Author: Rong ping source: official account: Rong Ping (id:rongping898) has been authorized to reprint
A few days ago, foreign minister kuleba of Zelensky published an article on how Ukraine won in the US foreign affairs.
The logic of this article is simple——
The war lasted four months, and the public’s passion has become tired, so more and more people proposed to “betray Ukraine”.
Two people were specially named here. One was Kissinger, the “old thief” who advised Ukraine to “cede land and surrender”, as we mentioned before, and the other was makron, the “little thief” who shouted “don’t humiliate Russia”.
According to this article, the reason why the “war accomplices” represented by these two thieves can’t wait to sell Ukraine is mainly based on three reasons: they feel that Ukraine will be defeated and there is no need to continue to invest; For the sake of “peace and economy of our own country”, I hope the war between Russia and Ukraine can be quickly concluded; Fear leads to nuclear war.
To these three kinds of people, curieba cursed one by one:
If you think Ukraine is doomed to defeat, you should provide Ukraine with enough artillery and heavy weapons. With support, can Ukraine defeat Russia? Isn’t that a matter of time?
Those “for the peace and economy of their own country” are even more ridiculous. If Ukraine no longer exists, will Europe still have prosperity and security? On the contrary, can the West achieve prosperity and security without helping Ukraine achieve “comprehensive victory”?
The most ridiculous thing is that those who are worried about Putin’s launching a nuclear war are afraid of what? Is Putin “suicidal” and dare to die with you? Instead of being so concerned about Putin’s feelings, why not spare some of your brain to think about how to help Ukraine?
To be honest, the whole article still tastes like “I’m ZELINSKY, how can you not support me”. It seems that Ukrainian monarchs and ministers are still immersed in the “hero” filter of the previous months and do not want to wake up.
However, it never occurred to me that it was the Americans who woke up ZELINSKY with a slap!
Two days after the publication of this great work by kuliba in foreign affairs, another us think tank, the US national interest magazine, also published an article.
This article also talks about how to solve the Ukrainian problem, but the view is completely opposite to that of kuleba. The whole article is summed up in two words: surrender!
The logic is simple——
U.S. officials have acknowledged that Putin is “achieving his goals”, while Ukraine can not even supply weapons. Is this war still meaningful? What are the advantages of negotiation?
Under such circumstances, Ukraine must put some “more realistic plans” on the table.
For example, do you want to declare neutrality from now on? Do you want to admit that Crimea belongs to Russia? Should we hold a referendum on Donbas’ independence? Should we give up our ties with NATO? Do you want to destroy your offensive weapons and reduce the size of your army? Whether to resume diplomatic relations with Moscow, etc.
To put it simply, Zelinski should put Putin’s requirements of neutrality, demilitarization and de Nazism on the agenda and prepare to welcome Wang Shi!
This is more than that. Following this logic, the article also said that since Ukraine has surrendered, it is no longer necessary for the west to make enemies with Russia for Ukraine, so the West should also make corresponding strategic changes.
For example, should the economic sanctions against Russia be lifted? Must the confiscated Russian property be returned to others? Trade relations with Russia must be rebuilt, right?
Of course, even so, Putin is most concerned that the security environment in Russia has not changed. Will he stop there?
So, in order to appease Putin, does NATO have to write a written guarantee not to expand eastward? Does Finland have to tear up its application for accession? Are the provisions of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe on the reduction of the number of military bases in Europe also subject to negotiation?
Well… In terms of surrender, you Americans will!
My first reaction when I saw this magnificent article was, did the national interest take money from Putin?
You should know that “national interests” is not a small magazine that does not enter the mainstream. For example, when Biden held the democracy summit last year, China and Russia were deliberately isolated. The ambassadors of the two countries jointly wrote on “national interests”, calling for respect for “the democratic rights of the people of all countries”.
When China was pressured by the West because of its “neutral” position a few months ago, Ambassador Qin Gang also wrote “national interests” to explain the international relations after the Russia Ukraine war and shouted to the US on behalf of China.
It can be seen that this is indeed a serious platform with widely recognized influence.
Why did this magazine, which can even affect US foreign policy decisions, publish an article on capitulation so thoroughly?
In fact, the answer is very simple – to some extent, this is the answer given by the American elite to kuliba: Ukraine has no value!
Since the war cannot be won on the battlefield and the negative effects of the war outweigh the benefits, the United States should take Ukraine in while the situation has not completely collapsed. It should even step on Europe, make peace with Russia as soon as possible, appease Putin’s ambition at the least cost, and stabilize the rear of Europe. The United States can also cut the mess quickly, stop losses, get rid of the burden of Ukraine, and focus on printing too.
