Trump and Zelensky Meet in --: A Difficult Game Under Optimistic Rhetoric

2025年12月28日，美国佛罗里达州海湖庄园迎来了一场牵动全球格局的会晤——美国前总统（特朗普第二任期内）唐纳德·特朗普与乌克兰总统弗拉基米尔·泽连斯基在此举行闭门会谈。与2025年2月28日双方首次会面的“不欢而散”形成鲜明对比，此次会晤以“轻松氛围”开局，会后双方更是释放出“和平框架接近完成”的乐观信号。然而，在修辞层面的积极表态背后，是美、乌、俄三方围绕领土归属、安全保障、战略资产控制权的激烈博弈，以及欧洲盟友的摇摆不定、乌克兰国内的政治困境等多重复杂变量。Whether this meeting is a "turning point" toward the end of the Russia-Ukraine conflict or merely a "procedural performance" driven by great-power bargaining requires a detailed analysis from multiple dimensions, including the background of the meeting, core developments, key points of contention, underlying logic, and future risks.

I. Meeting Background: The Overlap of War Urgency and the Dilemmas of All Parties

The convening of this special summit meeting is not an accidental diplomatic interaction, but an inevitable outcome of the escalating Russia-Ukraine conflict and the mounting pressure from all sides approaching a critical point.，其背景蕴含三重核心矛盾的集中爆发。

其一，战场压力与谈判紧迫性的倒逼。会晤前一天（12月27日），俄罗斯对乌克兰首都基辅发动大规模空袭，近500架无人机与40枚导弹的密集打击造成大范围断电与人员伤亡，凸显了战争的残酷性与紧迫性。与此同时，俄军在顿涅茨克、扎波罗热、赫尔松等关键战场持续推进，不断夺取城镇；12月25日，俄军还袭击了乌克兰唯一出海口敖德萨，进一步压缩乌克兰的战略空间。The passive situation on the battlefield has forced Ukraine to confront the harsh reality of being "unable to advance and unable to hold ground," making the pursuit of peace negotiations a practical choice for the Zelensky government.

其二，乌克兰的内外交困与泽连斯基的个人政治诉求。对内，2025年10月曝光的乌克兰高层腐败丑闻，让泽连斯基政府的支持率遭受重创，最新民调显示，前乌军总司令扎卢日内的支持率高达64%，而泽连斯基仅为36%，扎卢日尼因2024年3月被调离核心权力圈，躲过了后续战场失败的责任，已成为泽连斯基下任总统的潜在强劲对手。对外，美国对乌援助政策的转向与欧洲盟友的摇摆不定，让乌克兰的外部支撑持续弱化。In this context, Zelensky urgently needs to pave a "graceful exit" for himself by promoting peace negotiations and securing substantive security guarantees, in order to avoid being held politically accountable after stepping down.

其三，特朗普政府的外交议程与美俄幕后博弈的推动。特朗普第二任期内，将推动俄乌停火作为其外交核心议程之一，试图通过主导和平谈判彰显自身外交能力。更为关键的是，会晤前后，特朗普与俄罗斯总统普京进行了两次“良好且富有成效”的长时间通话（超过1小时），特朗普不仅向普京传达了“必须达成协议”的信息，还公开表示普京“认真想结束战争”。The direct communication between the high-level officials of the United States and Russia set the tone for the Putin-Trump meeting, offering the outside world a glimpse into the underlying dynamics of major power negotiations behind this peace process.

Furthermore, the composition of the attendees highlighted the importance both sides placed on this meeting. The U.S. delegation included key figures such as Secretary of State Nubio, Secretary of Defense Hedges, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Kane, White House Chief of Staff Wells, Presidential Envoy Vitkov, and Trump's son-in-law Kushner. The Ukrainian side was accompanied by crucial officials including Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Merov, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces Gnatov, and Minister of Economy Soholev, covering multiple core areas such as military, diplomatic, and economic affairs, thereby ensuring the comprehensive advancement of the talks.

