In 2025, the battlefield in Ukraine still does not mean that it has not stopped.The war has lasted for more than two years, not only has not separated the victory, but has fallen into the end of the "consumption war".
Soldiers are exhausted, the economy is tight, the people hate war, and in addition to the gunfire on the sidelines of the war, more is the voice of the international community: peace! even a compromise peace.
In this context, the Trump administration, which re-entered the White House, threw a “trade-style” plan: Ukraine, split into three; ceasefire, talk immediately; peace, not NATO.
Even more surprisingly, the United States also proposed that China and Brazil participate in peacekeeping troops. One stone aroused the wave of thousands, which is not only a rearrangement on the battlefield, but also a new round of test of the game of great powers.
Here comes the question: Is this really a peaceful way out, or is it another political calculation?
Will Ukraine be divided into three?
The reason why this war hasn't stopped to this day is actually not complicated: No one is willing to admit defeat, but no one can win.
As of early 2025, Russia still controls large areas of southeastern Ukraine, including Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Crimea, which has long been annexed to Russian territory.
The Dnieper River, like a natural barrier, cut the battlefield in half.Both sides are dead, no one dares to attack easily, and no one is willing to step back.
The European Union is still working, for example, with Germany launching a long-term support scheme of €700 billion, and Britain also pledging £3 billion annually, but these look more like a “traumatic move.”
The real wind has changed because Trump is back. He said it very directly: The United States does not want to burn money without the bottom line anymore, for peace, someone has to "cut meat."It’s hard to say, but it touches the pulse of reality.
The Russian side is no longer hiding its bottom lines, and Putin has repeatedly stressed that the four-state affiliation and the issue of Crimea are "unnegotiable" red lines.
On the Ukrainian side, the Zelensky government is equally tough, repeatedly reiterating that "territorial integrity cannot be compromised." It's like playing a game with no winner. Whoever gives in first becomes a "historical sinner".
As a result, the so-called "one divided into three" idea slowly surfaced. American think tanks and some EU diplomats began public discussions: Is it acceptable for a “realistic” version of Ukraine to allow the eastern pro-Russian region to belong to Russia or to maintain factual independence, with the central as a buffer zone stationed by peacekeepers, and the west continuing to move closer to the EU.
This idea sounds cruel, but in the current military and political reality, it is indeed a “reasonable idea” that someone is willing to try.
But no one is against this idea.There is a voice of concern within the European Union. Will the Ukrainian people really accept the fate of being “dispersed”? but there are people who confess privately that continuing to fight it will only make things worse.
New Peacekeeping Idea: Why are the United States pulling China and Brazil?
Speaking of this “non-NATO peace program”, the Trump administration’s calculation is not difficult to guess. The United States wants to step back, but does not want to let Russia monopolize the situation, so proposed peace led by the so-called “neutral countries”.
This proposal first appeared in the Economist's February report, saying that the U.S. government is exploring an "international peacekeeping force" composed of non-NATO countries to supervise the ceasefire and maintain order. The significance of this force is not only military deployment, but also a political signal.
For Russia, China is a strategic partner and Brazil is a BRICS brother, which is completely different from NATO's "hostile" attribute. In this way, it may be easier for Russia to accept such "third-party supervision" rather than see the NATO flag planted on the east bank of the Dnieper River.
For countries in the Global South, this combination also looks more "neutral". Brazil, in particular, has a great influence among developing countries around the world and has been trying to play the role of "peace mediator".
If the dominance of peacekeeping can be appropriately transferred from the hands of traditional Western nations, it may be more likely to gain widespread international support.
And the United States itself can also "release its breath". peacekeeping money and troops, it is never a pleasant thing. "distribute" this heavy burden to China and Pakistan, can reduce its own political risk, but can also "multi-party" responsibility.
This kind of thinking is not without precedent. Historically, the United Nations has organized peacekeeping forces composed of many countries, such as operations in South Sudan, Kosovo, Haiti and other places.
But the special situation in Ukraine, involving nuclear powers, territorial disputes and the Cold War legacy, can be replicated success, no one dares to deal with.
Small calculation: every step after receiving the invitation is careful
The U.S. proposal suggested that China and Brazil would react “polite but restrained.” On the surface, both countries expressed their support for peace efforts, but when it comes to "military peace and reconciliation", it immediately becomes vague.
China’s stance has always been clear: supporting a political settlement and opposing any unilateral pressure.The South China Morning Post in a March report that China welcomed the ceasefire initiative and jointly put forward a “six-point peace plan” with Brazil, emphasizing the restoration of peace through negotiations rather than by external military intervention.
However, China has not made a clear statement on whether to send troops. This is actually not difficult to understand. The Ukrainian issue is essentially a strategic game between Russia and the United States, and China is unwilling to intervene in this highly sensitive conflict by military means.
In addition, sending troops to peacekeep also involves multiple problems such as law, security, public opinion, etc. Once a conflict or misjudgment occurs, it will greatly damage China's neutral image in the world.
In contrast, China seems more willing to play an important participant in "post-war reconstruction". Many Chinese media have previously mentioned that China intends to participate in infrastructure reconstruction and economic cooperation after the end of the conflict in Ukraine. For China, replacing the army with engineering teams may be a more appropriate way.
Brazil, on the other hand, continued Lula's "neutral mediator" line. Lula had already proposed the idea of creating a "peace club" in 2023, trying to fight for more voice for Southern nations.
But there are also many practical problems. Brazil has limited military capabilities and lacks domestic consensus to send overseas troops. Even if Lula wants to do something, he has to worry about the attitude of Congress and the military. What's more, the relationship between Brazil and Russia is also in a "delicate balance", and sending troops rashly may break this diplomatic posture.
Therefore, it is not difficult to see that both China and Brazil are responding to the US proposal in a way of "neither refusing nor promising". They are willing to push for peace, but they are not willing to be pulled into the battlefield.
Peaceful design is done, who will do it?
The Ukrainian crisis has come to this day, and it is no longer a simple question of "who loses and who wins". The cost of war is too high, and the cost of peace is not low. Although the idea of "one divided into three" causes controversy, it does reflect a consensus: the war cannot be dragged on indefinitely, and even if it is a compromise, it must be negotiated.
The Trump administration’s proposal is, in the end, an attempt to “destroy” it exposes both the intention of the United States to make a strategic turn, but also its perception of geopolitical reality.
But whether this plan will fall to the ground depends not only on Putin and Zelensky’s position, but also on whether “intermediaries” such as China and Brazil are willing to stand up and participate in designing peace in their own way.
Peace is not perfect, compromise is often the reality.The future of Ukraine may be destined to be complicated, but if there is no courage to negotiate, then it can only continue in the battlefield to wait for answers.
U.S. officials propose to send foreign peacekeepers in case of ceasefire in Ukraine, Foreign Ministry responds
2025-02-18 15:45 · Global Network