这是一场鸿门宴：白宫对泽连斯基的施压与背后的算计

A Banquet of Doom: White House Pressure on Zelensky and the Hidden Agenda

This Is a Banquet of Doom: White House Pressure on Zelensky and the Hidden Agenda

Some say the White House bullied Zelensky—was it just that?

With my professional sensitivity, I instinctively sensed a setup when that journalist suddenly questioned Zelensky about not wearing a suit. Zelensky had already explained this long ago: as a wartime president, taking off the suit symbolizes standing with the soldiers until the day the war ends. This question, deliberately asked despite knowing the answer, was likely premeditated.

After the meeting, the American side launched a full-scale offensive. Even pro-Ukraine Senator Lindsey Graham turned on Zelensky in front of the cameras, representing the Republican Party and voicing the shared wish of Trump and Putin: "Zelensky, just resign!"

Having a formerly pro-Ukraine Republican senator play this reversal makes the act more convincing. However, the performance was a bit too theatrical, suggesting prior coordination.

At the meeting, Vice President Vance took the lead, which was likely part of an American strategy or pre-arranged plan. Playing the role of an outspoken critic was most suitable for this young, ambitious, yet relatively powerless vice president. While berating Zelensky, he didn’t forget to flatter Trump, boasting about how great the president is and pressuring Zelensky: "Your previous thanks to the American people don’t count—you must thank Trump here and now!" Vance even echoed what Trump had long wanted to say directly to Zelensky: "You actually went to Pennsylvania to campaign for the Democrats!"

One wonders if Vance himself realizes that playing the attack dog in this scenario comes with risks—if things go wrong, he’ll be the one taking the blame and backlash.

Sure enough, after the event, American netizens overwhelmingly condemned Vance, bombarding him with comments like "Shame on you!" Many Americans outright accused Vance and others of bullying a president who is resisting a real dictator.

It turns out that many Americans still have their eyes wide open.

Perhaps Vance was prepared to take the hit for Trump.

Some say Zelensky failed to control his temper and should have taken a softer approach...

Sounds reasonable, but can you guys be a bit more manly? Imagine yourself representing your country, sitting there while a journalist suddenly ambushes you with a loaded question. Then Vance points at your face, publicly pressuring you, while Trump sneers at you with the utmost disdain, constantly humiliating you: "You have no right to this, no right to that. You have no leverage. If not for me, you wouldn’t even have a hand to play!"

This isn’t just a personal humiliation—it’s an insult to the country you represent and a disgrace to the moral principle of resisting aggression.

This was a political trap, carefully set up in advance. The executioners were already in place, aiming to turn Zelensky into a scapegoat, shaping public opinion to paint him as the obstacle to peace. This would pave the way for more pressure to force concessions or, ideally, his resignation—so that negotiations with Russia could proceed smoothly.

Why do these people keep saying, "This is Europe’s problem, it has nothing to do with us Americans, we’re an ocean away," while at the same time being so desperately eager to push for peace talks? Isn’t that contradictory? Are they truly doing this out of kindness, hoping to prevent Ukraine from being destroyed? Unlikely.

The idea that "Trump is Putin’s little fanboy or a KGB agent" doesn’t fully explain it either.

The real reason for their urgency likely lies in their failing political projects—one after another, their promises to voters are falling apart. Some are being blocked by judges, others are simply infeasible, much like the fantasy of building a border wall with Mexico without spending a dime of U.S. money—a promise that ended up as a joke Trump never mentions anymore.

The promise of ending the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours was probably just symbolic rhetoric. But if Trump fails to produce even symbolic results, it would be an enormous embarrassment. If Russia and Ukraine suddenly cease hostilities, Trump could tout it as his greatest political achievement, distracting from all his failed projects.

That’s why we’re hearing Trump urge Zelensky: "Just cease fire first, the agreement can be discussed later."

Exactly—Trump doesn’t actually care about the agreement itself. What he values most is stopping the war, because as soon as that happens, he can turn on the propaganda machine to boost his political standing. As for the actual agreement? Who cares!

Once you understand what your opponent truly wants, you hold the real leverage.

Trump claims Zelensky has no bargaining power, but in reality, it’s Trump who has none.

Trump likes to talk about reality, so let’s talk reality.

Anyone with a functioning brain knows that Ukraine’s most dangerous moment was the first few weeks of the full-scale invasion. At that time, Ukraine’s main equipment, military structure, and even combat style were all Soviet-era relics—outdated in both mindset and weaponry. Yet, Ukraine managed to stop Russia’s ferocious assault on its own.

Does today’s Russian army still have the same sharp edge? The ancient Chinese essay Cao Gui’s Battle Strategy states: "The first strike brings momentum, the second strike weakens, and the third strike exhausts." Even if Russia hasn’t reached the final stage of exhaustion, it’s certainly past its peak and now in decline. Even the North Korean troops they brought in have lost their initial momentum.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s army, despite its challenges, is no longer the same force as at the start of the war. It has transformed into a formidable million-strong force. In a defensive war against aggression, the invaded side always has more resilience—because there’s nowhere left to retreat. Afghanistan wore down the mighty Soviet Union—why wouldn’t Ukraine, with far greater military strength, be able to do the same to a weaker Russian army?

Even without U.S. aid, even if European support is insufficient, Ukraine could still fight for another year or two without issue. If that happens, the U.S. will be sidelined, Ukraine will remain standing, and who will be left in an awkward position? Who will be exposed as the one holding no real leverage?

Of course, some will parrot Trump’s moral argument: "If the war continues, more people will die! It could lead to World War III!"

These historical illiterates should revisit World War II. If the West had not appeased Hitler at Munich—or better yet, if they had decisively confronted him when he marched into the Rhineland—World War II might never have happened. Even Hitler admitted that if Britain and France had sent troops at that moment, he would have backed off with his tail between his legs and never dared such a gamble again. But the world let the chance to prevent war slip away through repeated concessions.

How many wars has Putin already launched? Do you really think that surrendering this time will make Tsar Putin stop attacking you in the future?

Which path leads to lasting peace? Kneeling and surrendering, or making Putin feel real pain—perhaps even crippling his ability to wage war?

Those who distort truth, who preach peace while actually pushing the world toward a real World War III—you can all go eat dirt along with the current U.S. administration.