According to U.S. media, Putin spoke to Trump for about two and a half hours this week, saying that if Russia wants to end the fighting, the “bottom line condition” is that Ukraine must hand over the entire sovereignty of the Donetsk state to Russia.
In other words: Putin's hand is-"In your game, first turn Donetsk Oblast into my home before we can talk about a ceasefire."
At the same time, there is a “sweet head” for Ukraine: Russia has expressed its willingness to give up control of parts of the occupied territories (i.e. parts in Zaporozhye and Helsinki) in exchange.
The peace agreement cannot be signed by Ukraine.
Let's first take a look at what Russia serves on the table. Putin's core proposal is that as long as Ukraine nods and recognizes that all of Donetsk Oblast belongs to Russia, a ceasefire can be achieved.
This is no small move. This marks a change in Russia's strategic focus. It is no longer the four states of Dunn, Luzhou, Zakarya and Kyrgyzstan plus Crimea as previously requested, but is concentrating its firepower to capture the entire Donetsk.
As an exchange, the Russian side said it could give up control of the already occupied areas of Zaporozhye and parts of Helsinki. Sounds like a concession?But the outside world understands that it is to take pieces of meat and exchange the bones of a whole core.
Ukraine simply cannot accept this plan. First of all, people's constitution says territorial integrity in black and white, which cannot be negotiated. If any Ukrainian leader dares to sign such an agreement, it is tantamount to political suicide, and the morale of the army and the trust of the people will collapse instantly.
Further, Donetsk is a special place. It was the flashpoint of the conflict in 2014 and the starting point of the whole tragedy. Russia's clinging to this place is to use legal facts to solidify its historical narrative, which is tantamount to forcing Ukraine to admit that "the beating is justified."
This is simply a double humiliation, so the plan is more a proposal than a declaration of victory written by Russia to itself.
Who wants peace, who wants peace?
This plan is like a mirror that reflects the completely different understandings of "peace" by all parties.
For Ukraine, what they want is “survival peace”, the core is sovereign integrity, the country can survive, so they are determined to the West to have air defense systems, to have long-range weapons, which is their own money.
And what Russia wants is a “victorious peace”. the war has been fought for so long, and there must be a battle that can deliver to the domestic people. take the complete Donetsk, this goal is not much or little, just good.
Hely spoke to Putin for two and a half hours. Trump’s motivation was clear, he wanted to shape the image of a “peacebuilder” before the election, fulfilling his “24-hour end of war” promise.
Some officials in the White House also felt that this may be the first time Russia has shown a willingness to make substantial concessions.
But in Europe, especially in Germany, France and other countries, when they heard of the proposal, they almost immediately rejected it, saying it was “absurd” and feared that the entire post-war security order in Europe would end once “land robbed by force” was recognized.
A European diplomat’s parable is rough: it’s equivalent to having Ukraine “sell its legs and get nothing.”
You see, the word "peace" is not the same thing in everyone's mouth.
Disarm first at the negotiating table?
The most ruthless part of this scheme is not the land exchange, but the "hidden clause" attached to it.
Putin issued a very clear warning: If the United States dares to provide Ukraine with long-range strike weapons like Tomahawk cruise missiles, the so-called peace process will be "seriously damaged." This "red line" directly sets the premise for the future US-Russia summit.
The only ticket to the negotiating table is to ask Ukraine and its allies to put down weapons that could threaten each other first.
Is this pushing the United States to the corner of the wall for a futile negotiation hope, sacrificing the defense capabilities of the allies? or continuing military aid and then being caught in the hat of “destroying peace”?
Therefore, despite the outside world's speculation that the US and Russian foreign ministers will hold a preparatory meeting first, or that Trump and Putin may hold a summit in Budapest, the basis of these diplomatic paths is all based on the military restrictions that Ukraine fears most.
The entire diplomatic effort, at the root is unstable. negotiations, has become another continuation of the war.
conclusion
Putin's "ultimatum"-style conditions tore away the vague space remaining in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Donetsk is no longer just a piece of land on the map, but a touchstone to test the strategic cards of all parties: Can Russia rewrite the European order by force?
Is the Western Alliance really willing to pay the ultimate price for its "values"? How should Ukraine's national narrative coexist with geographical reality?
In the final analysis, the "Donetsk Plan" did not bring the dawn of peace, but instead provided a clear picture of the real deadlock in the war. Not only do all parties not give in to an inch of land on the map, but there is also no intersection at all on core issues of national dignity, security order and strategic future.
True peace can never be replaced by a seemingly smart scheme.It requires a fundamental change in the pattern of forces inside and outside the battlefield.And at the moment, the players on the table, no one wants to give up cards, all continue to bet.