A meeting of heads of state that was temporarily suspended, a ceasefire plan that was publicly rejected, Trump's "quick victory plan" was treated coldly by Putin, but Zelensky turned around and defected at a critical moment. Who's spoiling things in the dark? Who is the final winner?
According to information from Comprehensive Observer Network and World Wide Web, U.S. President Trump suddenly changed his tune when responding to the Russia-Ukraine ceasefire negotiations, saying that he had not yet decided whether to hold a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and even hinted that "it may be a waste of time."
Hours later, White House officials officially announced that the PUT event, which was originally scheduled to be held in Hungary, had been suspended indefinitely.
The fuse of this diplomatic turmoil was a ceasefire plan that was flatly rejected by Russia.
According to AP disclosure, Trump had proposed to Putin a "on-site ceasefire" plan, asking the Russian and Ukrainian sides to stop military operations along the current front "to declare victory, let history judge."
Trump's abacus is very precise: since the battlefield is in a deadlock, it's better to stop it when it's good. This "freezing conflict" scheme can not only allow Trump to claim that he has "solved the war", but also leave room for future negotiations.
However, Putin's response was tough and clear-Ukrainian troops must completely withdraw from Donbass regions such as Donetsk, otherwise everything will be avoided.
The Russians have already taken control of the entire territory of Lugansk and 78% of Donetsk, and what they want is complete control of the entire Donbass.
If a ceasefire is reached at this time, the Russian military will still have to face a military presence in western Donetsk, which is far from Putin’s strategic goal of “completely resolving the Donbass issue.”
Looking at Putin's failure to accept, Trump immediately canceled the planned "Putters Conference".
This diplomatic wave also exposes a key contradiction in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict: Shouldn’t the current front be the basis for a ceasefire?
Dramatically, after Putin rejected Trump's proposal, Ukrainian President Zelensky suddenly changed his attitude, and the United Kingdom, France, Germany and other 12 countries issued a statement supporting Trump's "local ceasefire" plan.
Europe also took the opportunity to increase its investment and announced that it was formulating plans to use the frozen 140 billion Russian assets to assist Ukraine.
This move seems to support the United States, but it is actually putting pressure on Russia. After all, as long as Russia doesn't nod its head, a ceasefire is impossible.
Zelensky's move not only flattered Trump and blamed Putin for undermining peace talks, but also alienated U.S. -Russia relations without really paying a territorial price. It can be said to kill three birds with one arrow.
However, Zelensky's compromise is also full of helplessness. During his visit to the United States, he had a fierce quarrel with Trump for refusing territorial concessions, but his attitude changed suddenly after returning to Ukraine.
The analysis pointed out that the key variable lies in the change in European attitude-when countries such as Germany and France turned to support the ceasefire plan, Ukraine lost the confidence to continue to resist.
Under the power of the two evils, Zelensky can only choose the relatively moderate option of "ceasefire along the current front". After all, there is still room for manoeuvre in insisting on the sovereignty of Donbas in the future, and directly "ceding territory" will become a historical sinner.
Although Zelensky has expressed his willingness to negotiate, the resolution of the Russia-Ukraine conflict still faces three obstacles:
First, territorial differences are difficult to bridge.
Ukraine's constitution prohibits cession of territory, while Russia insists on sovereignty over the newly occupied territory. If the current front line ceasefire is maintained, the status of Donbas will become an "outstanding case" and a new round of conflict may be triggered at any time.
The European security structure is unbalanced.
The strategic mutual trust between NATO and Russia has completely collapsed, and even a ceasefire by Russia and the West is unlikely to lift sanctions against Russia, and Russia will inevitably strengthen its military presence in Kaliningrad and Belarus.
In addition, despite the public support of European countries for Ukraine, the internal divide is widening.France and Germany fear that the prolongation of conflict will drag the economy, while Poland and the Baltic countries advocate tougher against Russia.
This difference makes it difficult for Europe to form a unified strategy.
Third, the political variables of the U.S. midterm elections.
For the United States, there will be mid-term elections in 2026, and the Ukrainian issue may become a bargaining chip in domestic political struggles.
The Trump administration faces two difficulties: if it excessively presses Ukraine for concessions, it will be criticized for being “weak to Russia”; and if it supports Ukraine until the last one, it could fall into the cradle of war.
The cancellation of the "Puttership" is essentially a reflection of the irreconcilable interests in the game of great powers.
Trump wants a paper deal in exchange for a political ring, while Putin wants to consolidate strategic achievements, with Ukraine and Europe struggling to survive.
In Moscow’s view, if the United States can’t persuade even Kiev, then the US-Russian summit is meaningless.This is also the deepest reason Trump cancelled the “Putters Conference” – because it is not possible to talk about the outcome, it is better to keep the face.
There are no eternal enemies, only eternal interests.
When Trump's "art of trading" meets Putin's "strategic patience", and Zelensky struggles to survive between the United States and Europe, this conflict has long surpassed territorial disputes.
In any case, resolving the Ukraine crisis requires wisdom and a spirit of compromise from all parties. A unilateral victory is neither realistic nor sustainable.
Only by taking into account the security concerns of all parties and establishing an inclusive regional security architecture can lasting peace be truly achieved.
As China's Permanent Representative to the United Nations recently said: "We want to build bridges of communication, not strengthen walls of confrontation."
When the smoke of war is gone, history will remember that the real victory is not the amount of territory occupied, but the amount of peace won.