Therefore, it is not without reason that kuleba wrote in the US media at this juncture about “how Ukraine wins” and “more and more countries want to betray Ukraine”.
What deserves the most attention in this article is not the detailed countermeasures on Ukraine’s capitulation, but the attitudes of all parties behind this explicit “capitulation theory”.
While kuleba talked about how Ukraine would win, the chief negotiator of Ukraine announced that Russia Ukraine negotiations might be restarted in Turkey in August.
The news was unilaterally announced by the Ukrainian side, and the Russian side reacted coldly.
Putin said not long ago that he did not intend to negotiate until the Russian military completed its military objectives.
So does Ukraine, which is “likely to restart negotiations”, mean to rush for peace?
And ZELINSKY acted according to the instructions of the United States, so although the United States was hard spoken, he did intend to lose this chicken rib in policy direction.
You don’t even play in America, let alone in Europe.
In Brussels, Belgium, where the EU headquarters is located, a few months ago, many protesters were waving Ukrainian flags here, demanding that the EU cut off “Putin’s oil” and impose sanctions on Russia.
But just three months later, the voice of the masses changed. The protesters shouted “spend money on wages, not weapons”, and the slogan became “stop NATO”.
Following this wind, macron said “don’t humiliate Russia” and, together with Kissinger, was sprayed into a sieve by Ukrainian officials including ZELINSKY.
But macron wasn’t the only one in line to be scolded.
After his visit to Ukraine, German Chancellor Scholz stuck his neck and said that it was “absolutely necessary” to insist on direct dialogue with Putin.
Italian Prime Minister mariodraghi put forward a four point peace plan, which is also the meaning of the armistice and peace talks.
What is more realistic than these statements is that Europe, which has been obsessed with environmental protection, has recently started to restart coal-fired power on a large scale because Russia is clutching natural gas. The Dutch government publicly shouted that if things did not change, Europe would not be able to fill its gas storage facilities before winter.
So things must change!
Why did the big three of the EU take the initiative to give Ukraine the candidacy of EU Member States this time?
Because this candidacy is a carrot, it can strengthen the control over the Zelensky government and let them enter the negotiation table in accordance with the terms of the EU.
At the same time, this is also a step. We can give ZELINSKY a reasonable reason to surrender in the face of his “hero”.
Anyway, it’s just a “candidate qualification”. Macron said before that it may take decades from “candidate” to “becoming a full-time employee”. Just wait.
Outside the United States and Europe, what is more representative is that the attitude of the global “neutral countries” is also changing.
On the 20th, the Austrian foreign minister said at the EU foreign ministers’ meeting that the EU had lost to Russia in the worldwide “information war”.
Specifically, the propaganda of the war in Europe is anti Russian narrative, and the people are relatively successful in brainwashing. However, in other places outside Europe, from the Middle East to Africa to South Asia, more people do not agree with the Western propaganda, and most of them are sympathetic to Russia.
For example, the food crisis and the energy crisis, Western mouthpieces are all blaming Putin with one voice, but outside the west, most people blame Western sanctions.
In this regard, the Austrian foreign minister proposed to “strengthen education” in the vast Asian, African and Latin American regions, but people with a clear eye can see that this is particularly a matter of “information warfare”? Can Russia’s propaganda tools be better than the west?
To put it bluntly, the vast Asian, African and Latin American regions have suffered from the losses of the West. Their recognition of the Russian narrative is more than their mistrust of the West. The West has little help for injustice.
In addition, the public opinion of most “neutral” countries does not take the lead in Ukraine.
The most typical example is that on the 20th day, Zelensky delivered a video speech at the headquarters of the African Union, trying to link the famine problem facing Africa with the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, saying that “Africa is actually a ‘hostage’ of those who wage war against our country”.
But the rhythm didn’t work.
What is more ironic is that just two days before Zelensky’s speech, African Union president Marky saler suddenly made a high-profile statement, supporting macron’s statement that “Russia should not be humiliated”, which made Zelensky unable to stand down.
A few days ago, at the beginning of June, the chairman of the African Union also went to Sochi to meet Putin in person, saying that the western “anti Russian sanctions” deprived African countries of the opportunity to obtain grain and fertilizer, and hoped that the West would quickly end the relevant sanctions.
How many countries in the world have similar African positions, from the Gulf states that have been in a hot fight with Russia to the recent approval of the entry of Russian troops into Nicaragua?
If most countries do not agree, how can the West achieve its goal of isolating and weakening Russia?
So, for ZELINSKY, the general situation is over now. The only thing he can do is to surrender and not vote so simply.
