Comparison of News Articles:

Common Ground:

1. Meeting Context: All articles discuss the high-stakes meeting at the White House involving President Trump, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, and several European leaders. They also agree on the background of Trump's recent meeting with Putin in Alaska and mention the pressure on Ukraine to make territorial concessions as part of a peace deal.

2. Trump’s Proposal: Trump's stance that Ukraine can end the war "almost immediately" by agreeing to Russia's terms is consistently reported across sources, with emphasis on Ukraine forfeiting regions like Crimea and parts of Donbas.

3. European Involvement & Reaction: The presence of European leaders indicates their support for Ukraine and desire to influence the negotiations. The articles highlight Europe's unity and concerns about Trump's pressure on Zelenskyy.

Points of Divergence:

1. Framing of Zelenskyy’s Choice: Liberal sources like ABC and NBC focus on the pressure and difficult choices Zelenskyy is confronting, with a tone suggesting Trump is undermining Ukrainian sovereignty by pushing them into unfavorable concessions. They emphasize European leaders' efforts to ensure Zelenskyy doesn’t get "bullied" and point out past conflicts between Trump and Zelenskyy.

Conservative outlets like Breitbart and TheBlaze attribute agency to Zelenskyy, putting the onus on him to decide peace by potentially making necessary concessions. They present Trump's proposal as a pragmatic solution rather than a coercive tactic.

2. Portrayal of Trump: Liberal articles depict Trump’s stance as aligned with Russian interests and potentially dismissive of European allies’ positions. They emphasize Trump’s praise of Putin and downplay the importance of a ceasefire before negotiations.

Conservative sources view Trump more positively, framing his proposal as an opportunity for peace and a strategic move to end conflict. They downplay criticisms and present Trump's actions as being in pursuit of a greater goal to stop bloodshed.

3. Interpretation of European Motivations: NBC and The New York Times suggest European leaders are genuinely worried about possible outcomes and seeking to prevent a one-sided deal. Conservative articles imply European leaders might be more interested in maintaining influence or even resisting Trump’s direct approach to negotiation.

Reality Between Biases:

The reality likely exists in acknowledging both the diplomatic and tactical pressures at play. Trump’s stance on Ukraine’s concessions may genuinely aim to hasten peace but could also risk undermining Ukraine's sovereignty without clear security guarantees, which are crucial as highlighted by Ukraine and European leaders. The convergence of European leaders on Washington symbolizes their significant stake in the matter, both in terms of regional security and political influence. The liberal narrative highlights legitimate concerns about prematurely conceding Ukrainian territory. In contrast, the conservative view might emphasize the urgency and practical aspects of making peace, albeit with risks attached.

Overall, balanced analysis must consider not just the strategic demands but also the ethical implications of territorial concessions and the international law precedents such actions might set. It would be prudent to approach the situation recognizing both the immediate need for conflict resolution and the long-term need for stable and justified peace deals respecting Ukraine's sovereignty.