II. Core Progress: The "Illusion of Consensus" in the Peace Framework and Breakthroughs in Security Guarantees

此次特泽会晤后，双方公布的核心进展集中在和平计划共识与安全保障协议两大层面，看似取得了实质性突破，However, upon careful analysis, it becomes clear that many "consensus" points remain superficial and have yet to address the core contradictions.

(1) Peace Framework: The Evolution from "Point" to "Point" and the Moisture of % Consensus

此次会谈的核心议题是乌克兰修订后的“20点和平计划”，该计划的前身是特朗普特使维特科夫与女婿库什纳主导起草的“28点计划”。The evolution of the two plans essentially reflects the concentrated manifestation of the U.S.-Ukraine game.：“28点计划”因严重偏向俄罗斯，被欧洲媒体批评为“几乎投降书”，其中包含承认顿巴斯、克里米亚归俄罗斯所有、扎波罗热和赫尔松按战场接触线“冻结”、要求乌克兰将军队规模压缩至冲突前60万人水平、暗含永久放弃加入北约条款等内容，让泽连斯基陷入内外交困的境地。

在此背景下，乌方在“28点计划”基础上进行了“颠覆性”修订，形成了“20点计划”，并于12月23日由泽连斯基单方面提前公布。This move by Ukraine has clear strategic considerations.：一是回应特朗普要求乌方在12月25日前推进和平协议签署的通牒；二是反客为主，通过公开计划为谈判造势，迫使美欧提供“真实”而非“口头”的安全保障；三是应对国内政治压力，在腐败丑闻曝光后，通过公布符合乌克兰诉求的计划争取民众与媒体支持，乌国内舆论甚至将此计划视为“乌克兰的胜利”。

After the meeting, Zelenskyy publicly announced that both sides had reached a "%" consensus on the "point peace plan," with the security guarantee portion achieving "%" agreement. Trump also stated, "We are very close, maybe very close," and expressed confidence that "we will reach an agreement." This positive statement quickly drew global attention and was interpreted by some public opinion as a signal that the Russia-Ukraine conflict is nearing its end.

However, a deeper analysis reveals that this "consensus" is more of a rhetorical compromise.“20点计划”对核心的领土问题采取了“回避策略”，仅提出协议达成后停火立即生效，将俄乌在顿涅茨克、卢甘斯克、扎波罗热、赫尔松地区的军事阵地线认定为“接触线”，要求俄罗斯先从第聂伯罗彼得罗夫斯克、尼古拉耶夫、苏梅和哈尔科夫州的被占领地区撤军，而对顿巴斯等争议地区的最终归属，仅提出设立“非军事区”“自由经济区”等模糊方案。This "avoidance" essentially postpones the core contradictions rather than genuinely reaching a consensus, and it also sows hidden dangers for subsequent negotiations.

(II) Security Assurance Agreement: Breakthroughs in Annual Commitments and the Ambiguity of the European Role

此次会晤最具实质性的进展，是美国承诺向乌克兰提供15年安全保障，This commitment precisely targets the core demands that Zelensky has repeatedly emphasized.。泽连斯基在记者会上明确表示，安全保障是乌克兰参与和平谈判的前提，而美国的这一承诺，被乌方视为此次会晤的重大胜利。

Judging from the content of the "Point Plan," Ukraine's demands for security guarantees are more specific, requiring the United States, NATO, and European signatory states to provide "security guarantees similar to NATO Article 5 (collective defense clause)." This means that if Russia attacks Ukraine again, the guarantor states must jointly defend it. At the same time, to align with the Trump administration's opposition to Ukraine joining NATO, the "Point Plan" completely avoids the issue of Ukraine's NATO membership, reflecting Ukraine's pragmatic compromise.

