[By columnist Kaihuan Xue of the Observer Network]
On April 26, US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy held a brief meeting during the funeral of Pope Francis at the Vatican. This was their first face-to-face meeting since the White House dispute.
Interestingly, after this meeting, Trump's attitude toward Zelenskyy improved somewhat. He not only criticized Russia for continuing to bomb Ukraine but also stated that Putin "may not want to stop the 'war' but is just stalling with me."
Just three days prior, on April 23, the highly anticipated US-Ukraine-Britain-France-Germany five-party meeting on the Ukraine issue in London ended in deadlock. The US Secretary of State, Rubio, suddenly canceled his trip to London and instead attended the meeting as the envoy for Ukrainian affairs, Keith Kellogg. The diplomatic downgrade triggered a chain reaction, with Germany and France subsequently lowering their representative levels. As a result, the host country, Britain, was forced to "postpone" the originally planned ministerial-level meeting (which was effectively canceled).
According to an anonymous senior US official, there are significant differences between the US and Ukraine regarding the framework and timeline for the ceasefire. The Ukrainian authorities clearly stated that the "Trump peace plan" needs substantial revisions, emphasizing that the lack of key details makes the proposal unacceptable. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy publicly drew a red line: "They can try to force Ukraine to recognize Crimea as part of Russia, but Ukraine will never agree."
The EU countries firmly supported Ukraine's position during this incident, collectively expressing dissatisfaction with the US proposal. Russia also declared in advance that it would not easily accept US conditions. Faced with opposition from all sides, Trump's promises regarding the peace issue in Ukraine have repeatedly led to broken promises.
April 26, Zelenskyy and Trump held a brief meeting at the Pope's funeral. Visual China
Trump's Peace Proposal
In order to quickly gain acceptance for America's "peace proposal," Trump himself issued a warning that the US might withdraw from the Ukraine peace process. Trump said, "Accept it, or we will not move forward." At the same time, American media reported that this was Trump's "final proposal," which could be slightly modified and improved but could not be rejected.
Whether this peace initiative will indeed become the "last proposal" remains to be seen. But it can certainly be said that this is America's first peace plan. During his election campaign, Trump claimed he had a "great peace plan" and promised to end the war within "24 hours," but he reneged on this promise after being elected.
The US proposal is only one page long, clearly indicating that it is not the final version but rather a summary description of its main content.
Here are the key points of the US proposal:
1. Russia and Ukraine should immediately achieve a long-term ceasefire.
2. Ukraine will receive "reliable security guarantees" provided by a "peacekeeping force" composed of European countries, with no participation of US troops in the "peacekeeping force."
3. The US recognizes Crimea and parts of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk provinces occupied by Russia as belonging to Russia. The current military contact line will serve as the basis for dividing Russian and Ukrainian territories, but on the condition that Russia withdraws from Kharkiv province, and Ukraine withdraws from Belgorod and Kursk provinces. Additionally, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant will be granted "special status," nominally still belonging to Ukraine, but its operation will be taken over by the US, and its electricity production will supply territories controlled by both Ukrainian authorities and Russian-controlled territories (including Crimea).
4. Russia will receive a commitment from Ukraine not to join NATO, but Ukraine can join the EU.
5. Russia commits to not interfering with shipping on the Dnieper River.
6. Sanctions against Russia will be lifted (the document does not specify whether this includes EU sanctions), and economic engagement and cooperation between the US and Russia will resume.
7. Reconstruction aid for Ukraine will be handled by the US, and Ukraine should sign an agreement with the US regarding the distribution of profits from natural resources (without specifying specific details and content).
Clearly, this is a "peace plan" that heavily favors Russia. Therefore, it is not surprising that Ukraine's authorities reacted coldly to it.
After receiving this "peace plan," Ukraine's authorities soon responded: Zelenskyy first told reporters on April 22 that America's peace plan was a proposal, signal, idea, and vision, but "not an official proposal to Ukraine," and pretended to be confused, saying that Ukraine had not yet received an official proposal from the US: "The important thing is: if an official proposes such a plan, we will immediately respond officially, and you will know about it."
Then, after the London meeting on April 23, Zelenskyy suddenly made a clear statement saying Ukraine was ready to negotiate but refused to surrender: "Today, when the Ukrainian delegation met with partners in London, we reaffirmed our principled position: Ukraine is ready to negotiate, but will not surrender. Our people will not accept a frozen conflict disguised as peace."
