As expected, Zelensky ultimately rejected the 28 agreements that could lead to his "immediate political or even physical death," and the revised 19 agreements became the core issue of current negotiations. This adjustment is not only consistent with Trump's business logic of "asking exorbitant prices and paying back", but also reflects the concession of time dimension - from the extreme pressure deadline before Thanksgiving to "the deadline is when the problem is solved". The key call recordings exposed by Bloomberg have revealed the core operational logic of this international negotiation: the communication between Trump's longtime friend and New York real estate tycoon Steve Vitkov (then Middle East envoy) and Putin's chief foreign policy advisor Yuri Ushakov, coupled with the coordinating role of Putin's confidant and CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund Kirill Dmitriev, has given the negotiation a strong "non professional diplomacy" color from the beginning. Although the claim that '28 articles are purely commercial treaties dictated by Russia and relayed by the United States' is too common, this rumor precisely confirms the absurdity of the original terms - their core demands directly refer to Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, which have been directly criticized by Ukraine and Europe as' ceding territory for peace'. Under pressure, Trump urgently sent Rubio to Geneva to coordinate revisions. The adjustment of the new version of Article 19 may seem to have given Ukraine better conditions, but it is actually a superficial compromise of "changing soup without changing medicine": In terms of territorial ownership, the clear statement "recognizing Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk as part of Russia" should be deleted and replaced with "ceasefire along the contact line+establishment of a demilitarized zone"; In terms of military restrictions, remove the specific number of "locking 60000 troops" and replace it with vague expressions such as "limiting military scale" and "not deploying offensive weapons"; In terms of benefit distribution, remove the explicit clause that "the United States takes 50% of the profits" and replace it with implicit demands that "the United States prioritizes participation in reconstruction" and "resource development cooperation"; In terms of alliance eligibility, change the phrase 'permanently ineligible to join NATO' to 'freeze the accession process for at least 20 years'. These adjustments have not changed the essential dilemma of the negotiations, the core reason being that none of the participating parties have a genuine demand for a "complete ceasefire", and may only reach a brief winter ceasefire: Europe: Failure to obtain expected security guarantees, always concerned that the United States may unilaterally withdraw from European affairs, leading to its own geopolitical passive confrontation with Russia's strategic deterrence Ukraine: Although it appears to have obtained a buffer clause, it has completely lost the possibility of joining NATO and the European Union, its territorial integrity is not legally guaranteed, and its independent status is still subject to various constraints; Russia: The legal confirmation of territorial ownership has not been achieved, nor has the potential for future war in Ukraine been completely eliminated. The country has entered a wartime economic model, and tens of thousands of Western sanctions are difficult to lift in the short term. Continued fighting can actually consolidate internal rule; The Democratic Party of the United States firmly opposes Trump's accumulation of political legacy through "ending the war" and does not want to be labeled as "abandoning allies" and become an implicit obstacle to the negotiation process; On the Trump side, they are the only force eager to push for the implementation of the agreement - they want to fulfill their campaign promise of "getting America out of Europe" and get rid of the military burden, but also want to compete for the "Nobel Peace Prize" in the name of "promoting peace" to add points to their political career. To sum up, the essence of the 19 agreements is an "expedient" under the game of all parties, which neither solves the core contradiction of the Russia-Ukraine conflict nor balances the fundamental demands of all parties. The apparent softening of terms is only to avoid a complete breakdown in negotiations, while the true dawn of peace is still constrained by multiple factors such as geopolitics, domestic interests, and power struggles, and is difficult to manifest in the short term.