However, it should be noted that the U.S. security guarantee commitment still has many ambiguities.：特朗普一方仅表示欧洲将在安全保障中承担“主要角色”，但未公开具体的责任划分、援助规模、触发机制等关键细节。而欧洲盟友的态度此时显得尤为关键，尽管法、德等国承诺为乌提供安全保障，甚至提议组建多国部队，但欧洲内部缺乏共识，防卫力量筹建缓慢，法国总统马克龙表示安全保障讨论要等到2026年1月继续，德国则称援助规模取决于谈判进展。This ambiguity and uncertainty make America's annual security commitment more like a "post-dated check," with doubts remaining about whether it will be honored.

(3) Follow-up Arrangements: Continuation of the Diplomatic Process and Strengthening of Trump's Role

为推动最终协议的达成，特朗普计划在2026年1月于华盛顿（或其他地点）主持泽连斯基与欧洲领导人会议，继续推进和平谈判；同时，特朗普还表示若需要，可访问基辅向乌克兰议会讲话。This series of subsequent arrangements demonstrates the United States' attempt to continue dominating the peace process between Russia and Ukraine. It also reflects Trump's hope of pushing the negotiations toward an outcome that aligns with American interests by reinforcing his role as the "ultimate arbiter."

III. Focus of the Game: Unresolved Core Obstacles and the Struggle Among Multiple Forces

尽管双方释放了乐观信号，However, this meeting did not resolve the core contradictions of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.，领土问题、战略资产控制权、战后重建资金等棘手问题仍像定时炸弹，随时可能导致和平进程崩盘。Behind these issues lies a profound power struggle among the United States, Ukraine, Russia, and Europe.

(1) Territorial Issues: The Most Intractable Core Contradiction and the Bottom-Line Game Among All Parties

领土问题是此次谈判中“最艰难”的议题，It is also the core bottom line for both Russia and Ukraine.。俄罗斯方面，普京身着军装视察联合指挥中心，明确表示若基辅当局不愿和平解决问题，俄将通过军事手段达成特别军事行动的所有目标；俄外长拉夫罗夫也批评泽连斯基当局受欧洲幕后操控，未表现出建设性谈判意愿。对于顿巴斯等争议地区，俄罗斯的立场极为强硬，拒绝接受乌方的模糊化方案，坚持要求乌克兰承认其对已控制地区的实际控制权。

乌克兰方面，泽连斯基深知“割地”将让自己背上“历史罪人”的骂名，因此采取了“以时间换空间”的策略，通过回避明确领土归属、提出全民公投等方式转移责任。泽连斯基表示，若无法就领土问题达成一致，整个和平计划可能提交全民公投，此举意在将可能“割地”的责任转移给民意，实现自身的平稳过渡。However, whether this strategy will be effective still depends on Russia's attitude and the intensity of pressure from the United States.

美国则在其中扮演着“平衡者”与“施压者”的双重角色，Trump's core mission is to pressure Zelensky into making further concessions on the "point plan," bringing it closer to a version acceptable to Russia, and then, in turn, persuade Russia to accept the revised proposal.。而欧洲盟友在领土问题上的立场则相对模糊，一方面担心乌克兰领土被分割会冲击欧洲安全秩序，另一方面又无力承担持续援乌的成本，陷入两难境地。

(2) Strategic Assets and Military Issues: The Game of Control over the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and Military Size

除了领土问题，扎波罗热核电站控制权与乌克兰军队规模问题，也是双方博弈的重要焦点。扎波罗热核电站自2022年3月起被俄军控制，2025年10月被普京签署法令列为俄联邦资产，12月23日其1号机组还获俄方颁发的10年运行许可证，俄方对该核电站的控制权已形成事实占有。“28点计划”提议由乌、美、俄三方共同管理并按比例分配收益，而“20点计划”则提出由美国和乌克兰合作运营，将俄罗斯排除在外，收益归乌美两国。This proposal clearly contradicts Russia's interests and demands. Russia has explicitly stated that it will not return control of the already occupied territories to Ukraine, and the differences between the two sides on this issue are difficult to reconcile.

