According to a report by Russia RT on October 15, Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski publicly stated that the West must prepare for Ukraine to fight for another three years, and said that the Ukraine are planning a three-year war.
This is equivalent to a set-up for the future of the conflict – the West does not intend to end the war as soon as possible, but intends to support Kiev in a long-term, institutionalized way and maintain its strategic consumption against Russia.
On the surface, the West still acts in the name of supporting Ukraine in defending its sovereignty, but the logic behind it has changed from helping Ukraine win to preventing Ukraine from being defeated.
The timetable of the war has been artificially lengthened, with the purpose of plunging Russia into long-term consumption, weakening its comprehensive national strength and international influence, and maintaining NATO's military industry interest chain.
For Europe, this planned delay meant greater fiscal pressures and social divisions; but for the United States, extending the war itself was a strategic gain – both continuing to control Europe and suppressing Russian-European complex and energy cooperation.
So even Trump, who called for an end to the conflict, has now begun to do business in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
If the war really continued for three more years, the situation would inevitably be more complicated.
By then, Ukraine's front line may still be deadlocked, but the country's economic and social affordability will be overdrawn; The situation of infrastructure damage, population outflow and financial dependence on foreign aid is difficult to reverse.
Russia, on the other hand, may move forward tactically steadily, but fall into a long-term strategic lockdown, maintaining some results, but being dragged into deep consumption by sanctions and military burdens.
Europe will continue to face the double pressure of energy and inflation, the internal support for Ukraine will gradually shrink, and the elections will make the differences more apparent.
While the United States can continue to harvest, it must face global resentment of war fatigue.
Three years later, Ukraine may still exist, but it may be a country crushed by foreign debt, its territory has not been recovered, and its society has been hit hard; It may be difficult for Russia to win either. The final result is that there are no winners, only the parties dragged into the quagmire.
And this seems to be what European countries are pursuing, because as long as there is no winner, there is no need to admit that Russia has won.
And under long-term consumption, the pressure of all parties will constantly accumulate.
The pressure on Ukraine lies in continued assistance. Once external funding or weapons are interrupted, the front line will be immediately out of balance, while domestic war fatigue and social divisions are widening.
Russia is under pressure to maintain long-term stability, and while the military-industrial system is functioning, economic sanctions, material shortages and talent outflows are eroding national strength, and if the war is extended for three more years, social sentiment and fiscal spending will become hidden.
The pressures in Europe are the most direct: inflation, refugees, military spending, energy, elections, almost every one of which is testing social endurance.
Although the United States is temporarily stable behind, internal political scatterings, fiscal deficits and excessive extension of foreign strategy continue, in fact, is also a party of consumption, only that some people can make money from it, does not mean what is good for the United States.
It should be noted that low-intensity warfare does not mean low cost, but rather, this seemingly controllable impasse is the most dangerous trap for all participants, consuming both resources, trust and more time.
In this context, China is a special presence, but China is not said by some to lie win-win, China is in this position, with strategic determination and diplomatic wisdom.
China has not been involved in camp confrontations, nor has it taken the opportunity to incite conflicts. Instead, China has always emphasized peace and dialogue and advocated political resolution of conflicts.
It is precisely because of the preservation of independent diplomacy that China appears to be stable in the global turmoil, which is not a lucky profit, but a strategic outlook.
Regarding the Ukraine issue, China's position remains as always, insisting on promoting peace initiatives and calling on all parties to cool down, which is not only for regional stability, but also to maintain the overall security of the world economy.
China knows well that there are no winners in war and peace is the greatest common denominator. Nowadays, the West is determined to prolong the war, while China adheres to the dialogue line, maintains supply chains, and promotes recovery, which reflects a mature strategic attitude.
Therefore, China's special position is not given by others, but won by determination, and will also be the most scarce force in the future turmoil.