EU Foreign Ministers Expose Putin's Peace Trap

German Chancellor Angela Merz has said that the Russo-Ukrainian War can only be ended under two circumstances: either the aggressor's military collapse or its economic collapse.

Ukrainian former Supreme Military Commander Zaluzhny once believed that if the invading army suffered more than 150,000 casualties, they would be unable to continue fighting. But to European incredulity, even after the invading army's casualties exceeded 1.09 million—the actual number is far greater—they showed no sign of giving up their aggression.

This is because different places have different values: in civilized places, life is the highest goal, and territory and resources serve life; in barbaric lands, life is merely a tool and the price paid by those in power to plunder territory and resources and pursue grand narratives.

While everyone values ​​their own life, as long as there are rulers, the lives of ordinary people are always worthless.

A British poll showed that 64% of Britons would not be willing to fight for their country if invaded.

Recently, following the intrusion of Russian drones into Polish airspace, a polling organization conducted a similar survey in Poland. The data showed that over 57% of Poles would refuse to enlist in the military to defend their country if war broke out. Only 26% of respondents expressed willingness to enlist or actively support the war in other ways, and another 17% refused to answer—those who refused to answer were generally those who refused to participate in the war.

Thus, the number of Poles unwilling to fight to defend their country actually exceeds 74%.

Some may be shocked by these statistics, but I find them unsurprising: what normal person wouldn't want to live well and refuse to kill or die?

In fact, the situation in Russia is similar right now.

A survey released this month by the independent Russian research organization Levada Center confirmed that support for the war against Ukraine in Russia has fallen to its lowest point since the outbreak of the war in 2022.

The data shows that 66% of respondents want immediate peace talks with Ukraine!

This is due to the following harsh fact: 58% of respondents said they were directly affected by the war. Among them, 30% reported that a relative or acquaintance had died, 28% said family members or friends were currently serving, 17% said they had lost a loved one, and another 16% said their loved ones were still fighting.

I believe that no matter where such a survey is conducted, the conclusions would be similar. Of course, in certain countries, people are afraid to speak their truth openly and may lie in surveys.

In fact, in places where countless people can openly lie with their fists raised and swear, opinion polls are meaningless.

I remember that in the early days of the war, Russian media outlets randomly interviewed young people on the street, asking them whether they supported the war against Ukraine. Almost all the respondents expressed their support with unwavering confidence. When the interviewers presented them with voluntary enlistment agreements to sign, all of them covered their faces and fled in panic.

Those who clamor for war are those who, because they believe they won't have to go to war, and those who support war are those who support a war that others are fighting in but they don't need to.

Although Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi can be cunning at times, he did say something close to the truth: "This is no longer the time for war."

Because people refuse to kill and die.

But where ordinary people have no say, opinion polls are meaningless.

So, Merz's words do speak the truth.

He also left out another truth: Russia's economy is unlikely to collapse—at least it will always have money to pay for the war; it's only the lives of ordinary Russians that will be crippled.

Trump's actions, of course, are deliberate, as they aim to help the aggressors create the conditions for victory.

If Europe and the United States want to end the war, the right approach is to provide massive military aid to Ukraine—giving whatever is needed, in whatever quantities, and defeating the invading forces on the battlefield.

Sanctions and restrictions on energy sales can only be auxiliary measures.

But the Trump administration has reversed priorities, treating so-called energy sales as the sole means to end the war, even rejecting sanctions, which are inherently ineffective. This is, of course, intentional, as it aims to help the aggressors create the conditions for victory.

Two days ago, the Trump administration lifted sanctions on Belarusian Airlines. Many people failed to grasp the special significance of this move: it effectively lifted certain key sanctions against Russia. Aid to Russia allows for the large-scale shipment of core components to Belarus, which in turn delivers them directly to Russia—the carefully closed technological door on aid to Ukraine has been rendered useless.

Yesterday, Trump wrote an open letter to European leaders, announcing his intention to impose "significant sanctions" on Russia, conditional on all NATO countries halting imports of Russian oil.

I can imagine a smug grin on Trump's face after he sent this letter. He knows full well that it's impossible for all NATO countries to halt Russian oil imports.

Not to mention other countries, Turkey can't do the same.

I've long said that capping Russian oil prices is the most sensible approach for the EU—with Canada and Japan also joining in—to prevent rising international oil prices while also making it unprofitable for Russia to sell its oil, essentially covering its production costs.

Simply because a Ukrainian drone attacked the Russian Baltic oil port of Primorsk on the 11th, international oil prices rose nearly 1% the next day. Without Rosneft, how much more would international oil prices have skyrocketed!

Trump's promise is like the saying, "Until the sun rises in the west." He will never impose sanctions on Russia, and he has successfully shifted the blame to NATO.

Rogues the world over, regardless of color, are all the same!

When NATO fails to deliver, he pushes for so-called "peace talks."

Having come from the Real Estate Association of New York, Trump knows that his former KGB boss is the master of what he calls the "art of the deal."

In reality, the Europeans have seen through the tricks in their "art of the deal."

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kallas stated that discussions about possible territorial concessions by Ukraine have fallen into the aggressor's "trap."

Kallas points out that Russia's classic negotiating strategy consists of three steps:

First, demand something that was never its fault;

Then, ultimatums and threats of force are issued;

Finally, Western powers begin to mobilize, preparing to offer the aggressor something it has never received.

In the end, the aggressor gets more than they ever dreamed of.

This is the plan Trump and his KGB handlers had in mind.