When the Uzbek representative announced that he would restart the negotiations, he laid out the bottom line: the “minimum” for reaching any agreement was that Russia would return to the border outside the border before the war on February 24.
That is to say, if Ukraine wants to surrender, all the territories taken by Russia after the war must be spit out.
What is the significance of such surrender for Russia?
So the attitude of the Russian side is stronger: even if they negotiate, they will not talk about the territorial issue with you.
This will kill ZELINSKY!
If it is not good, it will have to change from a “hero” to a “national thief” and lose the foundation for continuing to govern.
Then what shall I do? We can only rely on a turnaround to increase our voice in negotiations.
Therefore, the Ukrainian side then said that before the resumption of negotiations, the Ukrainian side would consolidate its negotiating position through a series of counter offensive plans.
But if we want to counter attack, we need weapons first, right?
The problem is stuck here!
Ukraine’s Deputy Defense Minister Anna Maria said that Kiev had only obtained 10% of the weapons it needed from the West.
The United States has not fulfilled its commitments, let alone Europe. Recently, the three giants of Germany, France and Italy visited Ukraine, and they explicitly rejected zelenski’s request to transfer weapons as soon as possible.
Macron said that western countries have decided not to provide Ukraine with tanks and aircraft, which “is almost the official position of NATO countries”, “we help Ukraine defend itself, but we did not participate in the war against Russia”.
Even if we don’t give the aircraft, we can’t even give the tanks now. How can we continue to fight in Ukraine?
Isn’t it clear that we want to force the surrender?
In contrast, Russia’s advantages are expanding.
On the battlefield, in addition to the steady progress along the eastern and southern axes, the Russian army changed its previous caution and opened up its arms supply line in Ukraine.
From the weapons depot in Lvov to the railway stations in Dnepropetrovsk and Donetsk, Russian missiles destroyed many NATO weapon depots, and even reimbursed the m777 howitzer that the United States had sent to Ukraine in a high profile.
What’s more frightening is that outside the battlefield, Putin recently stated that Russia will continue to develop and strengthen its armed forces according to the threats, including the deployment of the most advanced S-500 air defense system on a large scale and the salmat intercontinental ballistic missile that can “strike in an unlimited range”.
The subtext of this statement is that Russia should adopt an expansionary national defense policy to deal with the “threat”.
On the other hand, if Russia can fight Ukraine in order to deal with the threat of NATO, will it continue to “deal with the threat” to a neighboring country under the threat of victory and the inability of all Western powers to intervene?
Of course, Putin has released more information than this. For example, the salmat intercontinental ballistic missile, which “strikes in an unlimited range”, has a range of 18000 kilometers and a strong penetration into the anti missile system. Who else can the United States, apart from thousands of miles away, target when it is deployed on a large scale?
The implication is that Russia is preparing for a direct war with the United States.
Can Biden afford it now?
Therefore, in the article “national interests”, NATO was asked to write a security guarantee for Russia, to tear up Finland’s application for accession to the treaty, and to reduce the conventional armed forces in Europe. That’s the reason.
After all, Russia now has the upper hand. Economically, politically and militarily, Putin has the spare power to threaten a neighbor and embarrass the whole NATO. In order to prevent such a confrontation, NATO can take a tactical step back and come back after it slows down.
But before that, Ukraine must be sacrificed first.
At the end of the article, the author has something to say
China’s position has become clearer since the war.
During the telephone talks between the heads of state of China and Russia held last week, we could see several unusual signals——
Chinese leaders “pointed out the legitimacy of Russia’s actions to safeguard the country’s fundamental interests in the face of security challenges created by external forces”, “China is willing to continue to support each other with Russia on issues related to sovereignty, security and other core interests and major concerns” and “promote the development of International order and global governance in a more just and reasonable direction”.
“Legitimacy” and “mutual support” actually imply a slight change in China’s position on the war between Russia and Ukraine. To promote the reform of the international order is to strengthen the “anti western” strategic cooperation between the two sides.
This is a key statement, which adds a key weight to Russia at a critical time.
With this attitude of China, Putin has no worries at home and can play a bold game with the West on the Ukrainian issue.
Of course, China Russia cooperation is not just about who “supports” who. More importantly, at the St. Petersburg international economic forum not long ago, the leaders of both countries mentioned the transformation of the old international order.
Putin said that he would bury the old order and break the hypocrisy of the United States as “the messenger of God on earth”.
Chinese leaders went further, proposing to strengthen the strength of the BRICs countries and the SCO and “create a system that will be able to hear the voices of all people, including developing countries”.
Perhaps, taking advantage of the changes in Russia and Ukraine, a new political era is beginning.
Unfortunately, Ukraine, which has been sold, can only come to an early and gloomy end!