2月24日或之前能否实现和平（停火）不好预测，但是，与上 一年相比，推动俄乌和平的氛围要好一些。 作者：王义伟 封图：东方IC 战争会在你想开始的时候开始，但不会在你想结束的时候结束。 2022年2月24日，俄罗斯对乌克兰发起特别军事行动，俄乌冲突爆发。之后，冲突爆发2周年、3 周年之际，都有专家学者预测冲突结束的可能性，结果均事与愿违。 现在，这场冲突即将届满4周年，和平进程又有了新进展。1月23日和24日，俄罗斯、乌克兰和美 国的代表在阿联酋首都阿布扎比举行了三方会谈。这是关键三方首次坐在了一起。此轮会谈结束 后，美国总统特使威特科夫通过社交媒体表示会谈"非常具有建设性"，并透露三方计划继续磋 商。 和平的希望再度出现了。 那么，2月24日俄乌冲突4周年之际或之前，俄乌和平能实现吗？ 笔者认为，2月24日或之前能否实现和平（停火）不好预测，但是，与上一年相比，推动俄乌和平 的氛围要好一些。 首先，是欧洲（欧盟）的心气不如以前旺盛了。 在特朗普强力调解俄乌冲突、并减少了对乌援助之后，欧盟领导层一度志气满满，认为即使美国不 援助乌克兰了，欧盟也可以顶上去。此前美国与俄罗斯、乌克兰分别谈判时，欧盟不甘心被晾在一 ...

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the articles revolves around the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, highlighting recent developments in peace negotiations and the complexities involved in achieving a resolution [1][2][3][4]. Group 2 - The atmosphere for promoting peace in the Russia-Ukraine conflict has improved compared to the previous year, although predicting a ceasefire by February 24 remains uncertain [2]. - The European Union's enthusiasm for countering Russia and engaging in the peace process has diminished, particularly after recent geopolitical events [2]. - Former President Trump's determination is seen as a significant driving force for peace, despite his fluctuating commitment to the cause [3]. Group 3 - Russia's primary objective in the conflict remains the Donbas region, which is crucial for the legitimacy of its military actions [4][5]. - Ukraine has made significant concessions, agreeing to a ceasefire along current contact lines and refraining from using force to reclaim occupied territories [7]. Group 4 - The timeline for Russia to capture the remaining areas of Donbas through military means is estimated to be at least five years, with critical political events in the U.S. potentially influencing the conflict's trajectory [6][8].

Core Viewpoint - The unexpected willingness of Putin to allocate $1 billion to the U.S. Peace Committee marks a significant shift in the ongoing geopolitical conflict, raising questions about whether this is a genuine compromise or a strategic maneuver [1][4][9]. Group 1: Financial Implications - The $1 billion is not from the Russian treasury but from assets frozen by the previous U.S. administration, highlighting the complex nature of international asset management [4][9]. - Since the conflict began, Western nations have frozen over $300 billion of Russian assets, with approximately $50-60 billion held by the U.S. [9][11]. - Putin's decision to earmark these frozen assets for the Peace Committee changes their status from "dead money" to a potential tool for negotiation [11][21]. Group 2: International Reactions - The newly formed Peace Committee has seen a lack of commitment from over sixty invited countries, with many hesitant to be the first to contribute funds [2][5]. - Countries like Belarus, Israel, Jordan, and the UAE have expressed support, but are delaying financial commitments due to internal procedures and uncertainties [5][7]. - The announcement from Putin has sparked intense international debate, with some viewing it as a sign of Russia's desperation, while others see it as a potential thaw in U.S.-Russia relations [9][30]. Group 3: Geopolitical Dynamics - Putin's offer effectively places pressure on the EU, which has been considering using frozen Russian assets to aid Ukraine, creating a dilemma for European nations [13][25]. - The decision to engage directly with U.S. representatives bypasses European intermediaries, indicating a shift in the negotiation dynamics [17][19]. - The situation has led to visible divisions within Europe, with some leaders advocating for dialogue with Russia, complicating the EU's unified stance against it [25][26]. Group 4: Strategic Considerations - The linkage of the Peace Committee's funding to the resolution of the Russia-Ukraine conflict positions Putin to leverage the situation to his advantage [21][30]. - Trump's original vision for the Peace Committee as a platform for influence is now challenged, as he must navigate the complexities of European cooperation and Russian asset management [28][30]. - The unfolding scenario illustrates the intricate nature of geopolitical negotiations, where financial decisions can significantly alter power dynamics [34][35].

