The scheduled meeting between the US and Russian heads of state has now fallen through, and the early contact between the two foreign ministers has been postponed indefinitely. This high-level contact, which was originally expected to thaw the Ukrainian crisis, suddenly stalled after a "special Mandarin" that lasted for two and a half hours.

Trump's attitude changed drastically, suspending a new round of military aid to Ukraine and offering to meet Putin, while Ukraine refused to accept the current ceasefire on the front, while Europe wavering between support and conservatism.

Trump's call with Putin became a turning point in the whole diplomatic situation. He originally supported providing Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, but suddenly stopped after the call and proposed to promote a ceasefire based on the current front.

This move means that the line of control that Russia has gained in the Donbas region will be tacitly recognized, and Ukraine will have to accept the actual ceding of territory. This strategy may seem to open a door to peace, but in fact it reduces complex geopolitical conflicts into a diplomatic deal that can be finalized.

Trump¡¯s approach is not uncommon. He has consistently tended to ¡°corporate¡± international issues and replace long-term strategies with trading psychology. In his opinion, meeting directly with Putin and making an agreement quickly can not only save diplomatic costs, but also shape a stronger image of ¡°solving big problems¡± at home.

But the Ukraine issue is not a quick deal. It involves national sovereignty, security structure, and geographical balance. Concessions by either party will involve far-reaching strategic consequences.

More realistically, the idea of ¡°making a deal¡± was quickly blocked within the United States. Congress and the military were always very vigilant about Russia, and the anti-Russian sentiment between the parties was difficult to shake. Trump, though president, could not bypass these institutional constraints.

Military industrial enterprises, intelligence systems, and diplomatic systems all hope that the United States will remain tough on the Ukrainian issue and will never compromise lightly.

Trump's vague judgment of Ukraine's victory also reflects a consistent tendency to change in his diplomatic thinking. He said "not completely excluding Ukraine's victory", which neither shows support nor completely denies, is a typical vague statement.

It is used to avoid policy consequences and leave room for subsequent turns. Although this strategy is flexible, it can easily cause allies to doubt the position of the United States.

Trump's "transactional diplomacy" ignores the deep structural contradictions of the Ukrainian conflict. This is not only a war between Russia and Ukraine, but also a long-term game between Russia and the West on security borders, spheres of influence and international order.

Considering it a quick deal not only underestimates the political will of the parties, but also ignores the social, ethnic and strategic inertia of the war.

Zelensky refuses to back down, European support is limited but divided

Trump's ceasefire proposal quickly hit a wall in Ukraine. Zelensky had a direct dispute with Trump during his visit to the United States and refused to accept the proposal of exchanging territory for a ceasefire. Behind his position is strong public pressure in Ukraine.

Most Ukrainians are firmly opposed to cutting off Crimea and Donbass, which has become a red line that is difficult to cross.

Zelensky's rejection is not only based on national sentiment, but also out of practical considerations. Once the status quo ceasefire is accepted, it is tantamount to recognizing Russia's actual control in eastern Ukraine, which will weaken the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government and bring greater obstacles to future national reunification. He couldn't accept a passive peace agreement without any victory.

Behind Zelensky, although European support is there, it is not stable. Germany and France continue to provide military and economic assistance to Ukraine, emphasizing that Ukraine's territorial integrity is unshakable. But this is only one aspect of Europe's attitude.

Hungarian Prime Minister Orban publicly supported Trump's proposition and believed that the current ceasefire on the front line was a pragmatic choice. The new government of Slovakia said it would no longer provide military assistance to Ukraine. Differences within Europe on the Ukraine issue have gradually surfaced.

Although the EU as a whole tends to support Ukraine, its strategic intentions are not unified, with some countries concerned that Russia¡¯s military expansion threatens their own security and advocates continued aid to Ukraine, while other countries are more concerned about the economic and energy pressures brought by the prolongation of the war and are more inclined to promote some form of compromise.

At the same time, Europe's distrust of the United States is increasing. Trump's intention to bypass Europe's direct engagement with Russia makes the EU feel marginalized.

EU diplomatic agencies are worried that the United States and Russia may reach an agreement that does not include Europe, thus sacrificing Europe's geopolitical interests. Kallas, a senior EU diplomat, recently said that "the world needs a new leader", which is obviously not only a feeling, but also a question about the current US policy direction.

Zelensky's tough stance relies on both European support and European differences. He cannot rely entirely on Europe to promote diplomatic breakthroughs, but he must rely on Europe's resources to maintain war. Once European aid falters, Ukraine will face unprecedented strategic isolation.

The US-Russian-European three sides have a calculation plan, and peace talks lack a foundation

The cancellation of the meeting between the two foreign ministers was essentially the result of a three-way game. Russia has never concealed its core demands: Ukraine cannot join NATO and must remain neutral; Crimea belongs to Russia;

The West lifted sanctions on Russia; and recognized Russia's de facto control in Donbas. These requirements are the bottom line of national security in Russia's eyes, but they are unacceptable strategic concessions in the eyes of the United States and Europe.

The U.S. side, especially under the Trump administration, has sought to escape responsibility from the battlefield through rapid negotiations and turn the conflict into a diplomatic outcome.

Trump hopes to ¡°dignely withdraw¡± at a lower cost, while Russia hopes to rebuild Europe¡¯s secure borders, which makes it difficult for the dialogue to go deeper.

Europe is sandwiched between the two. It does not want to see the conflict between Russia and Ukraine continue to worsen, but it is even less willing to be excluded from negotiations. Europe hopes that Ukraine will persevere, and it also hopes that it can have a say in the future security architecture.

The EU's concern is that if the United States and Russia privately negotiate an arrangement, Europe may bear the risk of war contagion without receiving any strategic rewards.

The contradiction between the three parties is not only a different position, but also a fundamental conflict of interests. What Russia wants is international recognition, what the United States wants is strategic escape, and what Europe wants is security dominance. There is no intersection between the three, and there is a lack of mutual trust. Under such circumstances, even if a presidential-level meeting is held, it is difficult to talk about substantive results.

The more realistic problem is that each side is waiting for the other to give way first. Russia believes that sooner or later the United States will give in because Ukraine cannot afford to delay; the United States hopes that Russia will bow because of the high cost of the war;

Europe hopes to negotiate the two while retaining its dominant position. However, no party is willing to take the first step, which keeps current diplomatic contacts on the surface.

Trump¡¯s ¡°trade-style diplomacy¡± on the Ukrainian issue, Zelensky¡¯s refusal to compromise, Europe¡¯s support for division, and US-Russia¡¯s objectives diverged, all of which left peace talks lacking a minimum of consensus. Political solutions still need to be progressively advanced under the multilateral framework. The course of this conflict will still depend on the strength contrast of the tripartite game and the duration of strategic will.

Source of information:

The previously scheduled US-Russian meeting was postponed indefinitely in mid-October 2025.The meeting was originally scheduled to be held in Budapest, paving the way for a direct dialogue between Trump and Putin -- Reuters (16-18 October 2025).

Trump suspends provision of ¡°Tax¡± missile aid to Ukraine after call ¨C Washington Post (October 17, 2025)