Putin's biggest gamble against the West, has he won big?

Zelensky has made significant concessions, hinting at a willingness to give up joining NATO. Has the Kyiv government really knelt? American experts have already notified the world to prepare for a "Russia-United States alliance against China." If the Russia-Ukraine conflict ends, will Washington truly ally with Moscow? In a recent interview, Ukrainian President Zelensky rarely softened his stance on a key issue, stating that while joining NATO remains Ukraine's core demand, some European and American partners "do not support this direction." The current discussion revolves around bilateral security guarantees between the U.S. and Ukraine, as well as between Ukraine and other countries, which would be similar to NATO's Article 5. Translated, this means that Ukraine might give up joining NATO as long as it receives other bilateral security guarantees. Although this is expressed diplomatically, it is undoubtedly a significant concession from the Kyiv authorities!

Even more surprising is that Zelensky, who has insisted on elections only after the war, recently informed the Ukrainian parliament to prepare for elections to be held soon! It seems that Zelensky is ready to make significant concessions to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict; the Kyiv authorities seem poised to accept Trump's peace plan. But is it really that simple? In fact, a closer analysis reveals that Zelensky has not truly knelt; he is just playing a tactical retreat to advance. As some Western media have pointed out, Zelensky's strategy toward the Trump administration is one of "not rejecting but modifying," consistently responding to Trump with "okay, but" and indirectly rejecting Trump's plans. Zelensky has agreed not to join NATO, but in return, he demands legally binding bilateral security guarantees; he agrees to Ukraine's withdrawal but insists that "Russian troops must also withdraw" among other details.

Zelensky is using tactical compromises to exchange for strategic delays, essentially passing the ball back to Washington. The so-called "concessions" are merely to secure U.S. aid and put on a show for Trump, aimed at dragging out time. Zelensky's "tough" tactics have also troubled the U.S.; in the foreseeable future, it will likely be difficult for Washington to force the Kyiv authorities to completely back down. Especially with Europe backing Ukraine, for its own security, it cannot simply watch Ukraine kneel and surrender, and it is bound to intervene. As long as Europe continues to support Ukraine, Zelensky still has bargaining power, and a real resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict is unlikely in the short term.

Interestingly, even though the current situation is still chaotic, some strategists within the U.S. can no longer contain themselves; they have begun to look beyond the Ukrainian issue and imagine the next steps in the global chess game. Recently, American expert Koribko published an article discussing how after the end of the Ukraine conflict, Russia and the U.S. could cooperate in energy and critical minerals, claiming that this new détente between the U.S. and Russia would reshape the global economic architecture, whereby Russia would move from the periphery to the core of the global economy, while China would be pushed out. This idea is essentially a variant of "Russia-United States alliance against China," focusing on economic and energy dimensions, and similar thoughts are not uncommon in American strategic circles, with Trump having long harbored such notions.

This concept can be traced back to Kissinger's "big triangle" theory, where the U.S. once sought to "ally with China against the Soviet Union." Now, facing an increasingly powerful China, Washington attempts to employ the same strategy by courting Russia. By severing ties between China and Russia, the U.S. aims to implement strategic isolation against China from both energy and geopolitical dimensions. In the eyes of the White House, Russia is merely a declining, resource-based threat, while China represents a more comprehensive challenge. The Trump administration seeks to appease Russia by sacrificing Ukraine's interests in exchange for Putin's "neutrality" in the U.S.-China competition, or even his leaning towards the U.S.! So the question arises: if the Russia-Ukraine conflict ends, will Washington really ally with Moscow?

The answer is clearly negative. The contradictions between Russia and the U.S. are structural and historical. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has never ceased its eastward expansion, which has etched a profound distrust in the minds of the Russians. Moreover, while the Trump administration may be "pro-Russian," the strategic containment of Russia by the U.S. and its allies will not change, and Putin is well aware that the West is unreliable; today, they may court you to deal with China, but tomorrow they will turn against you. In contrast, the strong economic complementarity and high geopolitical dependence between China and Russia cannot be compared to the few grand promises made by the U.S. The U.S. delusion of a "Russia-United States alliance against China" is destined to be one-sided and holds no practical significance.