Trump's emotions were out of control, forcing Zelensky to make a choice. If he didn't hand over the territory, he would wait to be "destroyed". So, when fierce conflicts broke out at the meeting between the presidents of the United States and Ukraine, how did Zelensky face the pressure of "ceding territory"? What kind of strategic abacus is hidden behind Trump's capricious position?
On October 17, local time, according to the British Financial Times, during the meeting of Trump and Zelensky in the White House, the atmosphere was tense to almost the sword. Trump not only urged Zelensky to accept the conditions of the ceasefire of Russia, handed out of the Donbass region, but also directly spoke: "Without giving territory, Ukraine will face the catastrophe of extinction", this scene, undoubtedly shocked the global public opinion.
During the meeting, Trump's mood seemed to be completely out of control. He swears throughout the process, and even threw the battlefield map of Ukraine aside at one point, looking extremely impatient. This gaffe is in stark contrast to his status as president of the United States. As the leader of Ukraine, Zelensky, faced with such a tough attitude, could only bear it silently, trying to find a turning point in the negotiations.
Judging from the details disclosed by the Financial Times, during this meeting, Trump repeated Putin's views throughout the entire process, from "the conflict is a special operation" to "Ukraine is losing the war", and even directly quoted his phone call with Putin on October 16. The original words-"If I want to, I can destroy you." This dislocation of roles is staggering. The President of the United States has become a "repeater" of Russia's position, while Zelensky is forced to make a choice between "ceding territory for peace" and "the risk of destroying the country". What's even more intriguing is that just the day before the meeting, Putin just had a phone call with Trump and mentioned the ceasefire conditions of "Ukraine ceded Donbass". The coincidence of this time node implies that the United States and Russia have already reached some tacit understanding on "land for ceasefire".
Obviously, Trump's capriciousness was once again exposed in this incident. Just in September this year, he declared that he "supported Ukraine in retaking all territory" and even threatened to impose 100% tariffs on Russia. During this meeting, however, he suddenly turned to support "freezing the current front" and even hinted that "Putin has won some territory".
Some analysts believe that there are three reasons behind this position swing. First, Trump had a two-and-a-half-hour phone call with Putin the day before the talks, and Putin clearly stated that Ukraine must cede the Donbass region as a condition to end the war. Trump's threat this time has largely become Russia's microphone. In other words, Trump is not simply putting pressure on Ukraine, but is incorporating the conditions put forward by Russia into the negotiation framework.
The second is that Trump himself has an urgent need for diplomatic achievements. From the Middle East ceasefire negotiations to the situation in Russia, he hopes to quickly mark his role in "ending the conflict".
Third, the pressure on U.S. domestic political and military resources is emerging. Trump’s refusal to provide Ukraine with the “tactical ax” long-range missiles he has requested is one of the reasons for concerns about the escalation of the situation, as well as U.S. arms inventories and political costs. So, from the U.S. standpoint, the greater the risk of continued endless expansion of aid to Ukraine and his own intervention, according to Trump, he may think that halting the damage is far more realistic than anything else.
But Zelensky’s response was tough. He explicitly refused to assign any Ukrainian territory, pointing out that 20% of the western territory of Donbass is not only a strategic area, but also a “fortress belt” that Ukraine took 11 years to build, with 50 kilometers of defence lines filled with battlefields, shelters, mining zones and anti-tank barriers, which are key barriers to the Russian military’s advancement. If the land is abandoned, it will not only trigger a new round of refugees, but also likely lose the barrier against the further advancement of the Russian military. This position is supported by many European countries, and EU Foreign and Security Policy Senior Representative Kallas has made it clear that “we should not restrict arms aid to Ukraine”, and the British Prime Minister Tassmer reiterated
Today, the direction of the Russia-Ukraine conflict is still unresolved. Zelensky insisted on refusing to cede territory, Putin insisted that "Donbas must fully belong to Russia." Trump's threat is more like a psychological tactic, trying to force Ukraine to compromise through extreme pressure. However, historical experience shows that cession of territory in exchange for peace is often difficult to last long. The Munich Agreement of 1938 is a lesson from the past. For Ukraine, true peace requires joint guarantees from the international community, not unilateral territorial concessions. The fierce confrontation at this White House meeting not only exposed the complexity of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, but also reflected the power logic and moral dilemma in the game of major powers-when threats become bargaining chips, who will bear the cost of peace?