Core Viewpoint - The meeting between U.S. President Trump's envoy, Wietekow, and Russian President Putin is scheduled for January 23, indicating ongoing diplomatic efforts between the U.S. and Russia [1] Group 1: Diplomatic Engagement - Wietekow and Trump's son-in-law, Kushner, are set to meet with Putin, highlighting the importance of high-level discussions in U.S.-Russia relations [1] - Wietekow expressed optimism regarding significant progress in the Russia-Ukraine peace process, suggesting that it has reached a critical final stage [1] Group 2: Upcoming Meetings - Following the discussions in Russia, Wietekow will travel to the UAE to participate in a trilateral working group meeting involving the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine [1] - The timing of these meetings reflects a strategic approach to address ongoing geopolitical tensions in the region [1]

Group 1 - The UK Ministry of Defence announced the development of a new land-based tactical ballistic missile to enhance Ukraine's long-range strike capabilities against Russia, with a focus on providing advanced weaponry to Ukraine amid escalating conflict [1] - The project, codenamed "Nightfall," aims to quickly develop a missile with a range exceeding 500 kilometers, capable of operating in high-threat environments and carrying a 200-kilogram conventional warhead, with an estimated cost of no more than £800,000 per missile [1] - Initial production is expected to yield approximately 10 systems per month, with the missile designed for rapid launch from various vehicle platforms [1] Group 2 - Russian officials dismissed the UK's missile commitment as unrealistic, claiming the weapon has not yet been developed, and warned that any arms transferred to Ukraine would be considered military targets [2] - The UK has been a staunch supporter of Ukraine since the onset of the conflict, previously supplying Storm Shadow cruise missiles, and the new missile could potentially cover Moscow, enhancing Ukraine's military capabilities [2] - Russia conducted a large-scale strike on Ukrainian military and energy facilities, using various missile types, in response to an earlier attack on the Russian presidential residence, emphasizing the ongoing escalation of hostilities [3] Group 3 - Ukrainian President Zelensky stated that negotiations with the US are progressing well, with both sides coordinating meeting schedules and preparing documents for signing, indicating a potential for productive discussions [4] - There is a growing inclination among European nations to restore dialogue with Russia, although consensus on representation in such negotiations has yet to be reached [4]

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the articles revolves around the ongoing complexities of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with both sides engaging in strategic discussions and military actions as they navigate peace negotiations and security assurances [1][3][7] - U.S. and European leaders are actively involved in discussions to advance the peace process, focusing on practical steps to enhance Ukraine's security and establish conflict resolution mechanisms [1][3] - Ukrainian President Zelensky emphasized that Ukraine will not accept a peace deal at any cost, asserting the need for a definitive end to the war rather than a compromise that undermines Ukraine's sovereignty [3][7] Group 2 - The Russian Defense Ministry reported an attempted drone attack by Ukraine on President Putin's residence, indicating a targeted and well-planned operation involving 91 drones [3][4][5] - All Ukrainian drones were reportedly intercepted by Russian air defense forces, and the presidential residence was not damaged, showcasing the effectiveness of Russia's defensive measures [4][5] - In response to the drone attack, Russia announced a shift in its negotiation stance, with Foreign Minister Lavrov indicating that the attack would influence future discussions [7]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a recent phone meeting involving U.S. Special Envoy Wittekov, security advisors from the UK, France, and Germany, and Ukrainian representatives to advance the peace process between Russia and Ukraine [1] Group 1: Peace Process Discussions - The meeting focused on pragmatic ways to advance discussions on the Russia-Ukraine peace process, including enhancing security guarantees for Ukraine and establishing effective conflict resolution mechanisms to help end the conflict and prevent future outbreaks [1] - The participants also addressed the issue of post-war reconstruction in Ukraine [1] Group 2: Upcoming Meetings - Ukrainian President Zelensky announced a consensus with European-led "volunteer alliance" countries to hold a national security affairs assistants meeting in Ukraine on January 3, 2026, followed by a leaders' level meeting in France on January 6, with U.S. representatives attending [1] - Former President Trump met with Zelensky on December 28 in Florida to discuss the peace process, with both parties claiming significant progress was made, although no major announcements were made [1]

