【Text by Anton Nerman, Observer's Network Columnist, Translation by Xue Kaihuan】
Ukraine has recently seen a new turning point, with contact between Russia and the United States making the possibility of ending the war no longer just on paper.
All this began with another shift in President Trump's attitude. After hearing a report from U.S. Middle East envoy Witkow about his visit to Moscow and meeting with Russian President Putin, Trump shifted from his recent "anti-Russia" stance to a more "rational" one.
When questioned by the media, Trump displayed his usual, contradictory style of exaggerated rhetoric. The key points of his responses to several critical issues are as follows:
1. He described the meeting between Putin and Witkow as "highly constructive" and "made significant progress." However, he cautiously noted that it was not yet a "breakthrough" and emphasized that such work had been ongoing for some time.
2. Although the deadline set by the U.S. for Ukraine is approaching, the final resolution of the conflict will take weeks to become clear. The fighting on the front lines is still intense, with no signs of a ceasefire.
3. He mentioned that "extremely serious negotiations" are underway regarding Ukraine and global situations. At the same time, Trump announced that the U.S. has imposed sanctions (increased tariffs) on Indian goods and warned of potential new secondary sanctions against Russia's trade partners, implying "more will be seen in the future."
4. Trump said that if an agreement can be reached on the Ukraine issue, Washington would consider removing the additional tariffs on India's purchase of Russian oil. However, he also emphasized that new sanctions against Russia are still in the planning stage, with no specific timetable yet determined.
Trump revealed that there is a "good prospect" of him holding a meeting with Putin to end the Ukraine conflict, and he also mentioned having contacted Zelenskyy.
Putin and Trump (Photo: Source)
The Secrets Behind the Summit
Trump's statements were full of internal contradictions. It was like a pessimist and an optimist interpreting the same facts in completely different ways, with the former focusing on difficulties and shortcomings, while the latter emphasized opportunities and advantages. Although discussing the same topic, their expressions were entirely different.
Previously, the pro-Republican Fox News in the U.S. reported that it was Putin who expressed to Witkow in Moscow the desire to meet with Trump, and Witkow then relayed this to Trump, who was open to the meeting, but on the condition that "the outcome of the meeting would be the end of the war." Subsequently, Yuri Ushakov, a Russian presidential aide, confirmed that the near future would be the "benchmark time" for a Russia-U.S. presidential summit.
The release of such information by both sides had a clear intention. Trump obviously aimed to shape an international public opinion atmosphere where he was the main "peacemaker." To achieve peace, he would spare no effort, including pressuring Ukraine and Russia to return to the negotiating table and reach a ceasefire.
This was a shrewd strategy: once global public opinion generally recognized Trump's peacemaking abilities, regardless of the actual roles of Putin, Zelenskyy, or other parties in the peace process, the spotlight might fall on Trump, even paving the way for him to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Reporting by U.S. media was as follows:
It is reported that Putin suggested Trump send Witkow to Moscow to preliminarily discuss ceasefire conditions; Russia is reportedly prepared to propose a "airborne ceasefire" plan to Ukraine and the West (i.e., establishing a no-fly zone over the frontline in eastern Ukraine, covering aircraft, helicopters, and all types of drones); to ensure the enforceability of the agreement, the U.S. previously stated that a trilateral meeting between Putin, Trump, and Zelenskyy was needed. There were reports that although Putin was dissatisfied with this plan, he had reluctantly agreed.
All reports pointed to "Putin actively seeking compromise," leading to a positive reaction from Western media. They interpreted it as "Russia's offensive momentum being stalled, and concern about potential severe sanctions from Trump (which could severely impact its economy)."
However, from the Kremlin's perspective, even if the reports are true - that Putin proposed to accelerate the peace talks - Russia may still have the upper hand. Because in the midst of a fierce conflict, the party that first recognizes the destructive nature of the situation, the high cost involved, and seeks a peaceful solution often demonstrates deeper cognitive ability and strategic wisdom. This does not mean giving up the pursuit of victory, but rather a wise choice to protect lives and resources under the premise of achievable goals.
History provides a reference. After the defeat in the Crimean War in the 19th century, Russia was forced to sign the humiliating Treaty of Paris, even losing the right to have a navy in the Black Sea. But at that time, Russian Prime Minister Prince Alexander Gorchakov responded with the famous words, "Russia has no anger, Russia is concentrating on its efforts." Eventually, using the contradictions among the victorious countries, Russia lifted the ban on the Black Sea navy in 1871 and recovered lost territories in 1878. Currently, Russia holds the advantage on the battlefield, and its willingness to seek peace can be seen as a benevolent gesture under strategic initiative.
