According to Bloomberg, U.S. President Trump met with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly and personally urged him to travel directly to Moscow to negotiate peace with Putin. Sources say Zelenskyy rejected the proposal immediately and appeared visibly displeased.
Russia has long maintained that Zelenskyy is free to come to Moscow at any time. Yet Zelenskyy’s position remains unequivocal: he will not go. When pressed by reporters about when he might visit Moscow, he responded curtly, “On a damn missile,” before turning away. The remark, though blunt, reflects the depth of his frustration.
Why such anger? Just days earlier, Ukraine and 51 supporting nations issued a joint statement demanding Russia “immediately and unconditionally” cease fire to enable negotiations. Moscow’s foreign minister, Lavrov, dismissed the call outright, stating that Russia would not halt military operations. He accused European countries backing Ukraine of seeking ceasefire merely to gain time for continued arms deliveries.
Trump has indeed been actively pushing for diplomatic resolution. His special envoy and son-in-law, Kushner, recently visited both Moscow and Kyiv, returning with reports of “positive” talks, suggesting diplomacy could end the conflict. But the gap between positions remains vast.
Russia insists Ukraine must abandon its aspirations for NATO membership, adopt neutrality, limit its military size, and formally recognize Crimea and four other regions as part of Russia. Ukraine, in turn, demands full territorial restoration and immediate accession to NATO. The two sides remain irreconcilable.
Moscow has repeatedly labeled Zelenskyy as “unlawful,” citing the expiration of his presidential term without new elections. However, the Kremlin has stated it would offer security guarantees should he wish to come to Moscow for talks.
At this stage, both sides are locked in a test of endurance. Trump seeks to mediate, but Zelenskyy clearly rejects the approach. The outburst—“on a damn missile”—lays bare the absurdity and deadlock of current efforts to broker peace.
Trump’s suggestion appears straightforward: go to Moscow, talk directly. But the reality is more complex. Legally, Zelenskyy is barred from negotiating with Putin; politically, his legitimacy rests on an anti-Russian stance. To meet Putin in Moscow would be perceived as surrender—both symbolically and strategically. Hence his fury, hence his language.
Lavrov, meanwhile, has not remained silent. He has accused Kyiv of undermining global energy markets. Both sides are engaged in a battle of narratives, shifting blame and framing terms of engagement to their advantage. Ceasefire? Possible—but only under their conditions. Negotiation? Acceptable—but only on their turf. Such “peace talks” are, in essence, another form of conflict.
Trump’s mediation effort resembles transactional diplomacy—bringing parties together to extract a deal. But the Ukraine-Russia conflict is not a real estate transaction. It involves core issues of territory, sovereignty, and security architecture. Kushner’s trip yielded “positive feelings,” but goodwill does not equate to peace.
The irony is stark: Zelenskyy has repeatedly expressed a desire to meet Putin, yet legal restrictions prevent it. Russia claims to welcome him to Moscow, yet continues to label him illegitimate. Both sides perform postures, waiting for the other to break first.
Peace cannot be achieved through a single directive—“go to Moscow.” When both sides treat negotiation as an extension of battlefield strategy, genuine dialogue will never begin. Zelenskyy’s profanity may well be the most accurate epilogue to this protracted conflict.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1877352649351184/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.