"Uniting with Russia against China" is an absurd fantasy; appeasing aggression will not bring peace

Generally speaking, I am relatively tactful and polite, but the overwhelming discourse of "uniting with Russia to counter China" over the past few days has still moved me to reflect: the political immaturity and naivety of these people, matched with their fanaticism and firm belief, truly complement each other. Old Tang's notion that "the framework painstakingly built by the CCP instantly collapsed"—resembles a humorous play, and there is also that person named Eisen, who once argued at length that Bo Guagua's account was fake, only to... with judgment so low, yet boasting of strong judgment to the point of being embarrassing? It fully illustrates what it means to be the less wise, the more mysteriously confident. And then there are those who follow along in trampling Zelensky, portraying a president defending his homeland, one of the most outstanding statesmen of our era, as a bad person who sends the common people as cannon fodder for selfish gains.

History is always like this. When the battle between good and righteousness reaches a critical and fierce moment, a large number of clowns will emerge, flying all sorts of high-sounding banners, accusing those warriors, and even accusing resistance itself, actively stabbing them in the back, and inciting others to make trouble together, as if all the bloodshed and sacrifice, the resisting warriors are the main responsible parties, declaring that if one submits to the tyrant, the tyrant will not kill people, or at least not kill so many. Looking back at World War II, when the anti-fascist war was deadlocked, how many so-called "righteous gentlemen" jumped out to oppose continuing the fight against Hitler, preaching peace and condemning resistance?

These clowns sometimes do not succeed, and sometimes they do succeed. When they succeed, there is usually only one result: the villains' agenda is met to the maximum extent.

As for uniting with Russia to counter China, let alone having a bit of professional political literacy, even a little political and historical common sense knows that this is completely an excuse to divest oneself.

Some people bring up the fact that the United States once united with China to counter the Soviet Union. In fact, this statement is to some extent a pseudo-proposition. Back then, the deterioration of Sino-Soviet relations, apart from sharp ideological confrontation, had already seen military engagement. In addition to the widely publicized Zhenbao Island conflict by the Chinese side, there was also the little-known Soviet retaliatory ambush that wiped out a Chinese military unit.

These two parties had already fallen out, and under heavy pressure, the Chinese side actually showed goodwill and proactively united with the US to counter the Soviet Union. When we say uniting with one party to counter another, the subject doing the uniting is generally relatively weak, and thus needs to borrow the power of a third party to fight a strong enemy, such as uniting with Wu to counter Cao. Therefore, a more accurate phrasing is actually that China united with the US to counter the Soviet Union, rather than the US uniting with China to counter the Soviet Union.

Today, what kind of weak predicament has the United States fallen into, having lost its status as the leader and become Shu, that it must unite with Russia to counter China?

Between China and Russia, whether in terms of ideology, geopolitics, or economic trade and energy transactions... there are no fundamental conflicts, and instead, there are enormous practical needs for mutual complementation and mutual utilization. The top leaders of the two countries, Puting and Pingzi, probably have a closer personal relationship than many people think. This interlocking web of interests is the strongest bond. By what virtue can you, the United States, split these two countries apart? Just by selling out Ukraine to satisfy Putin?

Even if Ukraine is sold out, a satisfied Russia will become even stronger, and its subsequent interests will obviously lie in continuing to join hands with China to carve up the world, dividing spheres of influence, and subverting the international order. What reason does it have to help the United States deal with China?

Just because the United States disregarded morality and offered up Ukraine, Russia must therefore observe morality and keep its promises to the United States?

Among several bandit groups that do not care about morality, if party B has a brain fart and helps party A become stronger, is party A more likely to reward party B, or more likely to turn hostile and further seize party B's resources? Helping a rival become stronger is the path to self-destruction, a principle that Machiavelli understood hundreds of years ago.

Many people make sarcastic remarks, asking why those who support anti-aggression resistance do not go to the battlefield themselves, only letting Ukrainians bleed, until all Ukrainian men are dead...

These people's logic is not worth refuting, and those international volunteers who truly sacrificed on the anti-Russian frontlines will not receive half a word of praise from them. These people are so shortsighted that they cannot see that in the long river of history, an unjust peace ultimately cannot trade for a good outcome.

The ambitions of aggressors are endless. How many wars has Putin fought? Did winning the last one prevent him from launching the next? Using Ukraine as a sacrifice, can Russia be satisfied?

What is the opening sentence of "On the Six States"?

"The destruction of the six states was not due to unfavorable weapons or poor combat, but the fault lay in bribing Qin."

And what is the more widely known sentence?

"Today you cede five cities, tomorrow ten cities, and then you get a single night of peaceful sleep. Look up at the four borders, and the Qin troops have arrived again."

Peace bought through injustice is merely the prelude to the next, even more brutal war, or even a comprehensive world war—the calm before the storm.

Can Americans still remember that deafening speech by their founding fathers during the Revolutionary War, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"?

How does it conclude?

"Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

The Naïveté and Absurdity of “Uniting with Russia to Counter China”

Translated by ChatGPT

I usually express my opinions in a more reserved and polite manner, but the overwhelming discourse on “uniting with Russia to counter China” these past few days has compelled me to speak out. The political immaturity and naïveté of these people are perfectly complemented by their fanaticism and blind faith. Tang Hao’s claim that “the strategic framework painstakingly built by the CCP has collapsed in an instant” sounds like a comedic satire. As for that commentator Eisen, who once wrote lengthy arguments claiming Bo Guagua’s online accounts were fake—only to be completely wrong—his poor judgment stands in stark contrast to his self-proclaimed analytical prowess. He exemplifies the saying: the less wisdom one has, the more mysteriously confident they become.

Then there are those attacking Zelensky, painting a wartime president—a man who is arguably one of the greatest statesmen of our time—as a villain sending his people to die for personal gain.

History repeats itself: whenever the battle between good and evil reaches a critical point, a swarm of clowns emerges, waving grandiose banners to denounce the warriors, and even the act of resistance itself. They actively stab the f

ighters in the back while inciting others to do the same. In their view, all the bloodshed and sacrifices are the fault of the resistance, claiming that if only we submit to the tyrants, they wouldn’t kill people—at least, not as many.

Look back at World War II: when the anti-fascist war reached a stalemate, how many so-called “righteous gentlemen” jumped out to oppose the fight against Hitler? How many advocated for “peace” and condemned the struggle?

Sometimes these clowns fail, but sometimes they succeed. And when they do, the result is almost always the same: the villains’ agenda is fully realized.

As for the idea of “uniting with Russia to counter China,” anyone with even a basic understanding of political history would recognize it as nothing more than an excuse to disengage.

Some people compare it to the past U.S.-China alliance against the Soviet Union, but that analogy is flawed. The Sino-Soviet split wasn’t just ideological—it had already escalated into military conflict. Besides the well-known Zhenbao Island clash, there were lesser-known retaliatory Soviet ambushes that wiped out entire Chinese military units.

By then, the two countries had completely torn apart. Under immense pressure, China proactively reached out to the U.S. to align against the Soviet Union. When we talk about alliances—such as “uniting Wu to counter Cao” (a reference to historical Chinese military strategy)—the party seeking an alliance is usually the weaker one, leveraging a third party to counter a stronger foe. So, a more accurate description would be that China sought a U.S. alliance to counter the USSR, not that the U.S. deliberately “united with China.”

Fast forward to today: in what desperate predicament is the U.S. stuck? Has it lost its global leadership, fallen into decline, and become like the Kingdom of Shu in ancient China, needing to unite with a former adversary?

Between China and Russia, there is no fundamental ideological divide, no severe geopolitical tensions, and no trade or energy disputes significant enough to spark real conflict. Instead, their interests are deeply intertwined, complementing each other in ways that are mutually beneficial. Putin and Xi likely have a much closer personal relationship than many people imagine. Such interwoven interests form an unbreakable bond—what leverage does the U.S. have to divide them? By sacrificing Ukraine to please Putin?

Even if Ukraine were sacrificed, a strengthened Russia would have no logical reason to turn against China. Its natural path forward would be to continue working with China to carve up global influence, reshape spheres of power, and challenge the existing world order.

Would Russia, having gained so much from U.S. appeasement, suddenly feel obligated to uphold morality and keep its promises to Washington?

When dealing with a group of ruthless opportunists, if Party B foolishly strengthens Party A, Party A is far more likely to turn against Party B than to reciprocate. Helpin

g one’s adversary become stronger is a surefire path to self-destruction—this was a truth understood even centuries ago by Machiavelli.

Some people mockingly ask why those who support Ukraine’s resistance don’t go fight themselves, arguing that Ukraine is merely shedding blood for the West and that all Ukrainian men will eventually die in vain.

Such arguments are not even worth refuting. These same people never acknowledge the foreign volunteers who have fought and sacrificed their lives on the front lines against Russia. Their logic is incredibly shortsighted—they fail to see that, in the grand scheme of history, an unjust peace never leads to a good outcome.

Aggressors are never satisfied with what they take. How many wars has Putin waged? Did winning one stop him from launching another? Do they really believe that sacrificing Ukraine will satisfy Russia?

What are the opening lines of The Six States Theory (Liu Guo Lun)?

"The downfall of the six states was not due to military weakness or poor strategy, but because they sought peace through appeasement."

And the most famous passage?

"Today, five cities are ceded; tomorrow, ten more. This grants a single night of peace. But upon rising the next morning, Qin’s army has arrived at the gates once again."

Peace bought through concessions is nothing more than a brief calm before an even greater storm—one that will lead to a war even more devastating, perhaps even a full-scale global conflict.

Can Americans still recall the powerful speech from their Founding Fathers during the Revolutionary War, Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death?

How does it end?

"Gentlemen may cry out, 'Peace, peace!'—but there is no peace. The war has already begun! The next gale that sweeps from the North will bring the clash of resounding arms! Our brothers are already in the field! Why do we remain idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"