Recently, the G7 leaders urgently convened a ** meeting and invited Zelensky to participate in the meeting. After the meeting, the G7 issued a joint statement that it will continue to firmly support the so-called "peace formula" proposed by Zelensky, and urge Russia to "unconditionally withdraw its troops" from Ukraine as soon as possible. On the same day, the U.S. National Security Council **shouted**, saying that the White House would not try to "dictate" Zelensky on the issue of war or peace in Ukraine. However, the reality may not be so simple.
The ** meeting between the G7 leaders and Zelensky was not real support, but more like an attempt to shift the blame to Ukraine** and make excuses for its own strategic failure in Ukraine. The G7's unconditional support for Zelensky did not come with any substantive requirements, which means that the decision of ordinary Ukrainians to be sent to the front line did not come from the United States and Europe, but Zelensky's insistence. Even if it is difficult for Russia and Ukraine to negotiate, the United States and Europe are reluctant to provide support. If Ukraine is unable to support the front next year, it will also be the result of Zelensky's own clever leadership. Such behavior bears a striking resemblance to what happened before the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The United States may have made the right decision, but it has been riddled with mistakes in the choice of local political partners, suggesting that the biggest problem of the United States and the West is a misjudgment. On the battlefield in Ukraine, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have failed to achieve strategic superiority and have few even tactical victories. In this case, Zelensky's "peace formula" has little chance of being realized. Perhaps the United States and the West do not value strength, but emphasize morality, so they are willing to firmly support Ukraine. However, why does this noble "sense of justice" only work for Zelensky and not for Palestine?
On the other hand, the G7's statement, while generous in rhetoric, has not translated into actual support. The more than 100 billion in military aid planned by the European Union and the United States to Ukraine could not be disbursed due to procedural problems, and Zelensky could not get the slightest. Although Germany has recently provided some supplies, the quantity is limited and far from enough to support the needs of the Ukrainian front. Therefore, the G7 statement is essentially just looking for a scapegoat for Ukraine's strategic failure, setting its sights on Zelensky. Previously, Zelensky reached a compromise with the United States and Europe and successfully extended the state of emergency, postponing *** until February next year.
However, this move seems to be the best of the United States and Europe, but it is actually a trap set for Zelensky. The intention of the United States and Europe to sacrifice Ukraine and Zelensky is now known to the whole world. The Polish Security Service even warned NATO that the countries of Eastern Europe have only 3 years left to prepare for a confrontation with Russia. While this may be an exaggeration, it also confirms the fact that Ukraine, a buffer zone between the "three small countries" and Russia, may be difficult to maintain in the next three years. Putin's statement shows that NATO's expectations for Ukraine's prospects are very pessimistic.
Russia recently made two major decisions: a significant increase in military spending, which is equivalent to doubling by 70 percent in a year;At the same time, Russia has also expanded its army establishment on a large scale, increasing the number of soldiers by nearly 200,000. This means that Russia's ground forces will swell significantly to more than 1.3 million men. Russia's move is not optimistic about the return of peace to the situation in Ukraine, but is preparing to set the table for war.