俄乌战争与美国道义危机：川普的错误抉择
https://twitter.com/fanzei_net/status/1895948782468284657
As everyone can see, Trump’s statements and actions regarding the Russia-Ukraine issue have faced continuous criticism from the anti-communist community.
These criticisms may come from sharing opinions of others or from personal critiques.
The fundamental reason for our criticism is that Trump’s actions have lost their moral and ethical legitimacy.
Before Trump took office, and shortly after he did, I had a debate with an American leftist about him. He tried to convince me that Trump was unfit to be the President of the United States.
He said Trump was a dictator.
I laughed and said, "I’m Chinese. Who understands dictators better than we do? Trump is far from being a dictator."
I supported Trump's election because I was dissatisfied with the Democratic Party’s approach to dealing with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). I hoped the U.S. would take stronger actions against the CCP. I believed that, at the very least, Trump was a clear-headed individual who could act and speak normally. Furthermore, his proposed policies of imposing tariffs on Chinese imports and bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. were effective strategies against the CCP.
He told me that Trump was a rapist and had been with many women. I said, "I don’t care how many women he has slept with. As long as he fights against the CCP, I support him."
Indeed, I had high hopes for Trump to strike hard against the CCP. For this, I even had numerous arguments with other anti-communist individuals on X.
I have always considered these issues from the standpoint of a Chinese dissident. As long as he fights the CCP, I don’t care what he does domestically in the U.S.
I despise Elon Musk because he not only built factories in China but also has deep exchanges of interests with the Chinese government. I have spoken about this many times before, so I will not elaborate here.
Even so, I tolerated it.
But now, I can no longer endure it. Trump’s statements and actions regarding the Russia-Ukraine war have become outrageous.
- Does the U.S. have an obligation to protect Ukraine when it is invaded?
After the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine inherited a large nuclear arsenal, making it the third-largest nuclear power after the U.S. and Russia. To ensure global nuclear non-proliferation, countries like the U.S. urged Ukraine to relinquish its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees.
On December 5, 1994, Ukraine, Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in Hungary. In return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons and joining the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the U.S., the U.K., and Russia pledged:
To respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and existing borders;
Not to use force or threaten to use force against Ukraine;
Not to impose economic pressure to influence Ukraine’s policies;
If Ukraine were attacked, the signatories would seek action through the UN Security Council;
Not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine unless Ukraine itself launched a nuclear attack.
Clearly, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violates its commitments under the Budapest Memorandum. The Trump administration’s attempt to force Ukraine into a rare earth mining agreement in exchange for continued U.S. support also violates the commitment not to impose economic pressure on Ukraine. Moreover, instead of seeking UN Security Council action, the Trump administration voted against a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia’s invasion.
The Budapest Memorandum is not a formal military alliance treaty with legally binding obligations like NATO’s Article 5. However, it still carries political and moral responsibilities to support Ukraine against aggression. A promise itself is a form of obligation. If promises can be broken at will, global trust will collapse, and the U.S.'s position in the world, built on its long-standing international credibility, will be destroyed.
Trump often says, "If I were president at the time, this war would not have happened." Is that really the case? I don't know. But one thing I do know is that if Ukraine had not given up its nuclear weapons, this war would definitely not have happened. From this perspective, who truly caused this war?
- Trump blames Ukraine for the war and calls Zelensky a dictator.
This is a blatant distortion of reality. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an indisputable fact. The Ukrainian people are fighting a just war of self-defense. Trump’s attempt to muddy the waters on this issue will only backfire.
What’s worse, Trump later denied his own words in an interview: “Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that.” They humiliated Zelensky in front of global media, mocked him for not wearing a suit, and forced him to thank the U.S. Yet, when it comes to Trump’s own serious false accusations against Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, he refuses to apologize—even though Zelensky has repeatedly expressed gratitude toward the U.S. on social media.
- Gaining support through justice, losing support through betrayal.
My fundamental judgment is that if both sides were left without allies and had to fight a 1v1 hot war, the U.S. could not defeat the CCP. The U.S. manufacturing capability is now far inferior to that of the CCP.
That is why I supported Trump’s election—because he sought to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. Major wars ultimately come down to supply capabilities: human resources, ammunition, logistics, and materials.
If Trump continues to alienate allies through his stance on Ukraine, the U.S. will face dire consequences. At best, traditional alliances will weaken, leading to trade disputes and mutual tariffs. At worst, a new global nuclear arms race could be triggered, plunging the world into crisis.
More importantly, this gives the CCP an opportunity. The CCP has long sought more influence in the international community, promoting its authoritarian governance model and attempting to position the Chinese yuan as a global currency alternative to the dollar.
- Why does the U.S. have the privilege of global financial dominance?
The reason the U.S. has maintained global financial dominance through the dollar is that it has played the role of upholding international order and justice. If the U.S. abandons this responsibility, it loses its justification for dollar hegemony. Meanwhile, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is actively pushing for the yuan to challenge the dollar’s position.
If the world ceases to recognize the U.S. dollar due to America’s moral failure, then the downfall of the U.S. is inevitable. The "rise of the East and decline of the West" will become reality. At that point, there will be no hope of the U.S. countering the CCP—it will be the CCP controlling the U.S. instead.
- What does it mean to oppose the CCP?
Ultimately, opposing the CCP means opposing autocracy and dictatorship. We believe in democracy and freedom. We believe that justice will prevail over evil. That is why we have supported the U.S. and viewed it as a beacon of democracy, freedom, and justice.
If the U.S. turns into an autocratic country with a dictator president, no longer upholding global justice but instead undermining it, why should we continue to support the U.S.? How would that be any different from supporting another version of the CCP?
Freedom is never free—it requires sacrifice. Dictators never fall on their own; their power is fueled by the submission of the oppressed.
The Ukrainian people’s resistance is not just about defending their land and dignity—it is about upholding global justice.
If you truly oppose dictatorship, you should support Ukraine’s fight against invasion and criticize Trump’s distortion of facts.
Ukraine will prevail. Justice will prevail.