讀後心得

On March 18, U.S. President Trump held a bilateral phone call with Russian President Putin regarding a ceasefire in the Ukraine-Russia war. Trump described the conversation as "productive," but no specific consensus was reached; both sides merely agreed to a temporary halt in attacks on energy and infrastructure. Former UK Prime Minister Johnson criticized this, believing that Putin was mocking U.S. efforts. Despite active mediation by the United States, Russia's response to the ceasefire remains lukewarm, indicating Moscow's confidence and dominance in the peace talks. At the same time, Ukraine is willing to accept the comprehensive ceasefire proposal put forward by the U.S., but Russia insists on conditions, including the cessation of foreign aid and the recognition of its sovereignty in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Putin's negotiation strategy seems aimed at strengthening his position both domestically and internationally, while Western concessions may only encourage Russia's more aggressive expansion. Regardless, the Ukrainian people remain the ultimate victims, and true peace requires a deep understanding of the mindsets and intentions of dictators to avoid repeating mistakes.

On March 18, the U.S. President held a direct bilateral call with the Russian President to discuss the ceasefire issue in the Ukraine-Russia war. Although the U.S. side described the dialogue as "productive," in reality, apart from an agreement between Ukraine and Russia to temporarily halt attacks on each other's energy and infrastructure, there was no further consensus on a ceasefire between the U.S. and Russia, leading to a bleak outlook for ceasefire negotiations. Following this call, Ukraine and Russia continued to accuse each other of carrying out drone attacks. The former British Prime Minister stated that Putin was not sincere in negotiations but was instead mocking the other side.

This call failed to bring new hope for the situation in Ukraine and instead sparked doubts and criticisms from outside regarding the U.S., questioning the Trump team's serious misjudgment of Putin's perception and intentions. Even with the U.S. actively mediating, Moscow's indifference and passivity towards a ceasefire remain worrisome, as the good relationship claimed by Trump did not prompt Putin to show goodwill. This raised questions about Putin's negotiating goals and the legitimacy of the U.S. policy towards Russia.

Despite tensions in U.S.-Ukraine relations caused by disputes in the White House, European countries still understand that without U.S. support, it is impossible to effectively resist Russia. Therefore, after high-level meetings between the U.S. and Ukraine, Kyiv agreed to a comprehensive ceasefire proposal put forward by the U.S., contingent upon the U.S. persuading Russia to agree. Meanwhile, Russia appeared calm, with Putin even participating in a meeting prior to the leaders' call, demonstrating his confidence in controlling the negotiations. After the call, although Moscow supported peace talks in principle, it still insisted on its original demands, including the cessation of military aid to Ukraine, stopping conscription, and recognizing Russia's control over Crimea and the four regions in eastern Ukraine.

Recently, Russia reiterated that any peace agreement must meet their demands and address the "causes of the war." The fundamental divergences between Kyiv and Moscow reveal that the initiator of the war has always been Russia, indicating that Russia is unwilling to pursue peace. President Zelensky's insistence on continuing to fight actually reflects his clear understanding of the threat posed by Russia. Even if Ukraine agrees not to seek NATO membership, Russia has not committed to refrain from further aggression against Ukraine, further deepening concerns about potential future conflicts.

Some observers believe that as both countries expend significant resources on the battlefield, the Russian military may no longer have the capacity for prolonged combat, thus making a ceasefire an urgent option for both sides. However, this perspective overlooks the choices dictators make to maintain their power. The recent call lasted over two hours, and the two leaders casually discussed subjects such as hockey, without focusing on the Ukraine-Russia peace talks, which appeared more like an opportunity to mend bilateral relations.

While Russia remains resolute on the ceasefire issue, the U.S. has not imposed sanctions as previously called for and even plans to ease some sanctions to improve diplomatic and economic relations with Russia. This indicates a discrepancy between the U.S. fatigue regarding the war in Ukraine and its eagerness to end the conflict; when the U.S. shows a sense of urgency, Putin appears calm and composed, further gaining control over the tempo and leadership in the negotiations.

Putin tends to elevate his personal international status and domestic prestige through protracted negotiation processes; peace talks present an opportunity for Russia to re-enter the international stage and possibly redefine its sphere of influence with a posture comparable to that of the U.S. His "Greater Russia" concept is realized in this process to gain stronger control over neighboring countries. Looking back, there have been cooperative instances between Russia and NATO, which has made the "Greater Russia" concept more flexible and varied under the power demands of the dictator.

During the current Ukraine-Russia peace talks, Moscow reiterated that the precondition for a ceasefire must address the fundamental issues, implying recognition of the West's demands and Russia's position as a regional power. Indeed, the past phases of cooperation are not permanent; in today's conflicts, Russia's interventions in its neighboring countries reaffirm this ideology. Ultimately, regardless of the concessions offered by the West, Putin will always prioritize his own interests and power, which poses significant obstacles to the pursuit of peace.

Amid the vigorous pursuit of peace, the suffering and forced displacement of the populace require more attention. Without an accurate understanding of the dictator's mindset, Western calls for peace may prove to be unachievable. The timing for obtaining substantial concessions may depend on Putin's need for power. As for negotiations after 2025, it may become an opportunity for Putin to assert the legitimacy of a new round of external actions. Recognizing this key factor will make the international community more vigilant in the future.