【Editor's Note】This article is authorized by the author and reprinted from the public account "Uncle Ming Miscellaneous", there are many wonderful contents, welcome to pay attention.
1) The Russian-Ukrainian conflict has entered its 23rd day, and the situation on the battlefield is actually very clear. The United States and NATO are unwilling to risk a direct military conflict with Russia and have not directly "participated in the war." The United States not only rejected the idea of "sending planes" to Ukraine, but also rejected the proposal to set up a "no-fly zone" in Ukraine. In this case, the military strength of Ukraine alone will at best bring some more or less harm to the Russian army and will not play a key role in turning the tide of the war. From the perspective of the battlefield alone, ukraine must be defeated and Russia must win, there is no suspense.
2) So why are there some people in the United States and China who continue to spread the "Putin must lose" argument? For the American and Western media, which have characterized the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as a contest of "aggression and counter-aggression," "authoritarianism and democracy," and even "light and darkness," how can they possibly admit that Putin will win victory on the battlefield from this ideological and moral standpoint? In addition, if they have a little common sense, they fantasize that the Ukrainian army really defeats Russia, but hope that after the United States provides a large number of "Pacesetter" anti-tank missiles and "Stinger" anti-aircraft missiles, it can kill and deplete the Russian army as much as possible, and then supplement it with various sanctions imposed by the United States and the West on Russia, and finally "collapse" Russia in the medium and long term. So why are there also people in China spreading the argument that "Putin must lose"? The main reason is that these people are extremely lacking in international common sense and simply do not have the ability to make independent thinking and judgment. In addition, they are deeply influenced by the American narrative and Western media reports, which makes this kind of argument extremely absurd.
3) The Russian-Ukrainian conflict enters its fourth week and it can now be clearly said, "Russia underestimated Ukraine, the United States underestimated Russia." When preparing for a special military operation, Russia may be thinking of the "Hungarian October Incident" in 1956 (two Soviet military interventions, which lasted 13 days), or the "Prague Spring" in 1968 (Soviet troops occupied all of Czechoslovakia in 6 hours). Russia's involvement in quelling the unrest in Kazakhstan not long ago may have encouraged Russia. However, there is no doubt that after the Russian army entered Ukraine, there was no situation in which the Ukrainian army fled and surrendered its weapons, and Russia did not realize the desire of "quick war and quick decision". There are many factors that have contributed to this situation. From the Ukrainian side, since the Crimean incident in 2014, the national consciousness and anti-Russian consciousness in Ukraine have been continuously enhanced, which is manifested on the battlefield as the strong will to fight of the Ukrainian army. The united States and NATO have carried out military training and assistance to Ukraine all year round, which has also enhanced the actual combat effectiveness of the Ukrainian army. From the Russian side, today's Russia's comprehensive national strength and military combat effectiveness are not as good as those of the Soviet Union at its peak, and it also lacks the international mobilization capabilities brought about by the Warsaw Pact organization in that year. Russia, in the need for post-war reconciliation, did not take a bloody offensive battle, which also slowed down the speed of the Russian offensive. In addition, the Russian military has not been elite in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, and Russia has retained considerable strength to a large extent, the main purpose of which is to deal with the "unexpected action" that NATO may launch against Russia. Although NATO did not dare to act rashly after Russia conducted large-scale military exercises and mobilizations, especially after raising the level of nuclear deterrence, Russia still had to keep a backhand and beware of NATO.
Russian troops enter Crimea
4) Although Russia has not realized its desire for a "quick battle and a quick decision", the current situation on the battlefield is still acceptable to Russia. The Russians had inflicted extensive damage to the main military facilities of the Ukrainian army and had completed a certain degree of concentration in major cities. At this time, whether it is "fighting" or "talking", Russia is relatively calm. During this period, Russia can also allow a large number of civilians to withdraw to reduce civilian casualties in the possible subsequent offensive battles; the Russian army can take this opportunity to rest and increase supplies. Next, in the case that the United States and NATO decided not to participate in the war, the further back, the more obvious the advantages of the Russian army will be, and the greater the difficulties of the Ukrainian army. The Russian army has a good time, wants to fight and talk, and does as long as Ukraine wants.
5) For the Russian-Ukrainian talks, all parties do not have to have too many expectations. Whether for Russia or Ukraine, "what is not available on the battlefield is not available at the negotiating table." Although the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations seem to be "new progress" every day, in fact Ukraine has not made up its mind to sign the alliance under the city. In the past few days, Ukrainian President Zelenskiy has continuously delivered speeches to the parliaments of major Western countries such as Britain, the United States, and Germany, shutting his mouth to either ask for weapons and assistance, or constantly asking NATO to set up a "no-fly zone" in Ukraine. Judging by Zelenskiy's performance, this is not at all the appearance of giving up resistance. From Ukraine's point of view, as long as the Russian army has not yet achieved a decisive victory on the battlefield, it can fight and talk, wait for Western assistance, and even if the situation does not reverse, it can also strive for better conditions at the negotiating table. In addition, for the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations, the final result, the EU may accept, but the United States will certainly not accept. Therefore, the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations will definitely not be smooth.
6) For Russia, the current risks on the battlefield are mainly two: First, the United States and NATO continue to arm Ukraine, especially to provide a large number of targeted anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, drones, etc., which may cause greater damage to the Russian military, and the Russian army should still speed up the progress as much as possible and promote the early outcome of the negotiations with the progress on the battlefield. The Russian military also needs to strengthen the tracking and monitoring of the weapons aided by the United States and NATO to Ukraine, and destroy them on the road as much as possible; second, in the long run, the Russian army must not fall in love with war, so as not to turn Ukraine into a second Afghanistan (the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, after a long period of attrition, and eventually became one of the reasons for the disintegration of the Soviet Union), so that the situation will be very unfavorable to Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said he will not occupy Ukraine, possibly taking into account the bitter lessons of the historical Soviet version of the "War in Afghanistan."