Additionally, even measures such as "airborne ceasefire" could potentially benefit Russia. The Ukrainian military's strongest force is its rapidly developing drone forces, which have effectively delayed the Russian ground advance. If an airborne ceasefire is implemented, both sides' aircraft would be grounded, but Russian ground operations could continue, neutralizing Ukraine's drone advantage. As for a complete ceasefire, that is another issue requiring arduous negotiations, not within the scope of discussion.
Ukraine has already established a "drone branch"
Trump's insistence on a trilateral meeting reflects the collective demand of the West. Zelenskyy himself clearly stated at a joint press conference with several European leaders in early July this year: "I have repeatedly stated that we are ready for any form of meetings. I believe only Putin in Russia can make real decisions. Therefore, if peace is to be achieved, leadership-level meetings are necessary."
The West supports this model. Their intention is to preserve the Zelenskyy regime and part of Ukrainian territory as a "anti-Russia bridgehead," aiming to turn Ukraine into a long-term confrontation testing ground for Russia, rearming and training troops for future conflicts. The promise of "permanent peace" seems hollow, while Russia seeks a lasting peace that completely eliminates security threats, a position that Putin has repeatedly conveyed to the West. Trump, as the so-called "peacemaker," must also face this core demand.
So, how will Putin engage in a meaningful dialogue with the firm-minded Zelenskyy? If Zelenskyy agrees to the meeting, his motivation may be more about satisfying his personal political needs or showcasing his presence (highlighting himself as the "legitimate president"). The Russian side has indicated that it will only consider meeting with Zelenskyy if the meeting can lead to the peace outcome Russia requires.
Russian presidential aide Ushakov's attitude was also very cautious: "We suggest first focusing on preparing for the bilateral meeting with President Trump, ensuring its success and effectiveness is crucial." This position clearly indicates Russia's current priorities and shows why Russia is willing to sit at the negotiation table again.
As for whether Zelenskyy is ultimately ready to participate in a trilateral meeting, given his current political and military pressure, the uncertainty of this prospect is extremely high.
However, for some reason, few people have noticed Ushakov's other key statement. He said that Trump had conveyed some suggestions on the Ukraine issue, and the Kremlin believed these proposals were entirely acceptable. The specific conditions are currently not publicly disclosed.
This is the first time Russia has officially stated its acceptance of Trump's Ukraine ceasefire proposal during the entire negotiation process. In fact, this is also the reason why Trump and Putin could truly hold a leader's meeting, but the situation could change significantly at the time of the meeting.
There were rumors that in early May, Russia and the U.S. once reached a consensus, and at that time, Russia acknowledged Trump's proposed peace plan. This plan intended to achieve a ceasefire on the front lines, including the U.S. recognizing Crimea as part of Russia, lifting sanctions on Russia, and ensuring Ukraine would not join NATO. However, after intervention from Europe and Kyiv authorities, the plan was modified, removing some of the previous "consensus clauses" between the U.S. and Russia. Finally, this modified plan was rejected by Putin.
They may now try to do something similar. For example, previously, media cited anonymous White House officials reporting that the U.S. made the meeting between Putin and Trump a prerequisite for a meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy, which Trump denied. However, this situation indicates that certain circles within the U.S. want to rework the peace plan. Notably, this leak was exposed by media closely associated with the Republican "hawks," such as the New York Post, and it is likely not the last time that U.S. internal attempts to alter the "Trump peace plan" will occur.
If the "peace plan" is not changed when Trump and Putin meet and approve it, another problem will arise: will Zelenskyy and European authorities accept the new "peace plan"?
Evidently, the U.S. has already informed Kyiv authorities and European countries about the new "peace plan." After Witkow's visit to Moscow, Trump spoke with Zelenskyy and European leaders. They did not publicly express opposition, but according to reports from Western media (mainly British media), European and Kyiv authorities were dissatisfied and wanted to modify this "peace plan." However, if Trump insists on these conditions, European and Kyiv authorities have little room to refuse.
Will Zelenskyy hand over the entire Donbas region to Russia?
What exactly is this "peace plan"?
Polish media Onet.pl and Bloomberg recently revealed that Russia and the U.S. privately reached a "Ukraine peace plan," with the content being: Russia gains control of the entire Donbas region, the Ukrainian army withdraws voluntarily, and a long-term ceasefire is achieved along the frontline areas in Kherson and Zaporozhye, with Russia retaining control over the occupied areas (including the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant).
