The Russia-Ukraine War and the American Moral Crisis: Trump's Wrong Choices

Fellow dissident friends, as everyone has seen, Trump's series of statements and actions regarding the Russia-Ukraine issue have been continuously criticized by Fanzei Net.

These criticisms may be reposting content from other critiques, or publishing our own critiques.

The most fundamental reason for our criticism is that Trump's actions have lost righteousness—morality and justice.

I remember before and right after Trump took office, I had an argument with an American leftist centered around Trump. He tried to convince me that Trump was not someone suited to be President of the United States.

He said, he is a dictator.

I laughed and said, I am Chinese, is there anyone who knows better than us what a dictator looks like? Trump is still far from being a dictator.

I supported Trump's election because I was dissatisfied with the Democrats' actions regarding the CCP, and I hoped the United States would strike harder against the CCP. I felt that Trump was at least a lucid person who could act and express himself normally. Moreover, the increased tariffs on Chinese imported goods and bringing manufacturing back to the US that he promoted were very effective strategies to hit the CCP.

He told me Trump was a rapist who played around with many women. I said, I don't care how many women he has fucked; as long as he can strike at the CCP, I will support him.

That's right, I had high hopes for Trump, hoping he could strike hard at the CCP, and for this reason, I even got into fierce arguments with quite a few anti-CCP figures on X.

I have always thought about issues from the standpoint of a Chinese person and a Chinese dissident. As long as he can strike at the CCP, I didn't care at all how he caused turmoil domestically in the United States.

I strongly dislike Musk, because Musk not only built factories in China, but also has deep exchanges of interests with the Chinese government. I have said a lot about this before, so I won't say more here.

Even so, I tolerated it.

However, now I really cannot tolerate it anymore. On the Russia-Ukraine issue, Trump's words and actions have reached an appalling degree.

1. Does the United States have an obligation to protect Ukraine when Ukraine is invaded?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine inherited a large number of nuclear weapons, becoming the world's third largest nuclear weapons state after the United States and Russia. To ensure global nuclear non-proliferation, countries like the United States hoped Ukraine would give up its nuclear weapons and provided security assurances. On December 5, 1994, Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom signed the [Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances] in Budapest, Hungary. In exchange for Ukraine relinquishing nuclear weapons and joining the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia provided security assurances to Ukraine, committing to:

• Respect the independence, sovereignty, and existing borders of Ukraine;

• Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine;

• Refrain from economic coercion designed to influence Ukraine's policies;

• Seek immediate UN Security Council action if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression;

• Not use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, unless in self-defense against a nuclear attack by Ukraine.

Obviously, Russia's invasion of Ukraine violated the commitments in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The Trump administration's attempt to force Ukraine into signing a rare earth minerals development agreement in exchange for continued US support for Ukraine also violated the commitment to "refrain from economic coercion designed to influence Ukraine's policies." "Seek immediate UN Security Council action" turned into "UN General Assembly backs resolution condemning Russian invasion, US votes against" under the Trump administration.

The Budapest Memorandum is not a legally binding formal military alliance treaty, and therefore is not equivalent to NATO's collective defense obligations (such as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty), but it still bears the political and moral responsibility to support Ukraine against aggression. A promise itself is a constraint. If promises can be violated, abandoned, or overthrown at will, the world's credibility will cease to exist. The position of the United States in the world today is also entirely built upon the international credibility it has accumulated over a long time.

Trump often says: "If I were president then, this war wouldn't have happened." Is that really true? I don't know, but there is one thing I know: if Ukraine had not given up nuclear weapons back then, this war definitely wouldn't have happened now. From this perspective, who really triggered this war?

1. Trump accuses Ukraine of starting the war, and calls Zelensky a dictator.

This is blatant distortion of black and white. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is an indisputable fact. What the Ukrainian people are waging is a completely righteous war against aggression. Trump's attempt to make an issue of this and muddy the waters will inevitably end up shooting himself in the foot. Even more abominable is that Trump later said in an interview: "Did I say that? I can't believe I said that." Yes, they publicly humiliated Zelensky in front of global media, mocked him for not wearing a suit, and forced him to say thank you to the United States. Yet he himself would never say "sorry" for such a serious mistake as smearing Zelensky and the Ukrainian people—even though, in fact, Zelensky had previously expressed gratitude to the United States multiple times on social media.

