The Ukrainian State News Agency reported on the 18th that the anti-tank weapon system provided by the United Kingdom has arrived in Ukraine on the same day.
Earlier, British Defence Secretary Wallace said that the anti-tank weapons system provided by the United Kingdom to Ukraine is not a strategic weapon and will not pose a threat to Russia, mainly for self-defense and defense. The Ukrainian side also said that the equipment will enhance Ukraine's defense capabilities and protect critical infrastructure, and Ukraine has no plans to launch an offensive.
It is well known that the export of weapons to areas of tension is very sensitive and adds fuel to the fire, which is why Britain and Ukraine have repeatedly declared that they are defensive weapons and are only used for self-defense. However, Russia does not see it that way.
Russian Presidential Press Secretary Peskov said on the 18th that the Russian side is concerned about the supply of weapons to Ukraine by all parties, which are often not only defensive, but also offensive. He noted that it would be "extremely dangerous" if it involved man-portable air defence missiles, which would not help to ease the situation.
One side says it is a means of self-defense, while the other side considers it extremely dangerous. What are the facts? More than two thousand years ago, Mencius made it very clear:
Liang Huiwang said: "The widow is willing to accept the teachings in peace." Mencius said to him, "Is there a difference between killing people with a blade and a blade?" "Nothing different." ”
Born in the chaotic world of the Warring States, King Hui of Liang was naturally no stranger to war, so he immediately replied that killing people is the same as using a knife and using a wooden stick. To put it more popularly, the Undefeated East used embroidery needles to take people's lives, which is not even a weapon. As for the so-called defense, the Wudang Sect's Chong Xuan Dao Commander danced a sword into a stormy sword flower array, slowly moving forward, how many could resist? To be precise, in a modern war that integrates attack and defense, where is there any pure defensive weapon to speak of? If there must be, it is completely a cover-up.
To provide weapons to a party to a conflict is nothing more than emboldening, or even an encouragement. In doing so, britain is doing nothing more than learning from the United States.
US Secretary of State Blinken arrived in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, on the 19th for a visit. A senior U.S. official confirmed to AFP that the United States had approved an additional $200 million in security assistance to Ukraine during the Blinken visit. Previously, the Biden administration had provided $450 million in aid to Ukraine.
On the one hand, it encourages the Ukrainian government and sends a large number of weapons and equipment; on the other hand, it is alarmist and creates a tense atmosphere that "Russia may attack Ukraine at any time at any time, and the situation is about to erupt", which is the environment that the United States is trying to create.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said on the 18th that at the invitation of the United States, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and US Secretary of State Blinken had a telephone conversation. The Russian side reiterates that the United States should give specific responses and explanations to the draft security treaties and agreements proposed by Russia in writing as soon as possible. Lavrov also urged the U.S. secretary of state not to repeat the speculation that Russia is about to invade Ukraine.
According to the arrangement, on the 21st, Blinken will hold a face-to-face meeting with Lavrov in Geneva. Russian presidential press secretary Peskov said the talks were crucial. However, judging from the American dialect, the prospects for the talks are not optimistic.
Blinken said in Ukraine on the 19th that there are only two ways to solve the Ukrainian problem, dialogue and conflict, and the United States very much hopes to be able to solve it through diplomacy, but this ultimately depends on Russian President Putin, who has the responsibility to dispel people's concerns about Russia's planned invasion of Ukraine. He also said that although Russia has proposed the need to sign legally binding bilateral terms to ensure that NATO stops its eastward expansion, he will not respond in writing in his meeting with Lavrov.
It is the customary practice of the United States to make some small moves in order to gain the upper hand in the talks, but now that the positions of the two sides are very different, what use can it be to toss and turn? (Author: He Yu, Gao Miaohong)
Column Editor-in-Chief: Qin Hong Text Editor: Lu Xiaochuan Caption Source: Visual China Image Editor: Yong Kai
Source: Author: Mandarin Global Review