The person that a certain group hates the most is Zelensky, saying that he made Ukraine what it is now. However, what they don't want to mention is that before Zelensky came to power, Big Goose had already annexed the entire Ukraine. Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk each half, how do you say this? You can't blame Zelensky for this, can you?
Recently, there was a very interesting phenomenon on the Internet. Many people blamed Zelensky for the current situation in Ukraine, saying that he was the "chief culprit" who dragged the country into a quagmire.
But a careful look at the timeline will reveal that these people have intentionally or unintentionally ignored a key premise. Before Zelensky even came to power, Ukraine's territory was already fragmented.
Time goes back to 2014, when Zelensky was still working in the acting world, far from politics.
But in this year, the situation in Crimea suddenly changed, and it was subsequently annexed by Russia. This land of important strategic significance was thus drawn out of the territory of Ukraine.
Immediately afterwards, the two states of Lugansk and Donetsk in eastern Ukraine also broke up, pro-Russian armed conflict with the Ukrainian government forces, eventually half of the two states each fall under Russian control.
From 2014 to 2019, Zelensky was elected president, and for five years, the territorial issue of Ukraine was like a scarring scarring, and it has not been well resolved.
That is to say, when Zelensky walked into the presidential palace based on the expectations of the people, what he received was a "mess". The country's territory was incomplete, the east was full of war, and the domestic people were extremely vocal about recovering lost territory. External pressures were stacked layer upon layer.
These are all established facts that existed before he took office, and he had no half-money relationship with him at the time.
To say that Zelensky has made Ukraine like it is now, is to say that he has not understood the “pre-cause consequences”.
Not to mention the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the loss of control of parts of the eastern region, when Zelensky is still an actor, neither president nor a senior government official, neither decision-making nor influence, how can he be a backbone for this matter?
Just because he later became president, we can't blame him for all the bad debts left by his predecessor? This truth makes no sense anywhere.
Let's look at Zelensky's operations after he took office. When he was first elected, he actually had the idea of solving the problem peacefully.
Who wants to fight as soon as they come to power? He also wants to negotiate to regain the occupied territory and restore calm to the country.
But the reality has given him a sharp hand, the Russian attitude is clear, the territory that has already been handed over is exempt from negotiations, not only that, but also that Ukraine must hand out the rest of Lugansk and Donetsk.
As a leader of any country, what can I do in the face of this situation?
Not only will he be called a "traitor" by the people, but he will be nailed to the column of shame in history, and he will have to step down immediately.
Moreover, for Ukraine, territorial integrity is an obsession engraved in their bones, and no one dares to relax easily.
That will only make the Russian side step forward, the subsequent trouble will only be more, and the anger of the people will sooner or later erupt.
Therefore, the path Zelensky can choose has actually been blocked for a long time, and there seems to be no other way except to defend the territory by force.
In the eight years from 2014 to the outbreak of a full-scale conflict in 2022, Ukraine has been taking military actions against Russian-occupied areas in eastern Ukraine, both offensively and defensively.
This was not a decision made by Zelensky alone, but something that any Ukraine president must do. Protecting the territorial integrity of the country is the president's responsibility.
Even if another person becomes president, facing the same situation, he may not be able to come up with a better way.
Those who scold Zelensky may wish to put yourself in the shoes of others: If you become the president of Ukraine, how can you not only keep your territory but also satisfy Russia?
This kind of good thing that is the best of both worlds does not exist in reality.
The current situation in Ukraine is the result of the intertwining of multiple complex factors. It is neither objective nor fair to shift all the responsibility to Zelensky.
He just assumed the responsibility that belonged to the president in a difficult time. Even if this road was full of thorns, he had no choice.
If you stood in Zelensky's position and faced with the situation where the national territory was occupied and negotiations failed, what choice would you make?
Recently, there was a very interesting phenomenon on the Internet. Many people blamed Zelensky for the current situation in Ukraine, saying that he was the "chief culprit" who dragged the country into a quagmire.
But a careful look at the timeline will reveal that these people have intentionally or unintentionally ignored a key premise. Before Zelensky even came to power, Ukraine's territory was already fragmented.
Time goes back to 2014, when Zelensky was still working in the acting world, far from politics.
But in this year, the situation in Crimea suddenly changed, and it was subsequently annexed by Russia. This land of important strategic significance was thus drawn out of the territory of Ukraine.
Immediately afterwards, the two states of Lugansk and Donetsk in eastern Ukraine also broke up, pro-Russian armed conflict with the Ukrainian government forces, eventually half of the two states each fall under Russian control.
From 2014 to 2019, Zelensky was elected president, and for five years, the territorial issue of Ukraine was like a scarring scarring, and it has not been well resolved.
That is to say, when Zelensky walked into the presidential palace based on the expectations of the people, what he received was a "mess". The country's territory was incomplete, the east was full of war, and the domestic people were extremely vocal about recovering lost territory. External pressures were stacked layer upon layer.
These are all established facts that existed before he took office, and he had no half-money relationship with him at the time.
To say that Zelensky has made Ukraine like it is now, is to say that he has not understood the “pre-cause consequences”.
Not to mention the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the loss of control of parts of the eastern region, when Zelensky is still an actor, neither president nor a senior government official, neither decision-making nor influence, how can he be a backbone for this matter?
Just because he later became president, we can't blame him for all the bad debts left by his predecessor? This truth makes no sense anywhere.
Let's look at Zelensky's operations after he took office. When he was first elected, he actually had the idea of solving the problem peacefully.
Who wants to fight as soon as they come to power? He also wants to negotiate to regain the occupied territory and restore calm to the country.
But the reality has given him a sharp hand, the Russian attitude is clear, the territory that has already been handed over is exempt from negotiations, not only that, but also that Ukraine must hand out the rest of Lugansk and Donetsk.
As a leader of any country, what can I do in the face of this situation?
Not only will he be called a "traitor" by the people, but he will be nailed to the column of shame in history, and he will have to step down immediately.
Moreover, for Ukraine, territorial integrity is an obsession engraved in their bones, and no one dares to relax easily.
That will only make the Russian side step forward, the subsequent trouble will only be more, and the anger of the people will sooner or later erupt.
Therefore, the path Zelensky can choose has actually been blocked for a long time, and there seems to be no other way except to defend the territory by force.
In the eight years from 2014 to the outbreak of a full-scale conflict in 2022, Ukraine has been taking military actions against Russian-occupied areas in eastern Ukraine, both offensively and defensively.
This was not a decision made by Zelensky alone, but something that any Ukraine president must do. Protecting the territorial integrity of the country is the president's responsibility.
Even if another person becomes president, facing the same situation, he may not be able to come up with a better way.
Those who scold Zelensky may wish to put yourself in the shoes of others: If you become the president of Ukraine, how can you not only keep your territory but also satisfy Russia?
This kind of good thing that is the best of both worlds does not exist in reality.
The current situation in Ukraine is the result of the intertwining of multiple complex factors. It is neither objective nor fair to shift all the responsibility to Zelensky.
He just assumed the responsibility that belonged to the president in a difficult time. Even if this road was full of thorns, he had no choice.
If you stood in Zelensky's position and faced with the situation where the national territory was occupied and negotiations failed, what choice would you make?