Putin televised speech: said that he would not occupy Ukraine
7) For the United States, in the face of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the first thing is not to be directly involved as much as possible, so as not to fall into another "wrong war", unnecessarily depleting its national strength, and allowing China to obtain a period of strategic opportunities again. However, the United States continues to give Zelenskiy a stage to perform, and in the end, it may actually lead to the kidnapping of American strategic decisions. A few days ago, Zelenskiy delivered a video speech to the US Congress, which was very sensational and dramatic. In his speech, Zelenskiy played the destruction and killings inflicted by the Russian army on Ukraine, which brought many members of the US Congress to tears on the spot. Zelenskiy also cited Pearl Harbor and 9/11, two events that are familiar to all Americans, to inspire "empathy" and "hatred" of what ukraine is currently experiencing. Judging by the results, Zelenskiy's speech was very successful, and the latest spending bill signed by US President Biden will provide up to $13 billion in aid to Ukraine. Although the United States is doing its best to avoid "distraction" in the context of the Sino-US game, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has developed so far that the United States has shown signs of having to get more and more involved.
8) Due to the continuous fire of the United States in advance and the expression of various support for Ukraine, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has developed to this point, and if the United States sits by and watches the collapse of Ukraine and signs the alliance under the city, it will damage the credibility of the United States as a superpower, and will further weaken the belief of American allies in the reliability of the United States after the "Great Collapse of Afghanistan". The United States actually faces a dilemma when it comes to Ukraine. If it is deeply involved on a large scale, it will not only risk a direct military conflict with Russia, a nuclear power, but also be strategically "distracted", affecting the "overall situation" of the Sino-US game that many people in the United States believe. If the United States is not involved, it will damage its credibility and credibility. The United States is the initiator of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, although when the war first broke out, the United States enjoyed the unity of the Western world, but the further the war dragged on, the more likely the United States is to pay a substantial price.
9) For the United States, it is now clear that the Biden administration underestimated Russia. Through the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the main purpose of the United States is to weaken and attack Russia as much as possible. Although some strategists in the United States have been calling for the United States to "reconcile with Russia" and "unite russia", from a practical point of view, the Biden administration has given up the possibility of reconciliation with Putin. When the United States provoked the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, it mainly hoped that through comprehensive sanctions, Russia would "cut itself off from the Western world" and form a containment, containment and blockade against Russia. At the same time, through the propaganda machine controlled by the United States and the West, it will further smear and attack Russia, "beating it" into an unpopular "untouchable" in the international community. In the short term, the United States will continue to "arm" Ukraine, as far as possible under the guise of Ukraine, to cause greater damage and damage to russian military equipment and living forces. However, in fact, on the battlefield, although Russia has not been able to achieve a "quick battle and quick decision", it still firmly occupies the initiative, and it remains to be seen how much damage the "armed" US military can bring. Strategically, the sanctions and public opinion attacks launched by the United States have indeed hurt Russia, but at present, there is no sign that Russia will collapse. Next, as long as Russia insists on one more day, it will consume one more day for the United States, which is a situation that the United States has to face.
10) For the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the best outcome is that, on the basis of the Russian-Ukrainian peace talks, the United States, the European Union (Germany and France), and China will join in, and finally reach an agreement on the complete neutralization of Ukraine, which will be approved by the UN Security Council, thus having broader international legitimacy. In this way, both Russia's security concerns can be addressed and Ukraine's security requirements can be met. Since then, Russia and Ukraine have lived in peace, and Ukraine has stepped up efforts to solve the problems of political corruption and people's livelihood. But the United States is likely not going to let Russia "win." The United States will not hesitate to shed the last drop of Ukrainian blood and die with Russia. For the United States, once Ukraine is completely neutral, not only will all the designs made by the United States to provoke the Russian-Ukrainian conflict be destroyed, but it will also greatly damage the international prestige of the United States. Moreover, once Ukraine is neutralized, it will lose the use value of the United States to build it into an "anti-Russian fortress" and an "anti-Russian front". If so, the United States will certainly not be wronged, and will continue to help Ukraine free of charge just out of humanitarianism and friendship between the american and Ukrainian peoples, and this "loss-making business" is a choice that naturally violates the genes of the United States. In the event that Ukraine cannot successfully achieve neutralization, the United States will continue to wear the hat of "moral authority" and do things that hurt all sides. The United States will make the Ukraine problem as long as possible, so as to consume Russia, provoke confrontation between the European Union and Russia, and finally the United States will take the opportunity to sell arms and energy, and enjoy the benefits of the fishermen. Through the Ukraine crisis, we can once again see that the United States as a country has shown signs of "blackening" in its domestic and foreign policies. The "deterioration" of the United States is no longer a moral judgment, but an institutional and structural problem, and I will analyze it in depth later.
For Zelenskiy, I thought he was a politician with the ideal of "saving the country", but at the moment, he seems more like an "actor" who is too deep into the drama. While enjoying the flowers and applause that the Western world had given him, he pushed Ukraine into a place of perdition. Or, the United States has already used "value identification" and "interest kidnapping" to turn him into a "spiritual American." In every respect, Ukraine as a country is a complete tragedy. It is really regrettable that such a "big country" with unique conditions has been reduced to a chess piece or chessboard for geopolitical games. A true politician should consider the fundamental and long-term interests of the country and the nation regardless of personal honor and disgrace. Zelenskiy seems to be the opposite.