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict is showing signs of potential progress towards peace, with ongoing discussions between Ukraine and the U.S. and a new peace plan proposed by Ukraine's President Zelensky [2][3]. Group 1: Peace Negotiations - Zelensky denied claims of a breakdown in U.S.-Ukraine talks, stating that discussions are ongoing daily [2]. - Trump announced significant progress in peace discussions, claiming that 95% of key issues have been addressed and that a potential meeting between the leaders of the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine could occur [2]. - Russian officials acknowledged some consensus with the U.S. regarding the peace process, with plans to establish working groups on security and economic issues [2]. Group 2: Structural Challenges - Despite positive signals, there are structural challenges hindering substantial breakthroughs in the peace process, primarily due to irreconcilable political demands from both Russia and Ukraine [3][8]. - Russia's core demands include the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from certain regions and a commitment from Ukraine not to join NATO, which Ukraine is unwilling to concede [8][9]. - Ukraine's insistence on maintaining territorial integrity and security guarantees from the U.S. and NATO complicates the negotiation landscape, as these demands conflict with Russia's geopolitical interests [9][12]. Group 3: International Dynamics - The U.S. and European nations have differing approaches to the peace process, with the U.S. pushing for a quick resolution while Europe emphasizes Ukraine's military capabilities as essential for its security [12][13]. - The lack of a unified stance among international mediators, particularly between the U.S. and Europe, undermines the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts [13].

Core Viewpoint - Ukrainian President Zelensky condemned recent "extremely dangerous" statements from Russia, claiming they aim to undermine the peace process being advanced with the Trump administration [1] Group 1: Ukrainian Response - Zelensky explicitly denied Russia's claim that Ukraine attempted to use drones to attack the Russian presidential residence, labeling it as a complete fabrication [1] - He stated that such claims are essentially excuses for continued attacks on Ukraine, particularly targeting the capital, Kyiv [1] - Zelensky characterized the Russian statements as a "typical fraud tactic," referencing previous large-scale airstrikes on Kyiv that damaged government buildings [1] Group 2: Diplomatic Stance - Zelensky reaffirmed Ukraine's commitment to not undermining diplomatic efforts and called for an appropriate response from the United States to the threats posed by Russia [1] Group 3: Russian Response - There has been no response from the Russian side regarding Zelensky's statements as of the report [1]

Core Viewpoint - The recent discussions in Miami between Russian and American representatives regarding the Ukraine-Russia peace process indicate a constructive dialogue, but significant obstacles remain in achieving a resolution [1][2]. Group 1: Peace Negotiations - Russian President's special representative Dmitryev met with U.S. officials in Miami, with discussions deemed constructive and set to continue [1][2]. - Ukrainian representatives have engaged in preliminary talks with European officials and aim to advance discussions with the U.S. in a constructive manner [1][3]. - Ukrainian President Zelensky expressed hope that U.S. proposals could facilitate exchanges of personnel between Ukraine and Russia [1][3]. Group 2: Obstacles to Peace - The first major obstacle identified is territorial disputes, particularly regarding the Donetsk region, where Russian forces control most areas but Ukrainian forces retain some territory [3][9]. - The second obstacle involves NATO expansion, which Russia claims is a root cause of the Ukraine crisis, while Ukraine has enshrined its NATO aspirations in its constitution [4][10]. - A third challenge is the size of Ukraine's military, with initial U.S. proposals suggesting a cap of 600,000 troops, which has since been modified to 800,000 [5][11]. - Cultural issues present another hurdle, as Russia demands the restoration of Russian media and education in Ukraine, while Ukraine restricts Russian media to combat misinformation [5][12]. - The fifth obstacle concerns the control of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, with Ukraine arguing that U.S. proposals for its division are unfair and lack necessary details for safe operation [6][12].