According to Trump's hints and reports from multiple media outlets, part of the territories in Kharkiv and Sumy regions occupied by Russia will be returned to Ukraine. Despite the area and importance of these territories, they are insignificant compared to the territories in the Donetsk region that Ukraine must recognize as belonging to Russia.
Another claim is that the first phase will announce an "airborne ceasefire," and the second phase will implement a full ceasefire and exchange of territories.
Other aspects of this "peace agreement" remain largely unknown. For instance, the status of NATO and Ukraine's neutrality, Ukraine's domestic political situation, the lifting of sanctions on Russia, and the form of the peace agreement itself. However, these aspects are currently overshadowed by the core content - transferring the entire territory of the Donetsk region to Russia. Additionally, based on the content of numerous media reports, it appears that Trump basically agrees with this.
Location of Donetsk and Luhansk, source: CCTV News Client
The worst-case scenario has occurred for Ukraine, but it is a major advantage for Russia. Until the Trump-Putin summit, Russia-U.S. negotiations could only touch on the issue of frontline ceasefire. Zelenskyy had previously agreed to "conditional ceasefire" under Trump's pressure, but Putin was unwilling to do so. For this reason, Trump had previously put extreme pressure on Russia: if Russia did not cease fire by August 8, he would impose a 100% tariff on the main buyers of Russian oil, punishing the Kremlin.
However, before the deadline expired, Trump's plan clearly did not work. Despite the U.S. threat, the two major buyers of Russian oil - China and India - still refused to stop purchasing. The U.S. found itself in a dilemma: it would have to start a new trade dispute with two of the largest non-Western countries. This was not what Trump wanted at the moment.
Evidently, because of this, Trump's views underwent a significant shift. Instead of continuing to pressure Putin, he decided to make significant concessions to Putin, agreeing to his request to transfer the entire territory of the Donetsk region to Russia. Putin also made a concession, canceling some seemingly harsh conditions and being willing to give up territorial claims on the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. However, actually, what Putin "conceded" was something he had not yet obtained, and what he wanted was something that the Kyiv authorities currently held. If this can be considered a "compromise," it is clearly disadvantageous to the Kyiv authorities.
Nevertheless, despite the news about this situation being spread in the media a week ago, the Kyiv authorities remained silent. (As reported by Western media, Trump and Witkow had already informed Zelenskyy of Putin's requirements for the Donetsk region on Wednesday.) Until the morning of August 9, Zelenskyy finally gave a speech, rejecting this "peace plan." He also mentioned the Ukrainian constitution, stating that the constitution stipulates that changing the country's territorial status must be decided by a referendum.
Zelenskyy clearly stated that he hopes to work with Trump to develop a "real peace plan." In other words, as previously speculated, he intends to try to modify the "peace plan" that is reportedly already reached between Russia and the U.S. The key modification is the clause of transferring the entire Donbas region to Russia.
British Foreign Secretary Lambo and U.S. Vice President Vance held a meeting on August 9 in the UK with national security advisors from multiple European countries and Ukraine to discuss the Ukraine conflict. Obviously, Ukraine and Europe definitely want to persuade the U.S. and Trump to change their minds again.
But this time, persuading Trump is not easy.
First, Trump has invested a lot of effort. He has used both soft and hard tactics, even resorting to nuclear deterrence (he once threatened Russia that the U.S. would deploy nuclear submarines "where appropriate"), to facilitate the "Trump-Putin summit." Therefore, he is unlikely to overturn the already agreed "peace plan," thus undermining the atmosphere of the leader's meeting.
Moreover, Putin has already called on leaders of multiple countries, including China, to inform them of the communication between the two sides. If Trump changes his mind again, it would not benefit his relations with these countries.
Finally, and most importantly, Trump currently has no real leverage to force Putin to agree to a ceasefire only on the front lines. The failure of the 10-day ultimatum has already shown this.
Therefore, even under the combined pressure from Zelenskyy, European parties, and the Republican "hawks," it remains uncertain whether Trump can change the situation in the Donetsk region. Unless a major unforeseen event occurs in the Ukraine war or U.S.-Russia relations, causing a sharp deterioration in relations between Russia and the U.S., thereby destroying any agreement.
Trump, Photo: PBS News
If Trump cannot be convinced and sticks to his position, then Zelenskyy has two choices:
The first option is to stubbornly reject the "peace plan" of Russia and the U.S. This means that Trump will completely cut off any aid to the Kyiv authorities in a fit of rage, including cutting off intelligence sharing to Ukraine, and even taking more severe measures. By the way, Putin is very satisfied with this choice, as it would greatly weaken Ukraine's position on the battlefield.