在军队规模问题上，“28点计划”要求乌军控制在60万人以内，而“20点计划”则提出和平时期乌武装部队规模维持在80万人（与当前乌军实际兵力基本持平）。乌方意图通过维持强大军力实现自卫、向俄罗斯施压，并以此作为向欧洲争取更多经济援助的筹码；而俄方则担忧80万军力意味着乌克兰将长期保持强大军事对抗潜力，自身期望的军事约束目标落空。The essence of this issue lies in the direct conflict between Ukraine's future security capabilities and Russia's strategic security demands.

(3) Post-war Reconstruction and Economic Issues: The Challenge of Raising Billions of Dollars in Funds

“20点计划”提出乌克兰战后重建需要8000亿美元的巨额资金，并希望短期内获得进入欧洲市场的优惠待遇。However, this demand faces severe practical challenges.：美国国债已突破38万亿美元，财政压力巨大，难以承担巨额重建资金；欧洲经济底子更弱，且内部对援乌的分歧持续扩大，同样无力独自承担。有分析认为，被冻结的约3000亿俄罗斯央行资产中，最多能动用1000亿，仅能覆盖重建资金的八分之一，其余资金的筹措仍无明确方案。The shortage of post-war reconstruction funds will not only affect the implementation of the peace agreement but may also lead to Ukraine's post-war economic collapse, further exacerbating regional instability.

IV. Deep Logic: Ukraine's Passive Situation Underlying the U.S.-Russia Transaction

透过此次特泽会晤的种种细节与博弈焦点，不难发现当前俄乌和平进程的本质——A great power game centered around major power transactions, with Ukraine finding itself in a passive situation.

从美国的策略来看，特朗普政府采取了多重手段结合的策略：军事上，不再直接向乌克兰提供武器，而是让欧洲国家购买美国武器后转赠乌克兰，美国通过充当军火商获利；外交上，推动“28点”“20点”等和平方案，由特朗普亲信主导谈判，绕开国务院等传统外交体系；情报上，曝光乌克兰高层腐败，削弱泽连斯基政府的政治基础，迫使乌方在谈判中让步。The core objective of this series of strategies is to dominate the Russia-Ukraine peace process at minimal cost, thereby maximizing the strategic interests of the United States in Europe.

俄罗斯则通过“军事施压+外交谈判”的双重手段，不断提升自身谈判筹码。一方面，在战场上持续推进，通过大规模空袭与城镇夺取向美欧乌传递“可以继续打下去”的信号；另一方面，通过与特朗普的直接沟通，明确自身核心诉求，争取在美国的施压下让乌方做出让步。Putin's core objective is to consolidate territorial gains through peace negotiations, prevent NATO's eastward expansion to Ukraine, and safeguard Russia's strategic security boundaries.

而乌克兰在这场大国博弈中，已逐渐丧失谈判主导权。军事上，反攻无望、战场被动；政治上，国内支持率下滑、腐败丑闻缠身；外交上，依赖美欧援助却又无法掌控美欧政策走向，只能被动接受大国交易的结果。泽连斯基政府的唯一诉求，是通过争取有法律效力的安全保障协议（由欧盟、北约和美国共同签署），为自身“体面退场”和乌克兰的未来争取一丝喘息空间。正如相关分析所指出的，当前谈判存在双重圈层：第一圈是美国和俄罗斯的幕后交易，第二圈是美国拉着欧盟和乌克兰的协调，The biggest victims are precisely Zelensky and Ukraine, who will most likely be forced to accept a deal brokered by major powers, losing part of their territory.

V. Risk Assessment and Peace Prospects: Multiple Uncertainties Behind the Illusion

综合来看，此次特泽会晤虽取得了部分表面进展，However, the prospects for peace between Russia and Ukraine remain bleak, and numerous uncertain factors could still derail the peace process or even lead to a larger-scale escalation of conflict.

