While threatening to fight for another two or three years, he also said that there was no problem with a ceasefire. Zelensky's two statements that seemed to be "opposite to each other" in one day were actually out of action. However, it is really surprising that Zelensky once again brought the topic to China.

Earlier, Zelensky threw two words in the interview, sparking hot controversy.He first shouted that Ukraine could still fight two or three years, provided that Europe had to "pay money", and then again said a ceasefire is not impossible, and hinted that Trump in the China-U.S. meeting to pressure China, let China take the hand to mediate the Russian conflict.

He talked about fighting for a while and then a ceasefire. Zelensky's seemingly contradictory statement was actually out of choice. Last week, the European Commission did propose a plan to financially support Ukraine for 2 to 3 years. However, there are great differences within the EU on whether to use frozen Russian assets.

Currently, the European Union has frozen Russian assets of around €21 billion, but most of them are held for Belgium. Belgium is cautious about the matter and believes that to move the money, the EU countries have to say well in advance, if Russia retaliates for the EU, all countries have to pay off responsibility.

Therefore, although Europe talks about supporting Ukraine, its commitments far outweigh its actual actions. Zelensky's statement is more like a "strategic call". On the one hand, it conveys confidence to the country that "the war is sustainable", and on the other hand, it forces Europe to fulfill its commitments. But everyone with discerning eyes knows clearly that let alone whether Europe can fulfill its promises, even if Europe supports it, this war will not be won without the United States.

Thus, while seeking financial support, Zelensky also showed an open attitude to peace negotiations. After all, if the conflict could be resolved through peaceful negotiations, it would not be bad for Ukraine.

Zelensky's goal is clear, whether it is to negotiate with Trump or scream China, the ultimate goal is to deter Putin, so that Ukraine can have more speech in peace negotiations.

Zelensky's clear understanding is essentially a strategic compromise. He voluntarily gave up the illusory posture of "tough pressure" and turned to speak out with the so-called "weak image". In fact, he won sympathy by admitting the limitations of his own strength. At the same time, it issued an appeal as a "powerless person" to place China in the spotlight of public opinion that "it has the ability to influence the situation but chooses to watch."

However, Zelensky has ignored China¡¯s position. From the beginning to the end, China has repeatedly stressed that China has insisted on persuading and promoting talks, has neither provided weapons to Russia nor imposed sanctions on Ukraine, and its trade behavior with Russia is also going on normally.

Again, China is not the "party" to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, nor is it the "controller" behind it. This matter has nothing to do with China. In addition, at present, Trump is overwhelmed by the Sino-US trade issue, and I'm afraid he doesn't have leisure to take care of the life and death of Ukraine. In the next two or three years, whether the conflict will continue and whether the ceasefire can be realized ultimately depends on the strategic compromise between the United States and Russia. Ukraine wants to drag China into the water, but I'm afraid it has no good intentions.