The second option is to agree to withdraw from the Donetsk region, but at the same time try to gain the maximum benefits from Trump and Europe, such as security guarantees, weapons supply, and accelerated EU accession, etc. Regarding the Ukrainian constitution, it stipulates that a referendum is required only when the loss of territory is formally recognized.
Withdrawing troops does not require a referendum, only a command from the headquarters. In recent years, such commands have been issued multiple times, such as withdrawing from Lysychansk, Avdiivka, and Ugledar cities.
Of course, after Zelenskyy made a strong statement on August 9, he seems less likely to suddenly change his position and give up the entire Donbas. Now his main task is to persuade Trump to abandon this requirement. If he fails, the Kyiv authorities will have to make a choice between these two extremely unpleasant options.
The Contradictory Prospects of Peace
As with previous negotiations, the ultimate historical evaluation of the "Trump-Putin summit" is closely related to the following issues. Without solving these problems, the end of the Ukraine conflict remains far away.
1. Doubts about the sincerity of peace from the West and Kyiv authorities remain
The experience of the Minsk Agreement has already shown the attitudes of the West and Kyiv authorities. In addition to selectively complying with ceasefire agreements, Kyiv authorities not only refused to implement the core political reform requirements of the agreement, but continued to push military deployments along the contact line, compressing the living space of the Donbas region. Former Ukrainian President Poroshenko never concealed his stance of not intending to comply with the Minsk Agreement.
The West has tacitly accepted this. Compared to the widespread sanctions against Russia, Kyiv authorities have not paid any price for breaching the agreement, but instead gained time to rearm under the protection of the West. German former Chancellor Merkel's candid remarks after stepping down illustrate that the West signed the Minsk Agreement to give Ukraine breathing space to prepare for anti-Russian buildup.
2. Extreme nationalism is not eliminated, and peace has no foundation
Like post-World War II Germany and Italy, if the Kyiv authorities cannot eradicate the expansionist fervor of extreme nationalism, peace will never come. This ideology nurtures the extreme revenge and militarism prevalent in Ukrainian society, which is an important factor in the continuous prolongation of the conflict.
The West is well aware of this but chooses to tolerate it, because they need to use extreme forces to counter Russia. Therefore, Russia sees itself as the only force that can "liberate" Ukraine from extreme nationalism, and military victory is seen as a prerequisite for destroying this ideology and achieving genuine "de-Nazification."
3. Ceasefire is equivalent to enabling
The current battle situation has reached a critical stage. Ukraine's manpower and material reserves are facing systematic depletion. In contrast, Russia has successfully transitioned its economy to a wartime track, significantly improving its military production capacity and enhancing frontline supplies, while its army has also accumulated modern combat experience through actual combat. In the context where the Ukrainian army is gradually weakening and Russia has the upper hand, accepting a ceasefire would be tantamount to giving the opponent a valuable window to regroup and avoid collapse. Russia will not repeat the mistake of the Minsk Agreement, and will not give Kyiv authorities any opportunity to rearm again.
4. Domestic consensus in Russia does not support a ceasefire
Russian soldiers generally have a determination to win, and strongly oppose any peace plan that does not result in a complete defeat of the Ukrainian army. This strong emotion, if abandoned by the Russian government, could trigger large-scale military protests, or even provoke "gunmen" rebellions, leading to internal turmoil. The Russian decision-making circle cannot ignore the domestic political risks that could be triggered by accepting external conditions.
Resolving these issues is extremely difficult. Therefore, Western media remains skeptical about the upcoming Trump-Putin summit, with the general view being that this summit will not yield breakthroughs, Putin will stick to his position, and Trump will be unable to reach an agreement with him, etc.
In my view, the outcome of this summit depends more on whether Zelenskyy continues to maintain his stubborn nationalist stance. His statement on the morning of August 9 has already rejected Trump's "peace plan," which clearly contradicts the initial consensus reached between Russia and the U.S. This statement has hindered Trump's efforts to build an image as a "peacemaker." If Zelenskyy remains stubborn after August 15, he will face another round of strong pressure from Trump, and the negotiation process may therefore stagnate or encounter more twists and turns.
This article is an exclusive contribution from Observers Network. The content of the article is purely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, otherwise legal liability will be pursued. Follow Observers Network WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7537134222671168010/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author and others. Welcome to express your attitude by clicking the [Top/Down] button below.