with Trump's point of view, believing that the security of Ukraine should be guaranteed, the two sides achieved security is the core principle consensus of the future peace agreement. These are only principle consensus, details need in-depth discussion of Russia, the United States, Ukraine, Europe. other issues such as the resumption of foreign affairs, economic and trade cooperation and so on have not broken, but lay the foundation for future negotiations.Therefore, the summit has made some progress and cannot be said to be a failure.
The situation of territorial control on the Russian-Ukrainian front (as of August 19)
Source: Russia matters
Moderator:Some analysts believe that the symbolism of this summit outweighs the substance. Russia uses this to ease international pressure, while the US creates an image of mediation. Is this a political performance of "each gets what they want"?
and Chen:Russia and the United States have deep conflicts over Ukraine, European security, and global stability, which are difficult to resolve in the short term.The two sides do have a show element: Trump is keen on high-profile occasions, displaying global influence, or contributing to the Nobel Peace Prize and diplomatic legacy; Russia uses Trump to ensure that the conflict ends favorably and avoids future US presidents who are unfriendly to Russia.Trump once threatened to withdraw from the peace talks because of Russia's attitude, and Russia showed goodwill with a short-term ceasefire and direct negotiations with Ukraine. The summit continued this logic, and the Russian side showed goodwill through the meeting, striving for Trump to accept "talking while playing".But the performance is part of the game strategy and can drive progress, not entirely meaningless.
Moderator:Trump invested “personal credibility and political capital,” promised a 24-hour cessation of hostilities, but found the war complicated.
and Chen:There are indeed many contradictions between Russia and the United States, not only on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, but also on the issues of European security and global strategic stability. These contradictions will be difficult to completely resolve in the foreseeable future.As for whether or not it’s a “performing nature,” both sides have a certain performance component. Trump is enthusiastic about the occasion under the lights of the light, demonstrating his world influence through the meeting of heads of state, and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict brokerage is also thought to have mixed personal motives, such as fighting for the Nobel Peace Prize or leaving a diplomatic legacy.
For Russia, the show also has its purpose.The Russian side wants to use Trump to ensure that he remains involved in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, thereby achieving arrangements in its favour. Compared to unlimited delays in the conflict or the future facing an unfriendly U.S. president to Russia, Trump is more attractive to end the conflict in a favorable way during his term.Earlier, Trump had threatened to withdraw from the peace talks because of dissatisfaction with Russia's attitude. Russia immediately expressed goodwill through a short-term ceasefire and agreeing to direct negotiations with Ukraine, trying to keep Trump at the negotiating table. The summit is similar to the logic. The Russian side showed goodwill to the US by agreeing to meet, and at the same time strived for favorable trends, such as Trump's acceptance of "talking while playing".
Therefore, the performance itself is an important link to both games. Through the performance, the two sides try to promote the realization of their respective interests. It cannot be said that there is absolutely no substantive content, the performance is part of interaction, driving some progress.
A Ukrainian soldier holds a weapon in Kharkiv
Source: Reuters
Moderator: At the US-Ukraine-EU summit on August 18-19, 2025, Zelensky proposed for the first time a "proportional exchange of territory." Why did Uzbekistan's position change? What is the difficulty in the implementation of ceding territory for peace?
Chen Yu: Ukraine has relaxed since the end of last year, after Trump's election policy shifted 180 degrees, Russian progress on the battlefield accelerated, and the Ukrainian side acknowledged the short-term difficulty of passing through military territory and showed flexibility.Zelensky stressed that exchanges need to be based on security and fairness.1) The form of territorial ownership. Constitutional cession is extremely difficult under domestic politics, and the military demarcation line is more feasible; 2) The demarcation standard is that Uzbekistan prefers the actual control line. Russia requires the Ukrainian army to withdraw from the remaining 25% of Donetsk. Uzbekistan regards it as a key line of defense and questions Russia's intentions; 3) Security guarantees. Uzbekistan insists that concessions must be effectively guaranteed, otherwise it will be tantamount to surrender.Russia’s tougher conditions in 2022 have not been accepted by Ukraine, and it is no longer possible to make a complete compromise.The migration of the population and the need for a constitutional amendment referendum could also cause internal divisions.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer addressed U.S. President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Zelensky, and other European leaders at the White House in Washington, D.C
Source: Getty Images
Moderator:Zelensky stressed that there is a need for "iron-like" security to agree on peace talks.The White House said that U.S. troops do not enter Ukraine but coordinate security, and Europe should be first responsible.
Chen Yu: The United States and Europe have big differences on territorial issues. The United States only wants an agreement and does not care about Ukraine's losses. Europe regards Ukraine's security as its own and opposes too many compromises.The two sides agreed in principle to provide guarantees for Ukraine, but there are differences in details such as the size of the army and the strength of US support. Russia's demand for Ukraine to be neutral and free of Western troops conflicts with Western goals. The lack of US troops and differences in Europe (such as France's support for sending troops, Germany's caution) make it difficult to implement the guarantee plan, weakening the confidence of the Ukrainian side and possibly making the Russian side more assertive.Short-term prospects for peace are slim.
