author| Xue Zijing
University of London Institute of Asian and African Studies
Member of 14th All-China Youth Federation
01 Trump's UN statement attracts attention: starting from the change in stance on the Russia-Ukraine war
In the face of a sharp turn in Trump’s attitude, the Russian side responded immediately, and Kremlin spokesman Peskov said Trump’s judgment lacked objective basis, was heavily influenced unilaterally by Ukraine, and denied claims about Russian military inefficiency. The Ukrainian side expressed cautious optimism about Trump’s shift in position, stressing the need for stronger allied support and overall cooperation with Russia-related sanctions. Ukraine society generally has expectations for Trump's new statement, but is also worried about the long-term stability at the implementation level of his commitments.
The rest of the Western media have differences in assessment. Some commentators believe that this statement helps to consolidate political consensus on Ukraine and release positive signals to the outside world, while others argue that this is more like a change in the level of rhetoric and a lack of concrete support.Meanwhile, several media outlets have noted that Trump stressed in his speech that NATO countries should take greater responsibilities, which may mean that the level of U.S. direct intervention in the Ukraine issue in the future will decrease. Regarding why this change has occurred after contact with Russian President Putin, public data show that Trump has spoken and prepared for meetings with Putin several times this year, but has not achieved substantial results. In mid-September, he publicly expressed his disappointment with Putin’s negotiating stance while attending a press conference in London. In this context, his stronger remarks after his meeting with Zelensky were widely viewed as a response to the failed contacts with Russia in the past, while also reflecting its strategic adjustment at the public opinion and allied levels.
The scale of the war, the cost of both sides and the gradual changes in the U.S. position
According to a report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in the summer of 2025, the Russian-Ukrainian war has entered its third year, with continued increase in civilian casualties caused by the conflict. In the first half of 2025 alone, more than 6700 people will be killed and the number of casualties in July reached the highest level in three years. A joint assessment by the Kyiv Academy of Economics and the World Bank shows that by the end of 2024, Ukraine's direct infrastructure losses have exceeded $17 trillion, and the funds needed for reconstruction over the next decade exceed $52 trillion.
Russia also bears a high priceSeveral international research institutions estimate that Russian military casualties on the front line have reached hundreds of thousands since 2022.International Energy Agency data show that under the influence of sanctions and energy price ceilings, Russian oil and gas revenue has declined, fiscal deficits have expanded, and the ruble exchange rate has frequently fluctuated. Long-term mobilization also brings labor shortages and capital outflows, creating sustained pressure on the social economy.
03 Attack quickly to protracted war: US-European aid promotes transformation of conflict patterns
The conflict landscape has also undergone a turning point. In the early days of the war, the Russian army tried to weaken Ukraine's defenses through rapid attacks. However, as the US and European air defense systems, intelligence and financial assistance were in place, the war gradually fell into long-term consumption and turned into a protracted war. This made the outside world realize that the conflict was difficult to end in the short term, and the US-European aid framework escalated accordingly. Data from the Kiel Institute shows that since 2022, the United States and Europe have provided hundreds of billions of dollars in financial and arms support, and Europe will accelerate long-term contract investment in the summer of 2025. At the same time, North Korea provided Russia with short-range missiles and artillery shells, and the conflict gradually took on a stronger proxy character.
At the U.S. policy level, Trump and the White House team have adjusted their attitude in 2025。 At the beginning of the year, the United States promoted consultations with Russia in the Middle East, released a signal to meet with Putin, and included ceasefire and security arrangements in the draft. However, after multiple rounds of unsuccessful communication, Trump changed his mind in his meeting with Zelensky and his speech at the United Nations, emphasizing that Ukraine can win with the support of NATO and the European Union, and demanding that Europe assume greater responsibility. This change provides a realistic background for the later analysis of Trump's personal diplomatic style and limitations.
(As shown in the picture, the disputed territory of the Ukrainian conflict is mainly concentrated in the Donbass region in eastern Ukraine (including the Donetsk and Lugansk states) and parts of Zaporizhia and Herzegovina in the south. In addition, the Crimean peninsula has been the core focus of the Russian-Ukrainian opposition since its unilateral "annexation" in 2014. These areas are not only the main war zones of both sides, but also the geopolitical hotspots of the international community.)
04 Structural conflicts constrain Trump's individualistic diplomacy
Trump’s diplomatic approach is centered on direct communication and bilateral transactions between leaders, and he often assumes that complex conflicts can be made through negotiations, while the United States uses sanctions and aid to pressure each other.