On the positive side, this meeting represents the most substantive diplomatic progress toward peace in Ukraine during Trump's second term. The preliminary agreement on security guarantees and the consensus on a peace framework indicate strengthened U.S.-Ukraine coordination and lay the groundwork for subsequent negotiations. The meeting between Zelenskyy and European leaders, which Trump plans to host, if successfully convened, will further facilitate the alignment of positions among all parties and create conditions for the implementation of a peace agreement. Additionally, direct communication channels between high-level U.S. and Russian officials have been established, with both sides appearing to express a clear willingness to end the war, offering the possibility of resolving core conflicts.

但从风险面来看，多重不确定性因素仍占据主导地位：First, territorial concessions, Russia's true intentions, and the division of roles among European countries remain the greatest uncertainties.，尤其是俄罗斯在领土问题上的强硬立场与乌克兰的底线诉求存在根本冲突，若泽连斯基被迫做出过多领土让步，可能引发乌克兰国内民众的强烈反对，甚至导致其政权垮台；二是会晤后俄罗斯继续轰炸乌克兰的行为，显示实际停火仍遥不可及，俄方的军事施压可能会持续升级，以逼迫乌方让步；三是美国的安全保障承诺缺乏具体细节，欧洲盟友的立场摇摆不定，若后续无法形成统一的安全保障机制，乌克兰可能会拒绝签署最终协议；四是乌克兰国内的政治分裂与腐败问题，可能会影响和平协议的执行，甚至引发内部动荡。

多家媒体已明确指出，此次会晤“无重大突破迹象”，进展更多是修辞层面的乐观。事实上，This "special meeting" appears to be more of a new starting point for Russia-Ukraine negotiations rather than an endpoint.。真正的和平，需要各方在核心利益诉求上做出实质性妥协，但从当前的博弈态势来看，这种妥协的可能性依然较低。正如相关分析所警示的，美国和俄罗斯可能达成共识，共同对乌克兰和泽连斯基施加影响，而乌克兰作为小国，在西方与俄罗斯之间处境艰难，缺乏平衡各方利益的战略智慧，最终可能成为大国博弈的牺牲品。

VI. Conclusion: The Price of Peace and the Inquiry of History

2025年12月28日的特泽海湖庄园会晤，将俄乌冲突的和平进程推向了新的阶段，但也让人们更加清晰地看到了大国博弈的残酷与小国的无奈。The "consensus for peace" presented at this meeting appears more like a superficial consensus constructed by various parties to alleviate their own pressures, behind which lie unresolved territorial disputes, intense competition for interests, and complex power struggles.

For Ukraine, the price of peace may be the loss of some territory and the erosion of national sovereignty; for Russia, the goal of peace is to consolidate strategic security boundaries and vested interests; for the United States, peace serves as a tool to demonstrate its diplomatic dominance and reduce the cost of aiding Ukraine; for Europe, peace is a reluctant choice to balance security order and economic costs. In this game of multiple interests, what is truly overlooked may be the Ukrainian people's longing for peace and the profound devastation brought by the war—Ukraine's population has sharply declined from nearly 40 million before the war to about 30 million, with a large number of women and children fleeing abroad, cities left in ruins, and the economy on the brink of collapse.

In the future, as the U.S.-Europe-Ukraine meeting chaired by Trump takes place, the Russia-Ukraine peace process will enter a more critical stage. However, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, this Trump-Zelensky meeting has already left behind profound historical questions: **In an international order dominated by major powers, how can the security and sovereignty of smaller nations be genuinely safeguarded? If a negotiation conducted in the name of "peace" ultimately comes at the expense of the interests of smaller nations, can such peace truly be considered just?** These questions are not only relevant to the ultimate direction of the Russia-Ukraine conflict but also to the restructuring and development of the future global international order.