The original article is on Alexandr Potemkin’s Facebook page.
An armed confrontation has been ongoing for seven years in Ukraine, which means that the number of casualties among the military and civilians is inexorably increasing, hundreds of thousands of citizens cannot return to their homes, holes in the economy and loan debts are growing. Current president of Ukraine and his party won the election, promising to make peace but that was a long, long time ago.
The Ukrainian nation plactically kicked out radically oriented Poroshenko and Turchynov, and enthroned Zelensky instead; but he was not ready to divide Ukrainians into the "right" and "wrong" ones. And there's still no peace. At that, there is a way that is understandable and approved by all parties to the conflict; one doesn't need to search or invent it. These are Minsk agreements. The plan was even approved by the UN Security Council. So why there's still shooting?
They say if the stars are lit, then someone needs it. Let's sort it out - who needs an armed conflict in Donbas?
Does Russia need a conflict? No, it doesn't. No country needs dozens of thousands of refugees, and a source of instability on the border.
Does the EU need a conflict? No, it doesn't. Europe takes huge damage from sanctions against Russia. Due to the U.S. pressure, Europe halts construction of Nord Stream 2, which the EU needs like the air.
What about the USA and their loyal friends, the British? They are the ones who benefit from the ongoing armed conflict.
The U.S. use instability on the Russian-Ukrainian border as a tool of pressure on the Russian Federation. The U.S. restraub the EU, not letting Germany and France evolve and compete with the Americans in the trade wars in the new, post-Covid world.
Now that the Brexit took place, the British are not interested in the EU's welfare, and to the large extent, they benefit from a lasting crisis. This is what Britain, in fact, took upon itself the role of Zelensky's curator in the matters of military conflict with Russia. Zelensky gets the instructions of how to act further from the British.
After all, both Britain and the U.S. are far away from the conflict zone, and the refugees from Donbas will not reach them. They are not interested in Nord Stream 2, either, and it will be the EU's problem. And now, that the representatives of Donetsk and Luhansk loudly claimed that they were ready to negotiate with Zelensky on the "ceasefire" and lots of other things, Zelensky refused again.
Next time when you watch another fancy video by Zelensky, in which he speaks about the losses in Donbas - just think about it: what did Zelensky do for the losses in Eastern Ukraine to cease? Who did ne negotiate with? What did he offer - and to whom? What provisions of Minsk agreements did he live up to? I guess that in two years in office, the former comedian realized he depends on Anglo-Saxon too much to deny them. So, he walks the same path they showed him. And it's the path of continuing the war.
Editorial staff may disagree with the author's opinion. If you want to write to the "Opinion" section, read the rules of publication and write to [email protected]