However, on the issue of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, this idea has encountered fundamental resistance.The key differences in conflict Territorial sovereignty and regional security orderRussia insists on external recognition of its actual status of control in eastern Ukraine and the Crimea region. Since the 2014 Crimean referendum, Moscow has included the region on the map and, after the full escalation of the conflict in 2022, has subsequently declared that Donetsk, Lugansk, Helsinki and Zaporozhovo are “in Russia”. In several negotiations or external statements, Russia has emphasized that these regions have completed a political transition, demanding that Ukraine abandon its retreat position. At the same time, Russia has also proposed restrictions on Ukraine’s military scale, including the reduction of heavy weapons and long-range strike capabilities, and demands to redefine NATO’s security commitments, banning NATO’s deployment of defense systems in Ukraine or further expansion in the east. These
Ukraine's position is equally clear. The government of Kiev has always stressed the need to restore the state border at the time of independence in 1991, which was recognized by the United Nations.The Ukrainian side refused to make any concessions on territorial issues, believing that the conditions for accepting Russia meant giving up sovereignty. Ukraine also demanded that Russia withdraw from all the occupied areas, and stressed that NATO’s security commitments are vital to the survival of its country and can only enter any form of negotiation process if long-term security is obtained. These demands originate from the fact that Ukraine has been continuously seeking to integrate into the European and transatlantic system since independence, and Russia’s actions are seen as a fundamental threat to its national independence and security. The results of multiple calls and preparatory meetings show, Personalized interaction does not change these bottom lines.。These attempts have instead highlighted the multiple limitations of individualistic diplomacy in structural conflicts. These limitations are manifested in:
The territorial and security arrangements involve not only Russia and Ukraine, but also the institutional commitments of NATO and the European Union, and any agreement must be reached within a multilateral framework. Legitimation isAcknowledging.
(2) In terms of capabilities, although the President of the United States can adjust the pace of military aid and sanctions, Congressional budget, European military-industrial capacity and political will of alliesBoth constitute restrictions, and individual decisions are difficult to directly translate into lasting policies.
(3) credibilityOn the one hand, Trump has repeatedly issued signals that a ceasefire is close, but has never been achieved. This repeated change has weakened the outside world's trust in his statement.
In this context, Trump’s public turn in September is more like a reassessment of diplomatic rhetoric and a redistribution of responsibility for international security.He suggested that Ukraine could win with NATO support to stabilize the psychological expectations of its allies, and stressed that Europe should bear a larger share. Multiple media commentaries argue that this change is more an adjustment at the level of speech than an immediate policy upgrade. Trump had previously envisaged to breakthroughs through personal mediation, but it proved that this way could not solve structural contradictions.
Overall, the role of individualist diplomacy is limited in highly structured institutional security conflicts. Russia’s tough stance and Ukraine’s bottom line demands determine that the contradiction will not be resolved by one meeting. The system and multilateral arrangements are the key to determining the course of the conflict. Personalized transactions can only be complementary in this context and cannot be dominant.
05 Scenarios for Individualist Diplomacy and the Necessity of Traditional Frameworks
Looking back to recent practices, Individualist diplomacy can indeed play a clear role in certain areas.trade disputesThis is the most typical case.The first phase of the Sino-US trade agreement signed in 2019 was formed through tariff increase and bilateral negotiations. Such issues have a clear value measure and can be implemented through procurement commitments and tariff adjustments. The same is true for the defense sharing requirements of NATO allies. Trump directly pressures Germany, Japan and other countries and gradually increases their defense budgets. Immigration negotiations between the United States and Mexico also reached an agreement in a short time, and Mexico strengthened border control. What these cases have in common is that the topic is relatively single, the costs and returns can be quantified, and the implementation relies on bilateral arrangements.
But on issues involving sovereignty, security and long-term institutions, individualist diplomacy is often difficult to work. The Russia-Ukraine war is a typical example. Territorial and security issues cannot be quantified as exchangeable bargaining chips.
In contrast to the formation of individualist diplomacy, the importance of the multilateral framework is reflected in several aspects, it can provide repetitive procedural tools. In the matter of Ukraine, whether the expansion of the sanctions list, the enhancement of military aid production capacity, or the design of a ceasefire supervision mechanism, must rely on multilateral platforms such as the EU, NATO and the UN. While Trump’s personal style can produce public opinion effects in the short term, it cannot replace the functioning of these institutions. In the absence of a systematic diplomatic system, personal diplomatic ideas often stay only on the verbal level, and it is difficult to form a lasting impact.
Testing the Key Link of Trump’s Shift: Political Endpoint Observations After the Shift
Trump's latest statement has changed short-term expectations for the role of the United States in the Russia-Ukraine war, but it remains to be seen whether it will evolve into continuous policy adjustments. Three aspects need to be paid attention to in the future.
First, Military assistance and production capacityIs it possible to form stable contracts and deliver pace, especially if there is noticeable progress in air defense and long-range strike capabilities?
Second, sanctionsIs it possible to stay synchronized with Europe and effectively limit Russia’s access to critical components and financial channels?
Third, Postwar security arrangementsWill there be substantial consultations on ceasefire surveillance, border security and traffic line protection?
The interpretations of different media eventually point to the fact that the rhetoric of the diplomatic slogans can be quickly adjusted, but the execution must rely on the support of institutions and resources. If these links are delayed and there is no progress, Trump's shift is closer to political communication, and if it can be implemented, it can really change the position on the battlefield and the negotiation structure.
This article was published exclusively on Tencent News