Zelensky's third visit to the United States seems to have "caused a big disaster" again. Trump dropped malicious words in person and did not cede land to Putin. The consequences were very serious.
Putin called the White House call and played an instantaneous effect, the meeting between Trump and Zelensky, once again "unhappy". In Zelensky's vision, he could get the US "secondary sanctions" against Russia, send "war-ax" missiles to Ukraine, and the opportunity for a tripartite dialogue between the US and Ukraine. But the reality is that Trump not only did not respond to his expectations, but also directly said that Ukraine should accept Russia's "armistice conditions", otherwise Putin once mentioned that he would "destroy" Ukraine。
Zelensky’s visit to the United States: a “disappointment journey”
According to British media reports, the huge differences between U.S. and U.S. make the atmosphere of dialogue very tense, and Trump's repeatedly unconventional stance on the Russian-Ukrainian issue, and more so. It pointed to the possibility that most worried Zelensky was the willingness of the United States to support Russia’s claims.。
This concern was not a void, but the reality gave Zelensky a series of bad news:
First, the U.S. ruled out the possibility of a recent U.S.-Russian tripartite meeting, meaning that Zelensky could not have a direct dialogue with Putin through a multilateral framework, but could only continue to rely on the role of U.S. mediator.
To make matters worse, Trump made it clear that he planned to meet with Putin separately, and most likely to be bilateral. This arrangement is obviously more beneficial to Russia because Putin can directly exert influence on Trump, while Zelensky is excluded and unable to even participate in key discussions.
Secondly, Trump showed a clear bias towards Russia's position during the meeting. As mentioned earlier, Trump not only urged Zelensky to accept Russia's truce conditions, but even "reprimanded" Zelensky many times, and insisted that Uzbekistan "cede" the Donbas area to Russia.
This harsh attitude not only embarrassed Zelensky, but also put Ukraine in an extremely passive position in the negotiations.
According to foreign media reports, Trump even threw aside the map of the front line of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and directly demanded concessions from Ukraine. This almost "imperative" diplomatic approach completely shattered Ukraine's hope of obtaining equal negotiating status through the United States.
At the same time, the U.S. has rejected Ukraine’s most critical request for military assistance – providing cruise missiles.
This missile has long-range strike capabilities and can threaten Russia's deep targets. It is an important bargaining chip for Ukraine to try to break the deadlock on the battlefield.
However, the Trump administration not only did not let go, but lowered the tone of relevant discussions, which means that Ukraine cannot count on this key weapon, at least in the short term.
Finally, there is another detail. According to foreign media reports, after the meeting, Trump refused to hold a press conference with Zelensky, and even did not allow him to hold a separate press conference on the White House lawn.
This forced Zelensky to set up a small table on the other side of the street for interviews in the context of the White House. This embarrassing scene symbolizes Ukraine’s marginalization on the American political scene.。
Trump urges Zelensky to give in and is helpless about ceasefire
However, it is inaccurate to conclude that Trump will support Putin "one-sided". His tough attitude towards Zelensky is not purely due to his preference for Russia, but He has become "helpless" on the Russia-Ukraine issue。
At first, Trump hoped to end the war quickly through “simple negotiations,” but reality proved that it didn’t work at all.
He may have thought that by bringing Putin and Zelensky to the negotiating table, the two sides could compromise, but Russia never really gave in, while Ukraine insisted on maintaining territorial integrity.
After Trump’s “speed-to-speed” fantasy broke, he began to become agitated and even directly pressured Zelensky to try to get him to make unilateral concessions in exchange for the so-called “peace.”
Obviously, this misjudgment comes from the serious overestimation of Trump's influence on Russia.
He may think that as long as he talks to Putin, he can persuade Russia to compromise, but Putin obviously won't change his strategic goals just because of a few phone calls.
Russia's core demands are the neutralization of Ukraine and partial territorial control, and Trump cannot force Putin to accept Ukraine's conditions.
So when Trump discovered that Russia wouldn't budge easily, he instead shifted the pressure to Ukraine in an attempt to get Zelensky to "throw in the towel".
What’s worse is that the Trump administration faces domestic political pressure, forcing him to “solve” the Russian-Ukrainian issue as soon as possible.
If the war continues to drag on or even expand further, the Democratic Party may use it to hype and affect Trump's midterm elections and future political prospects.
Therefore, Trump is more inclined to “fast wartime decision,” even if it means sacrificing Ukraine’s interests, he urges Zelensky to make concessions, which is essentially a “knock-off” strategy – since it is impossible to allow Russia to make concessions, then it is not possible to do so. Forcing Ukraine to compromise so that he can declare to the outside “the war is over.”。
There is no simple solution to complex problems, the "dead end" in the four-party game.
Looking at the essence through the phenomenon, the essence of the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a "deadlock" in which the interests of multiple parties are completely opposed. Neither party is willing to really make concessions. Therefore, So-called "simple solutions" simply don't exist。
Zelensky's government has insisted on "legally binding security guarantees", that is, not only to restore territorial integrity, but to ensure that Russia does not launch another offensive in the future.
However, this requirement is almost impossible to achieve in reality, because Russia will never accept Ukraine's accession to NATO or long-term Western military presence. In the absence of sufficient military and economic support, this stance will only put itself in a more passive position.
At the same time, Russia blames NATO's eastward expansion for the root cause of the Ukrainian crisis, and therefore will not easily accept Ukrainian conditions unless there is sufficient pressure from the West-but the United States is clearly unwilling to turn its face with Russia outright.
More complicated, the Trump administration hopes that Ukraine will continue to consume Russia, but is reluctant to provide enough military aid, and more reluctant to impose harsh sanctions on Russia, a “half-hanging” strategy that leads the United States to neither surrender Russia nor win Ukraine, and ultimately only fall into a long impasse.
Finally, we have to mention the "thin sense of existence" of European countries who try to establish "voluntary alliances" to ensure Ukraine's security, but Europe cannot fight Russia alone, and the United States is reluctant to support it all, so Europe's "strategic autonomy" is more a vision than a reality.
The entanglement of various interests has turned the Russia-Ukraine conflict into a "quagmire" of entanglement of multiple interests, which together constitutes an unsolvable dilemma.