“聯俄抗中”是荒謬的幻想，姑息侵略換不來和平

一般我還是比較委婉客氣的，但這幾天鋪天蓋地的“聯俄抗中”，還是令我感慨：這些人政治上的幼稚與天真，與他們的狂熱和篤信，真是相得益彰。老唐那“中共苦心經營的格局瞬間崩塌”～宛如幽默話劇，還有那個叫艾森的，曾長篇論證薄瓜瓜賬號為假，結果……判斷力如此低下卻吹噓自己判斷力強到自己都不好意思？充分詮釋了什麼叫越缺乏智慧越迷之自信。還有那些跟著踩澤連斯基的，把一個保家衛國的總統，我們這個時代最傑出的政治家之一的人物，描繪成送百姓當炮灰謀取私利的壞人。

歷史每次都是這樣，當正邪交戰到關鍵激烈的時刻，就會冒出大量小丑，打著各種冠冕堂皇的招牌，指責那些戰士，甚至指責反抗本身，積極在他們背後捅刀，並煽動其他人一起發難，好像所有的流血犧牲，反抗的戰士們才是主要責任人，宣稱如果順從暴君，暴君是不會殺人的，至少不會殺那麼多。看看當年二戰，反法西斯戰爭相持不下時，有多少所謂的“正人君子”，跳出來反對繼續對抗希特勒，鼓吹和平指責抗爭？

這些小丑有時不會得逞，有時也會得逞，當他們得逞時，結果通常只有一個：壞人的議程得到最大限度的滿足。

至於聯俄抗中，別說稍微具有點專業政治素養了，就是有點政治歷史常識，都知道這完完全全就是一個抽身的藉口罷了。

有的人拿美國曾聯中抗蘇說事，其實，這個說法某種程度上是個偽命題。當年，中蘇交惡，除了意識形態尖銳對立，軍事上是已經動了手的。除了中國方面大力宣揚眾人皆知的珍寶島衝突，還有少有人知的蘇聯報復性伏擊全殲中國軍隊。

這兩方已經撕破了臉，中方在重壓之下，其實是釋放善意主動聯美抗蘇。我們說聯一方抗一方，這個去聯的主體，一般都是相對弱勢，才需要借第三方之力去對抗強敵，比如聯吳抗曹。所以，更準確的說法，其實是中國聯美抗蘇，而不是美國聯中抗蘇。

時至今日，美國是陷入什麼弱勢囧境，丟了老大地位，成了蜀國，必須要聯俄抗中了？

中俄之間，無論是意識形態，還是地緣政治，亦或是經濟貿易能源買賣……都沒有什麼根本的衝突，反而有著極大的互相彌補互相利用的現實需求，兩國領導人普帝和平子，恐怕私交也比很多人想的更近。這種犬齒交錯的利益聯結，乃是最堅固的紐帶，你美國憑什麼能分化得了這兩個國家？就憑賣了烏克蘭滿足普京？

就算賣了烏克蘭，得到滿足的俄羅斯更加強大，它後續的利益所在很明顯是繼續聯手中國瓜分世界，劃分勢力範圍顛覆國際秩序，它又有何理由幫美國對付中國？

就因美國不顧道義奉上烏克蘭，所以俄國反而得講道義信守對美國的承諾？

幾個都不講道義的匪幫，乙方腦抽幫甲方更強大了，甲方是更可能回報乙方，還是更可能翻臉進一步奪佔乙方資源？幫助對手強大乃是自取滅亡之道，這是幾百年前的馬基雅維利都明白的道理。

很多人冷嘲熱諷，說支援反侵略抗爭的人怎麼自己不上戰場，只會讓烏克蘭人流血，到時烏克蘭男人都死光了……

這些人的邏輯不值一駁，那些真的犧牲在抗俄前線的各國志願者們，也不會得到他們半句讚揚。這些人是如此的短視，看不到在歷史的長河中，不義的和平終究換不出一個好結果。

侵略者的野心是無窮無盡的，普京打了多少次仗了？上一次贏了，有阻止他再發動下一次麼？用烏克蘭作祭品，就能滿足俄國了？

《六國論》開篇第一句是什麼？

“六國破滅，非兵不利，戰不善，弊在賂秦。”

而更廣為人知的那句是什麼？

“今日割五城，明日割十城，然後得一夕安寢。起視四境，而秦兵又至矣。”

不義換來的和平，只是下一次更慘烈的戰爭甚至是全面性的世界大戰，那暴風雨之前的寧靜罷了。

美國人還能想起自己立國先賢在獨立戰爭時那篇振聾發聵的演講《不自由 毋寧死》嗎？

它的結尾是怎麼說的？

“各位先生們大可高呼“和平！和平！”——但是和平已經被打破了。戰爭已經開始了！下一次北方的風暴席捲而來時，與之相伴的必定是隆隆炮響！我們的同胞們已經在戰場上浴血廝殺了！為什麼我們還彷彿置身事外一樣？先生們，你們到底希望什麼？你們最後又能獲得什麼？難不成你們覺得生命如此寶貴，和平那麼美好，哪怕是以給自己戴上枷鎖、接受奴役為代價也不願犧牲嗎？全能的上帝啊，請阻止他們！我不知道你們其他人會作何選擇；但是於我而言，不自由，毋寧死！”

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!"