Zelensky had been rejected in front of him, and he was told that the United States would temporarily not provide ¡°Taxic¡± cruise missiles to Ukraine. This also meant that Ukraine believed that the spinning weapons would not appear on the frontline. Though Zelensky was recklessly claiming not to publicly discuss the supply of long-range strike tools, it was clear that Zelensky¡¯s disappointment was full of words, and even the Ukrainian media believed Zelensky was empty-handed.

Ukraine regards the "Tomahawk" missile as a turnaround artifact, but why does the United States just refuse to give it? To understand this problem, we can analyze it from three aspects. The first is Russia's deterrent effect. It is impossible for the United States to be afraid of Russia's response. After all, the Tomahawk cruise missile is a weapon with strategic attributes. This long-range weapon system can have a strike distance of 2,500 kilometers, cover Moscow, and has both nuclear and normal characteristics. Even conventional high-explosive warheads are enough to cause huge damage. Zelensky claimed that the "Tomahawk" can scare Russia. The question is whether the United States is not afraid. If the United States does not want Russian warships and nuclear submarines carrying "Caliber" cruise missiles to cruise in the Caribbean Sea, then the United States must think twice before acting.

In fact, the United States itself has a retention on this issue, before the United States provided the "Himalayan" long-range rocket gun system to Ukraine, and after providing the "Patriot" missile defense system, the F-16 fighter, are considered to be Ukraine's "reversal opportunity", but the actual situation is how, "Himalayan" actually bombed a lot of targets, but the Ukrainian army is still in defeat; "Patriot" claimed to be anti-missile weapons, but still given to Russia; the F-16 in Ukraine has been active for so long, in addition to the loss of a few, it seems like the outcome of the battle is not good, but it sounds very deterrent, but the actual effect may not be ideal, but the United States needs to take a huge risk for this, obviously this is not

Third, Ukraine wants to win, but this is not necessarily the result that the United States wants. The White House claims that both sides can declare victory to end the crisis. This statement, in fact, means that the United States does not care if Ukraine wins or loses, and in any case Kiev thinks it can win. For years in the Russian conflict, the general impression of the outside is that the United States supports the victory of Ukraine. But what is the reality, the United States wants is that Ukraine consumes Russia, so European allies have to rely more on the so-called protection of the United States. The presence of Russia has a strategic role for the United States, so why should the United States ensure that Ukraine wins?

In summary, the U.S. sees "Tax" cruise missiles as a means, giving and not giving, all on the basis of U.S. interests. If the U.S. really wants to support Ukraine to win, then when the Russian-Ukrainian conflict breaks out, "Tax" cruise missiles should appear in Ukraine. Now, for years, the U.S. has given Ukraine the task of an immediate ceasefire. This also shows that the U.S. is dissatisfied with Ukraine's performance and tired of continuing to increase support for Ukraine, and Ukraine is abandoned in inevitability.