"Which war will end first? I don't know, maybe the timeline will be the same." With that one line, Donald Trump handed reporters a homework assignment - figure out whether he and Putin had discussed an urgent end to the world's two biggest conflicts. Iran and Ukraine, in a single move.

The statement came after a 90-minute phone call with the Russian president. The same day, Trump declared: "I think Ukraine is, militarily, defeated." He is not embarrassed by the line, and he is not toning it down. At the same time he claims Putin offered to help resolve the Iranian uranium issue - a kind of exchange of diplomatic favours between two superpowers who have become partners this year, without admitting it.

Analysts cited in American media argue that both conflicts could end at the same time for a simple reason - economic unsustainability. The American economy can no longer fund Kyiv, and the Russian one cannot endure a long war under sanctions. But those views are also half-finished. When Trump says "Ukraine is defeated", it means one thing: handing over Donbas and Luhansk.

For the Balkans, this kind of border trading is a direct and ongoing warning signal. Because every time the powerful redraw maps over phone calls, the consequences reach us a few years later. That is the history of the twentieth century.

The question is simpler than it looks: if Putin and Trump really believe they are "close to a solution", why are soldiers on both sides still dying? Or is the solution something each of them can sell as a victory at home, while reality on the battlefield is something else entirely? History remembers that "fast deals" between great powers usually mean bad deals for the small people.