讀後心得

On March 18, U.S. President Trump spoke with Russian President Putin to discuss a ceasefire in the Russo-Ukrainian war. Trump described the conversation as "productive," but in reality, both sides failed to reach a consensus, only agreeing to pause attacks on each other's energy and infrastructure. Former UK Prime Minister Johnson criticized Putin for mocking the U.S. negotiation efforts. Despite U.S. attempts at mediation, Russia remained unenthusiastic about the ceasefire process and insisted on a series of conditions, including the cessation of foreign military aid to Ukraine and the recognition of Russia's sovereignty over Crimea. Before this call, Trump had mentioned on social media the possibility of imposing sanctions on Russia, but ultimately the U.S. did not act as expected and instead considered easing sanctions on Russia, demonstrating the U.S.'s urgency to end the war. This allowed Putin to maintain a more relaxed demeanor in negotiations and provided an opportunity to strengthen his influence both domestically and internationally. Putin's "Greater Russia" ideology, which emphasizes Russia's regional authority and military intervention, may render peace talks less about seeking peace and more about further consolidating his leadership position. Overall, if the intentions and mindset of Putin are not understood, Western efforts for peace may likely be ineffective and could trigger greater regional tensions.

Image source: Associated Press

On March 18, the President of the United States and the President of Russia held a bilateral direct call regarding the ceasefire in the Ukraine-Russia war. The dialogue was described as "productive," but the actual outcome was limited to both Ukraine and Russia agreeing to temporarily stop attacking each other's energy and infrastructure. However, no further consensus was reached on the ceasefire details, making the negotiations, which were initially hoped to swiftly end the war, seem less optimistic than expected. In fact, after the talks, both sides continued to accuse each other of launching drone attacks. The former British Prime Minister remarked, "Dialogue is not negotiation; he is mocking us." This call failed to bring new hope to the situation in Ukraine and instead deepened external doubts and criticisms of the United States, with many observers believing that the Trump team's understanding of Putin's perceptions and intentions was severely misjudged. Regardless of how this dialogue is evaluated by outsiders, it is undeniable that even with the active mediation from the US side, Moscow's attitude towards ceasefire talks remains lukewarm, and Trump’s claim of a good relationship seems unable to compel Putin to show more goodwill.

• Background and outcomes of the call
• Views on the ceasefire negotiations from various parties
• Discrepancies between expectations and reality

Moreover, the intense internal debates within the White House stand in stark contrast to Moscow's casual calmness. Although US-Ukrainian relations temporarily strained due to disputes within the White House, European countries have realized that they cannot confront Russia without America's support. After high-level discussions between the US and Ukraine on March 11, Kyiv accepted a comprehensive ceasefire proposal from the US, but needed the US to persuade Russia to agree. Some observers believe that Russia treats the peace talks casually, while the US is eager for results. Before the call, Putin still participated in a meeting in Moscow, demonstrating Russia's control over the negotiations.

• Background and scheduling of the meeting
• Russia's insistence and tough stance
• Positions of various countries on the ceasefire

Putin's reaction after the meeting showed that he still adheres to his previous conditions, including demands for foreign powers to cease military assistance to Ukraine and the recognition of Russia's legitimacy in governing Crimea and the four eastern Ukrainian regions. This series of positions reaffirmed that Russia does not intend to make any substantial concessions. Faced with this situation, even if Ukraine expresses a willingness to exchange this for not joining NATO, it cannot eliminate Russia's threat of potential future aggression. Putin's goal is to consolidate his personal power; regardless of external interpretations of Russia's actions, the ultimate aim remains finding ways to strengthen his position.

• Putin's dilemma and insecurity
• Power games on the international stage
• Potential cooperation opportunities between Russia and NATO

Currently, peace negotiations have become a stage for Putin to expand his influence. Since the launch of actions by Russia, both sides have expended considerable resources on the front lines. Whether Putin can transform negotiations into a means of stabilizing his own position depends on how various parties perceive his privileged interests. For Putin, the desire to maintain power outweighs the interests of other countries, which is the fundamental reason for his passive responses to peace negotiations.

• Long-term impacts of the peace talks
• US strategies and Russia's posture
• Future trends in the situation

The conclusion is that we often do not misjudge Russia but rather underestimate the needs of the dictator himself. Putin's pursuit of consolidating power and maintaining status causes Western concessions to strengthen his international standing. In the face of ongoing conflict, a ceasefire and peace become important goals. However, if one does not understand his thinking, one-sided concessions may backfire and ultimately lead to greater regional tension and conflict. For Putin, what he seeks is not just Russia's security but the consolidation of personal authority and control over the international situation.