Can the conflict between Washington and Kyiv be settled? In Oslo, Zelensky is making a new attempt

Relations between the United States and Ukraine have reached a point of significant tension, characterized by public criticism between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky. In an effort to stabilize this relationship and establish a path toward peace, Zelensky recently met with US envoy Steve Witkoff in Oslo, supported by Norwegian and Finnish leadership. The goal of these discussions was to formulate a peace proposal to be presented to the Kremlin, potentially leading to a trilateral meeting between Trump, Putin, and Zelensky.
However, a disconnect exists between these diplomatic efforts and the rhetoric from the White House. While US officials like Marco Rubio deny any intent to harm Ukraine, Trump has publicly criticized Zelensky as an obstacle to peace and praised Russia's conduct. Simultaneously, Putin has proposed a different trilateral format—including only the US, Russia, and China—which would exclude Ukraine and European mediators. This suggests a fragmented diplomatic landscape where Ukraine seeks integration into a peace process that the US president may be inclined to negotiate over their heads.

* Volodymyr Zelensky met US envoy Steve Witkoff in Oslo on Tuesday.
* Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and Finnish President Alexander Stubb attended the talks.
* Jared Kushner participated via video link.
* Zelensky met with King Haakon of Norway.
* The participants discussed a peace plan proposal for Russia.
* Steve Witkoff was scheduled to travel to St. Petersburg on Wednesday to meet Russian leadership.
* Donald Trump has concluded a diesel agreement with Vladimir Putin and halted new sanctions against Russia.
* Volodymyr Zelensky spoke with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio via telephone.
* Donald Trump expressed interest in a trilateral meeting with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping in Shenzhen in mid-November.
* European leaders Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron, and Keir Starmer previously launched a diplomatic offensive in Washington in February 2025.

The strongest version of this narrative is that Ukraine is fighting a desperate diplomatic battle to remain a primary stakeholder in its own fate. By leveraging Nordic intermediaries, Zelensky is attempting to create a "constructive path" to bypass a hostile US president and present a peace plan that makes him indispensable to the process.
The narrative relies on a stark juxtaposition: the optimistic "constructive discussions" in Oslo versus the biting public tirades from Trump. While the reporting remains largely descriptive, it frames the situation as a precarious struggle for agency. There is an implicit assumption that the US administration is operating with a dual track—official diplomatic channels (Rubio, Witkoff) versus the president's public rhetoric. This creates a tension where the reader is led to view the White House as a source of "mixed signals."
Patterns detected: none
The driving paradigm is the erosion of the post-WWII security architecture, where bilateral "great power" deals (US-Russia-China) are replacing multilateral alliances and the sovereignty of smaller nations. This echoes the 1945 Yalta Conference logic, where the fates of nations were decided by a few superpowers without the participation of the affected parties.
The primary cost is borne by Ukrainian agency. If the "Putin-Trump-Xi" trilateral model succeeds, Ukraine ceases to be a subject of international law and becomes an object of diplomatic trade. This shifts the global precedent from "nothing about us without us" to "everything about us without us."
Bridge Questions:
1. If official US diplomatic channels (Rubio/Witkoff) are functioning, why is the public rhetoric from the President so diametrically opposed to those efforts?
2. What specific terms in a "peace plan" would satisfy both Trump's desire for a quick end and Zelensky's need for survival?
3. How does the absence of major EU powers like France and Germany from the Oslo talks change the leverage of the participants?
Counterstrike Scan: If this were an influence campaign, it would likely use "Fear Appeal" to provoke panic in Europe about abandonment. However, this text focuses on the specific mechanical movements of diplomats and quoted rhetoric, maintaining a descriptive distance. The content is clean.