This statement was posted by Ukrainian First Deputy Prime Minister Svirydenko on the X platform in English. Although the statement did not directly mention the US, its content clearly rejected America's peace plan. Additionally, French President Emmanuel Macron also sided with Ukraine. The office of the French president released a separate statement on April 23, stating that "Ukraine's territorial integrity and European aspirations are not topics for peace negotiations." This means that neither Ukraine nor the EU has any interest in Trump's "peace plan."
What problems exist in Trump's "peace plan"?
Ukraine has clearly stated its firm positions: first, it will not recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea and other territories; second, it retains the right to independently choose to join NATO or the EU, rejecting Russia's permanent veto over Ukraine's NATO membership; third, any ceasefire agreement must be based on reliable external security guarantees, while emphasizing that it will not accept clauses limiting the size and offensive capabilities of the Ukrainian military. Ukraine's authorities remain steadfast in maintaining their red lines. This is exactly the biggest problem with Trump's "peace plan."
Currently, public opinion is focused on the stance of Ukraine's authorities and Trump regarding the归属of the Crimea region. Ukraine's authorities are firm, while Trump, in his usual exaggerated style, criticized Zelenskyy's hardline stance on this issue, but he also claimed that the "Crimea issue is not an obstacle to signing a peace agreement."
"No one is asking Zelenskyy to acknowledge that Crimea belongs to Russia," Trump wrote on X. From his description, the Crimea issue seems to have some room for compromise. Therefore, the Crimea issue is actually not as serious as imagined. More serious issues are hidden beneath these appearances: can Russia and Ukraine really "cooperate" to achieve true peace?
First, a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine requires mutual recognition from both sides, followed by approval from both countries' parliamentary institutions. Under these circumstances, a "peace agreement" acceptable to both sides is unlikely to emerge. National agreements inevitably involve issues of interest distribution, and interest distribution inevitably requires compromise. Regardless of which side the agreement leans toward, do Russia and Ukraine have enough officials willing to take responsibility for it and "leave their mark in history"? Clearly, the人为obstacles to achieving a peace agreement are unimaginable.
Take, for example, the clause in Trump's peace plan regarding the handling of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. The power plant is currently under Russian control, but nominally still belongs to Ukraine under the legal framework. In Trump's peace plan, the US will acquire actual management rights over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
In other words, according to Trump's peace plan, Russia must acknowledge the legal归属of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant to Ukraine, and Ukraine must give up actual management rights over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Ultimately, only the US stands to benefit from this "humiliating clause." At first glance, these seem like minor issues, but they will eventually escalate into serious problems.
The issue of Ukraine joining NATO and the EU is also a focal point. Trump's peace plan provides vague regulations regarding this. This leaves room for subsequent parties to interpret based on their own interests. For example, Trump only promised that Ukraine would not join NATO but "might join the EU," without specifying whether NATO forces could directly intervene in Ukraine's situation. This relatively ambiguous statement allows Ukraine to retain hope for introducing NATO intervention and even joining NATO in the future. This is an acceptable statement for Ukraine's authorities.
However, it remains uncertain whether Russia will accept such "ambiguous statements." Putin is likely to demand that the US clarify the terms of the peace plan regarding NATO and require NATO to completely stop intervening in the Russia-Ukraine issue. This statement does not align with Ukraine's "red lines" or the EU's position.
In short, America's "peace plan" has caused numerous and serious divisions. And the US has not offered any feasible solutions. Before answers appear, discussing the final agreement for the Russia-Ukraine peace is premature.
On April 25 local time, Putin and Witkov held talks at the Kremlin. Associated Press
Extreme Pressure Fails
In this situation, Zelenskyy's tough stance once again infuriated the US. Undoubtedly, Zelenskyy will face sustained pressure from Trump's wrath afterward. But for Trump, Zelenskyy's toughness is also very troublesome, as his "extreme pressure" strategy has proven no longer as effective: it failed to change Ukraine's and the EU's positions and, instead, put him in a difficult situation: either honor the promise to withdraw from negotiations, thereby removing US influence from the Russia-Ukraine issue, or renege again, further damaging America's credibility worldwide.
