“联俄抗中”是荒谬的幻想，姑息侵略换不来和平
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!"