1. A just cause attracts much support, an unjust one finds little.

I have a fundamental judgment: if both sides lack any aid from allies and fight a pure 1v1 hot war, the United States cannot defeat Communist China. Because American manufacturing capacity is far inferior to Communist China's now. This is also an important reason why I supported Trump's election, because he attempted to bring manufacturing back to the US. In the end, a real war between major powers inevitably comes down to supply capacity—manpower supply, ammunition supply, and the supply of various materials and logistics.

Based on this judgment, I believe that if Trump continues such operations on the Ukraine issue that alienate allies from the US, it will inevitably lead to the US being deserted by its allies and falling into isolation. At best, relations with traditional allies will deteriorate, with mutual accusations and mutual tariff hikes. At worst, it will trigger a new round of global nuclear arms race, plunging the world into a nuclear proliferation crisis.

https://twitter.com/fanzei_net/status/1895948782468284657

Most importantly, this gives the CCP an opportunity to exploit. The CCP has always sought a greater voice in the international community, promoting its totalitarian governance system globally, and replacing the US dollar's international currency status with the RMB.

1. Why can the US dollar legitimately fleece the world?

The matter of the United States fleecing the world through the US dollar must be brought up now. It wasn't brought up before because the United States was still shouldering the role of maintaining international order and justice, which made fleecing through the dollar legitimate. If you do not shoulder the responsibility of maintaining world order and justice, then the US dollar is no longer qualified to occupy the position of world currency (international reserve currency and primary international trade currency). In fact, the New Silk Road actively promoted by the CCP is aimed at promoting the RMB and subverting the status of the US dollar. The reason the world does not accept the RMB is that the CCP's actions do not win the hearts of the people of the world and lack justice. If the United States also loses the hearts of the world's people and no longer stands on the side of justice, that would precisely give the RMB an opportunity. If the US dollar loses its status as an international currency, the United States will decline completely, and "the East rises while the West declines" will become a reality. We will no longer need to fantasize about the United States suppressing the CCP either. By then, only the CCP will be holding all the cards over the United States.

1. What are we opposing when we oppose the CCP?

In the final analysis, what are we opposing when we oppose the CCP? We oppose totalitarian autocracy and dictators. We believe in democracy and freedom, and believe that justice will inevitably triumph over evil. That is why we support the United States, call the United States a beacon, and believe the United States leads the world's forces of democracy, freedom, and justice. If the United States becomes a totalitarian state, the US president becomes a dictator, and the United States stops defending world fairness and justice but instead destroys world fairness and justice, do we still have any reason to continue supporting the United States? What difference would that make from supporting another CCP?

We oppose autocracy and dictatorship and advocate for freedom and democracy so that more people can live better lives and enjoy living out this life more, rather than spending this life in servitude.

We are definitely anti-war, but freedom is not free. It requires blood and tears. Dictators never end themselves, and the stimulant for a dictator is the bowing and backing down of the oppressed.

[caption id="attachment_2073" align="alignnone" width="300"] Kneeling and backing down are the stimulant for dictators[/caption]

The heroic resistance of the Ukrainian people is not only defending the Ukrainian people themselves

...territory and dignity, but is also defending the belief in justice throughout the world.

Therefore, if you consider yourself truly anti-communist and truly anti-dictatorship, you should support the Ukrainian people's struggle against aggression and criticize Trump's words and deeds that confuse right and wrong on the Ukraine issue.

The Ukrainian people will prevail, and justice will prevail.

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.

1. 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?

1. 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.

1. 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 inter

national community, promoting its authoritarian governance model and attempting to position the Chinese yuan as a global currency alternative to the dollar.

1. 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.

1. 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.