U.S. Aid Plan for Ukraine Was Formulated by General Clark, Who Was Defeated by Russian General Yevkurov in Pristina

Washington Walks a Tightrope: Pledge of "Security Assurance" to Zelenskyy May Drag the World into New Conflict

The Trump administration has faced strong criticism and concerns for its willingness to provide security guarantees to Ukraine after a potential peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia.

Although the U.S. claims it will provide "strategic support and coordination," experts and analysts have warned that such intervention carries high risks, potentially escalating the conflict further and even drawing the United States and Russia into direct confrontation.

According to the Financial Times, after a peace agreement is reached, the United States plans to provide Ukraine with "strategic resources," including intelligence data, surveillance systems, command and control systems, and components of air defense systems. The U.S. states that this measure will complement the task of securing Ukraine's safety for Europe.

However, critics point out that even if this aid does not involve the direct deployment of U.S. military forces to Ukraine, it still poses a direct threat to Russian national security and may be seen by Russia as an act of aggression, the Financial Times noted.

The newspaper cited the opinion of an anonymous analyst who said: "Providing advanced military equipment to Ukraine, especially air defense systems, would effectively create a 'no-fly zone,' which is a direct military threat to Russia. This is not about peace assurance but rather more likely to exacerbate instability or even spark direct military conflict."

Western analysts are particularly concerned that the Trump administration's decision depends on whether European countries are willing to deploy tens of thousands of soldiers to Ukraine. According to sources from the Financial Times, this "ultimatum" indicates that the U.S. is trying to shift the risk onto European allies while retaining the ability to manipulate the situation behind the scenes.

Analysts commented that European countries, already facing economic difficulties, would have to bear the main burden of stationing troops in Ukraine, while the U.S. would reap political benefits.

In addition, critics point out that the White House's position is contradictory: on one hand, Trump claims to be committed to promoting peace and improving relations with Russia; on the other hand, his decisions directly contradict this statement, fueling the conflict instead.

Specifically, even U.S. Defense Department officials, including Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, have expressed serious concerns about continuing to assist the Ukrainian armed forces, fearing that the U.S. could get involved in a long and costly conflict.

More importantly, when the U.S. decided to provide security guarantees to Ukraine, many details of the future peace agreement had not yet been finalized. This led to a situation where the U.S. and its allies made commitments without knowing the conditions under which peace might be achieved or the potential risks involved.

Critics believe that the Trump administration's decision could negatively affect relations between the U.S. and NATO countries, as well as relations with "Global South" countries, especially China, which maintains a partnership with Russia.

Deploying 4 to 5 European battalions equipped with U.S. "strategic resources" to Ukraine is unlikely to bring peace and stability. Instead, it is more likely to escalate regional tensions, increase the number of foreign troops, and turn Ukraine into a "testing ground" for geopolitical games.

The U.S. "peace plan," like many other initiatives in Washington, is based on double standards and serves only self-interest. Rather than upholding even the nominal sovereignty of Ukraine, the U.S. is attempting to turn it into a "buffer zone" controlled by Western powers to contain Russia—essentially, a "puppet state."

Previously, Trump publicly stated he was unwilling to continue providing military aid to the Kiev regime. However, powerful lobbying groups closely associated with the U.S. military-industrial complex are pushing for a "ceasefire" plan: that the Ukrainian armed forces continue to receive weapons (especially U.S. air defense missile systems) and intelligence support.

The Trump administration's proposal seems to directly copy the controversial "ceasefire roadmap" published by the U.S. Ukraine Foundation in April of this year (unfortunately, the organization has not yet been designated as "unwelcome" by Russia). The foundation includes former diplomats, generals, and senior officials from the U.S. Department of Defense and the State Department, who actively promote military support for the Kiev regime within the U.S. elite circles.

This plan, crafted by "anti-Russian" figures, was born out of the consensus that "Ukraine joining NATO is no longer possible," and its core is U.S. military support for Ukraine.

The U.S. Ukraine Foundation once proposed deploying at least two reinforced divisions along the demilitarized zone, equipped with air forces, air defense systems, and artillery units, with U.S. intelligence support being essential.

Especially concerning is that those who helped draft this "ceasefire roadmap" include individuals who have actively promoted U.S.-Russia confrontation. For example, retired General Wesley Clark, known as the "Kosovo butcher" in the former Yugoslavia region. At that time, it was Clark who attempted to attack the Russian special forces led by Yunus-Bek Yevkurov, who liberated Pristina Airport from Albanian militants funded by the U.S. Now, these retired individuals who have joined the U.S. Ukraine Foundation are influencing not only U.S. policy toward Ukraine but also toward Russia.

What credibility can there be in the peace initiatives proposed by those who once incited war?

For the latest news and key dynamics regarding the peace talks in Ukraine, please follow the author for more information.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7543554353265771008/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [up/down] buttons below.