In April 2025, US President Trump gave a media interview in Washington, DC
Source: Reuters
Moderator:How realistic would the security backstop of a "coalition of the willing" of 30 western countries (excluding the US) that many European countries are talking about be without the heavy firepower of the US? For example, who will send troops? Who will pay for the military? How to respond in the event of an attack? Do these unclear details mean that the plan is more like "empty talk"?
and Chen:After the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Europe regarded Russia as a threat. Finland, Sweden's entry into NATO, and Germany's increase in military spending showed that it attaches great importance to Ukraine's security. But without US support, the alliance is less realistic: France, Britain, and Poland may send troops, but the scale is limited; military spending needs to be coordinated by the European Union, and Hungary and others oppose it; the attack response mechanism is unclear, relying on NATO but without US commitment. The lack of clear details makes the plan empty and difficult to provide the deterrent Ukraine needs.
Moderator: August 18During the U.S.-EU summit, Trump called the “solution of six wars” to shape the image of peace-builders. How can U.S. domestic political appeals affect its Russian-Ukrainian policy?
Chen Yu: Trump's domestic political demands (such as mid-term election support and the Nobel Peace Prize) have profoundly influenced his Russia-Ukraine policy, pushing him to be eager to "perform" peace, but ignoring long-term mechanisms.Russia is worried about the sustainability of the agreement after leaving office, so it emphasizes the root cause solution rather than just an armistice.The Russian side hopes to ensure that the European security architecture is beneficial to it through the treaty and avoid the threat of NATO's eastward expansion. "Personalized diplomacy" relies on Trump's influence and is prone to changes after leaving office. If the Democratic Party comes to power, it may be overthrown. It lacks institutional guarantees such as NATO or the United Nations, and commitments are low in sustainability.
Moderator:Trump in X suggested that Ukraine needs to "attack" Russia while pushing for peace talks.What is the real intention of the U.S. and what is the complex impact on the talks?
and Chen:Trump's X post has been read in multiple ways.One view suggests that he encourages an offensive against Ukraine, and another that he repeats the position that “Ukraine cannot defeat Russia” intended to pressure the Ukrainian side to compromise.He sent General Kelog to the celebration of Ukraine’s Independence Day, also with the intention of prompting Zelensky to make concessions on territorial issues.Trump's statements are often ill-thought-out, and his central motivation is his eagerness to broker a Nobel Peace Prize.He was once optimistic about the prospect of peace, but turned to frustration after frustration, and began to put pressure on both sides. His lack of awareness of the complexity of the issue led to policy swings and difficulty in promoting peace in the short term. This contradiction exacerbates the complexity of negotiations: strengthening confidence in the Ukrainian battlefield, but may exacerbate the Russian side and delay the formation of consensus.
Moderator:The Pusei Summit in 2019 failed to prevent the outbreak of conflict, and now the situation is more complicated. If the Pusei Summit is held again, can there be substantial results, and how likely is a peace agreement to be reached?
The possibility of achieving a framework peace agreement in the short term is very low, and the more realistic outcome is the risk reduction measures, such as the exchange of prisoners of war, humanitarian corridors, and accidents prevention mechanisms, for subsequent negotiations, the summit is more like a stage for the right of speech and public opinion, rather than a final node.Russia believes that time is favorable and prefers to freeze the front line rather than cease fire first. The core conditions have not been loosened after the Alaska meeting, showing that the path of "stop-talk-guarantee" is blocked. The West pushes the "Article 5-like" guarantee, and the Russian side demands no garrison and veto power. The implementation mechanism is difficult to align, and the paper agreement is difficult to be deterrent. The United States, Europe and Ukraine have obvious differences in ceasefire, territory, and security rhythm. Ukraine is sensitive to territorial concessions, and the arrangement to bypass Ukraine's sovereignty is difficult to sustain. The loosening of sanctions is Russia's reward. If the United States and Europe do not implement them consistently, Russia will have insufficient motivation to make concessions. Russia binds expert texts and questions Ukraine's legitimacy to reduce the risk of breaking the situation, but the zero-sum narrative weakens mutual trust. The neutralization of the Finnish model is difficult to start due to Russia's territorial and veto requirements and restrictions on Ukrainian laws and regulations. The truce freezing of the North Korean model conflicts with the premise that Russia has no troops stationed, and its replicability is low.It is more likely that Pusey will produce nuclear security, shipping security, dialogue mechanisms and other risk reduction arrangements, ceasefire requires verifiable military rules, air and sea alternatives, clear synchronous breakthroughs in the exchange of prices, otherwise it is only a step to reduce risk, not the gateway to the end.
Extended reading:
From Gaza to Ukraine, Trump's "confidence in mediation" has been questioned. Can the US-Russia meeting restore peace to one side?
Trump presided over the end of the ceasefire in Iran, the U.S. "collect the peaches" intervention, what is the strategic calculation behind?
Immigration Storm: America's Power Game in California's Unrest