Trump's reneging is not unprecedented: the threat to stop weapons and intelligence assistance to Ukraine was rescinded by himself shortly afterward. This "extreme pressure" tactic was once America's "nuclear weapon" in its dealings with Ukraine and the EU. The failure of "extreme pressure" severely damaged Trump's and America's credibility because it ultimately proved that no matter how much either side conceded, Trump would not see it as negotiation goodwill but would instead intensify extortion and demands.
The several storms in the Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations have already proven this. After the failure of the London meeting, Trump again mentioned withdrawing from negotiations. To solve the problem, Trump may have already begun considering unilateral actions. For example, recognizing Crimea and other Ukrainian regions occupied by Russia as part of Russian territory, lifting sanctions on Moscow, and restoring economic and trade relations with Russia—all of these do not require the consent of Ukraine and the EU.
Therefore, Ukraine and the EU are now trying to keep the US involved in the negotiation process and persuade Trump not to take unilateral actions. NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg urgently visited the US on April 24, and Zelenskyy publicly appealed to Trump, saying he "very much does not want the US to withdraw from negotiations." On the other hand, unilateral actions by the US would incur heavy costs, damaging America's reputation in the short term and threatening its interests in the long term, which is the inevitable consequence of Trump's "extreme pressure" measures.
How will the situation develop?
After hitting walls in Ukraine and the EU, Trump turned to pressuring Russia, attempting to make Russia accept his "peace plan." On Friday, April 25, the US Middle East envoy Witkov met with Putin, making this meeting a focal event determining the future direction of the Russia-Ukraine issue. However, despite Trump's readiness to pressure Russia, Russia clearly shows no intention of heeding his "extreme pressure."
The core issue lies in the fact that the US has shown no sincerity in the demilitarization of Ukraine. According to insiders, the US will require Russia to acknowledge in the peace agreement that Ukraine has the right to maintain armed forces and its defense industry. This essentially continues the old strategy of the Biden administration to maintain Ukraine's military capability through arms aid. Moreover, the lack of diplomatic experience of the US Middle East envoy, Witkov, is a major隐患. The lack of experienced personnel responsible for communication makes it easy for the US to misjudge Russia's strategic bottom line, ultimately leading to a gap between Trump's government's expectations and reality.
From recent Russian statements, it seems that Russia is prepared to accept almost all US proposals, but this is not the case. According to Dmitry Peskov, the spokesperson for the Russian president, both sides are still in contact regarding solutions, but many subtle differences need to be discussed.
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov also expressed similar views in an interview with CBS. He said, "The US president believes, and I think his view is correct, that we are moving in the right direction. The president mentioned an agreement in his statement, and we are ready to reach an agreement. There are still some details to be negotiated, and we are participating in this process." All of this indicates Russia's stance of wanting to maintain the negotiation process while refusing to make any substantive concessions. The positive diplomatic rhetoric contrasts sharply with Russia's recent military actions on the frontlines, reflecting the fragility of US-Russian negotiations.
Trump's contradictory statements about "pressuring Russia" and "expecting an agreement" reveal his dilemma of wanting to maintain sanctions threats while urgently seeking diplomatic breakthroughs.
Especially regarding Ukraine's armed forces, the West and Ukraine's "maintenance of Ukraine's armed forces" requirement is fundamentally opposed to Russia's "elimination of Ukraine's military threat." This is an insurmountable obstacle to reaching any substantive Russia-Ukraine peace agreement, and it is the core problem facing Trump: there is no consensus between Russia and Ukraine on the content of the ceasefire, only a very general "ceasefire wish." These fundamental disagreements make it impossible to resolve the Russia-Ukraine issue through a "peace agreement" in the short term. The US lacks both the ability and willingness to provide the "product" both sides want.
The current US-Russia negotiation process is a typical great power game deadlock: superficially active diplomatic interactions cannot resolve deep-seated interest disputes and confrontations. The next two weeks of negotiation windows will test the real intentions of all parties, but based on the current situation, substantive breakthroughs remain slim.
This article is an exclusive piece of the Observer Network, and the content purely reflects the author's personal opinions, which do not necessarily represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited; violations will result in legal liability. Follow the Observer Network WeChat account guanchacn for daily interesting articles.
Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7498531093075853861/
Disclaimer: The article solely represents the author's views, and welcome readers to express their opinions by using the "like/dislike" buttons below.