“联俄抗中”是荒谬的幻想，姑息侵略换不来和平

一般我还是比较委婉客气的，但这几天铺天盖地的“联俄抗中”，还是令我感慨：这些人政治上的幼稚与天真，与他们的狂热和笃信，真是相得益彰。老唐那“中共苦心经营的格局瞬间崩塌”～宛如幽默话剧，还有那个叫艾森的，曾长篇论证薄瓜瓜账号为假，结果……判断力如此低下却吹嘘自己判断力强到自己都不好意思？充分诠释了什么叫越缺乏智慧越迷之自信。还有那些跟着踩泽连斯基的，把一个保家卫国的总统，我们这个时代最杰出的政治家之一的人物，描绘成送百姓当炮灰谋取私利的坏人。

历史每次都是这样，当正邪交战到关键激烈的时刻，就会冒出大量小丑，打着各种冠冕堂皇的招牌，指责那些战士，甚至指责反抗本身，积极在他们背后捅刀，并煽动其他人一起发难，好像所有的流血牺牲，反抗的战士们才是主要责任人，宣称如果顺从暴君，暴君是不会杀人的，至少不会杀那么多。看看当年二战，反法西斯战争相持不下时，有多少所谓的“正人君子”，跳出来反对继续对抗希特勒，鼓吹和平指责抗争？

这些小丑有时不会得逞，有时也会得逞，当他们得逞时，结果通常只有一个：坏人的议程得到最大限度的满足。

至于联俄抗中，别说稍微具有点专业政治素养了，就是有点政治历史常识，都知道这完完全全就是一个抽身的借口罢了。

有的人拿美国曾联中抗苏说事，其实，这个说法某种程度上是个伪命题。当年，中苏交恶，除了意识形态尖锐对立，军事上是已经动了手的。除了中国方面大力宣扬众人皆知的珍宝岛冲突，还有少有人知的苏联报复性伏击全歼中国军队。

这两方已经撕破了脸，中方在重压之下，其实是释放善意主动联美抗苏。我们说联一方抗一方，这个去联的主体，一般都是相对弱势，才需要借第三方之力去对抗强敌，比如联吴抗曹。所以，更准确的说法，其实是中国联美抗苏，而不是美国联中抗苏。

时至今日，美国是陷入什么弱势囧境，丢了老大地位，成了蜀国，必须要联俄抗中了？

中俄之间，无论是意识形态，还是地缘政治，亦或是经济贸易能源买卖……都没有什么根本的冲突，反而有着极大的互相弥补互相利用的现实需求，两国领导人普帝和平子，恐怕私交也比很多人想的更近。这种犬齿交错的利益联结，乃是最坚固的纽带，你美国凭什么能分化得了这两个国家？就凭卖了乌克兰满足普京？

就算卖了乌克兰，得到满足的俄罗斯更加强大，它后续的利益所在很明显是继续联手中国瓜分世界，划分势力范围颠覆国际秩序，它又有何理由帮美国对付中国？

就因美国不顾道义奉上乌克兰，所以俄国反而得讲道义信守对美国的承诺？

几个都不讲道义的匪帮，乙方脑抽帮甲方更强大了，甲方是更可能回报乙方，还是更可能翻脸进一步夺占乙方资源？帮助对手强大乃是自取灭亡之道，这是几百年前的马基雅维利都明白的道理。

很多人冷嘲热讽，说支持反侵略抗争的人怎么自己不上战场，只会让乌克兰人流血，到时乌克兰男人都死光了……

这些人的逻辑不值一驳，那些真的牺牲在抗俄前线的各国志愿者们，也不会得到他们半句赞扬。这些人是如此的短视，看不到在历史的长河中，不义的和平终究换不出一个好结果。

侵略者的野心是无穷无尽的，普京打了多少次仗了？上一次赢了，有阻止他再发动下一次么？用乌克兰作祭品，就能满足俄国了？

《六国论》开篇第一句是什么？

“六国破灭，非兵不利，战不善，弊在赂秦。”

而更广为人知的那句是什么？

“今日割五城，明日割十城，然后得一夕安寝。起视四境，而秦兵又至矣。”

不义换来的和平，只是下一次更惨烈的战争甚至是全面性的世界大战，那暴风雨之前的宁静罢了。

美国人还能想起自己立国先贤在独立战争时那篇振聋发聩的演讲《不自由 毋宁死》吗？

它的结尾是怎么说的？

“各位先生们大可高呼“和平！和平！”——但是和平已经被打破了。战争已经开始了！下一次北方的风暴席卷而来时，与之相伴的必定是隆隆炮响！我们的同胞们已经在战场上浴血厮杀了！为什么我们还仿佛置身事外一样？先生们，你们到底希望什么？你们最后又能获得什么？难不成你们觉得生命如此宝贵，和平那么美好，哪怕是以给自己戴上枷锁、接受奴役为代价也不愿牺牲吗？全能的上帝啊，请阻止他们！我不知道你们其他人会作何选择；但是于我而言，不自由，毋宁死！”

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 fighters 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. Helping 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!"