3 The country's attitude towards Taiwan has reversed, and Japan is eager to clear itself up
It is well known that, as one of our core internal affairs, the Taiwan issue has always been "concerned" by overseas forces. Especially third-party countries with the United States as the core and Japan and Australia as typical representatives even dared to clamor for interfering in our country's liberation process through force. However, just recently, the attitudes of these three countries have undergone a relatively significant change compared to the past.
The first one is Japan. Everyone knows that Taiwan was a Japanese colony before, so the Japanese-fashioned faction, which is what they call the "Haks and Japanese people", has always had a large market. Japan has been regarded as their second brother after their American father for a long time. In order to seize political capital, some Japanese politicians always brazenly advocate the Taiwan issue in public and exaggerate the escalation crisis. For example, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe once shouted the ridiculous slogan "If there is something to do in Taiwan, it is something to do in Japan." However, it is touching that a recent poll initiated by the Japan News and Communications Survey showed that as many as 74% of the Japanese people in oppose the joint efforts of the U.S. military and directly interfere in the situation in the Taiwan Strait. At the same time, 76% of the people believe that they are "uneasy" about Japan being attacked by other countries. In fact, this kind of investigation conducted by the public can be regarded as a weather vane for Japan's national policy formulation in a sense, which means that Japan may change its attitude in its involvement in the Taiwan issue. Because unlike other normal countries, the Japanese government does not have the right to declare war on , and the Japanese Self-Defense Force does not have the right to engage in battle. At the moment when the situation is becoming increasingly unclear, the Japanese must take the initiative to step on the brakes.
The second one is Australia. Before Australia became a country with China, it was an important ore source base for China. After Morrison came to power, Australia's policy changed significantly. Not only did it shout that war would start tomorrow, but it also colluded with the United States to fabricate various issues in an attempt to impose sanctions on China, but it was a strong counterattack from China. The new Prime Minister Albanys seemed to have had enough of this kind of survival under the baton of the United States and began to seek to improve relations. For example, in a recent interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, it is unlikely to accept Taiwan's accession to CPTPP, which is the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership Comprehensive Relations Progress Agreement. Albanis believes that and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Organization are different. CPTPP does not accept economic entities, but national entities, so it is unlikely to accept Taiwan. This remarks ignited the island's media in one fell swoop, and then asked Australia to explain. In the latest report, Australia also said that non-national entities can join the CPTPP, and the Australian government welcomed this. The repeated purpose of Australians is really hard to grasp.
The third one is the United States itself. The US Foreign Affairs interviewed more than 50 experts on the 16th of this month, asking them to make a statement on the issue of "whether the United States should send troops to Taiwan." resulted in that as many as 39 people opposed the US's public commitment to send troops to intervene in the Taiwan Strait, opposing the US's current vague strategy to a clear strategy, accounting for 78% of the total number. The report also mentioned that clear strategy may not have the effect of deterrence, but will stimulate the relevant parties and cause drastic changes.
If we look at it purely from the perspective of the United States, strategic ambiguity is indeed the best choice and it is also a strategy pursued by the United States for many years. Because this not only gives the US government a lot of room for operation, but also gives a "standard". Because the US government will play political skills and make promises, it will eventually return to military hard power. If you really decide to intervene, you have to first see if the US military has the strength to intervene, how much possible losses will be, and how much risk there will be initiating the nuclear war against . These are all issues that must be considered, and after decades of evaluation, a relatively accurate conclusion will be finally given.This is not something that those politicians can do with their upper lip and their lower lip and their mouths blindly.
is also based on this point. The stronger China is and the stronger the commander's determination to fight, the lower the possibility of the US military's intervention, which is a factor of dynamic change. For the United States, the failure of words is at most a bit of shame, but military failure is really a death.
missile attack sparked controversy, Zelensky wants to disobey Biden ?
However, just when the situation in the Asia-Pacific is turbulent, Ukraine, which is fighting, has caused great headaches for the United States. On the 15th of this month, a Russian missile landed in Polish , and also caused the tragedy of two deaths. At the same time, NATO held an emergency meeting to start investigating the truth behind the attack. The Polish army also entered a state of combat readiness, and the Third World War seemed to be on the string. However, unexpectedly, at the G20 summit, US President Biden said that from the trajectory of the missile is unlikely to come from Russia. is followed by Polish President Duda also said that This may be an interceptor missile launched by the S300 air defense system of the Ukrainian air defense force. After losing the target, free fall fell into Poland, which was a "tragic" event.
But unexpectedly, Ukrainian President Zelensky refused to admit it and said that was a deliberate attack from Russia and asked NATO to respond. Both sides once had their own opinions and kept arguing. However, a few days later, Zelensky's attitude softened, saying that the missile cannot be 100% certain that it was launched by Russia. The rapid change in his face is really touching.
Of course, the significance behind this debate itself is intriguing. Politico, a well-known American website, published an article saying that the conflict between Ukraine and NATO on the missile incident may be the beginning of a rift in the relationship between the two sides. It is reported that after the attack, the United States has been contacting Europe and Ukraine, asking them to speak carefully before the investigation results come out, and keep their mouths in mind. However, Zelensky seemed to pretend not to see this. In English, there is a proverb called "Tail shakes the dog", which means that the tail dominates the dog and overestimates one's ability. This is very appropriate in this attack, because Ukraine is just a "tail" that is not a big deal. If the investigation results are that Russian missiles hit a NATO member state, it means that the entire NATO will have to be dragged into the Ukrainian battlefield and fight head-on with the Russian Federation army. The Third World War will start directly, and it is very likely to turn into a nuclear war. This is why countries, including the United States, are very cautious in dealing with this matter. Even the party involved, Poland, came out to clarify the situation as soon as possible, because they were worried that they would directly contact the 5th Article of NATO collective defense, which would lead to irreparable consequences.
is also because of this. Even if this missile is really shot by the Russians, it must be "striped by the Ukrainians", because it is too outrageous to start a full war with Russia with just one missile. If it is Ukraine, it can "punish three cups of self-punishment", and if it is apologized for compensation, it can be secretly given some relatively new weapons and equipment as "compensation".
But Ukrainian President Zelensky seemed to be unable to find this point in his secret understanding, but he foolishly thought that accusing Russia was all right, but he didn't know that it was his big brother, the United States, who was most reluctant to see such a thing.
Zelensky has other plans and wants to force NATO to end?
Of course, there may be another possibility for Zelensky's behavior, that is, to do it intentionally. hypes the missile incident, and then forces NATO to end. Ukraine is already bad enough, and it is also great to be able to bring NATO to take the lead.
This is also why Americans were so angry after this argument. This is not to say whether the incident is right or wrong, but to the Ukrainian attitude that began to disobey the United States. In other words, it is "the son-in-law is going to eat the master."
In fact, if we open our minds and simply look at the entire Russian-Ukrainian conflict, NATO's role has always been very accurate. It not only provides weapons and equipment and training to the Ukrainians, but does not intervene in the battle in person. Adhering to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is "1v1", that is, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Even if there is a military entity entering, it is also the way of the Volunteer Army , rather than a country's regular troops. This consideration of
is actually not unreasonable, because the performance of the Russian army on the battlefield has proved that they do not have the ability to compete head-on with the same modern army. If NATO countries really end up, the Russian army will inevitably suffer a major military defeat, which will directly stimulate Russia. In order to change the decline, it is not impossible to use the last trump card nuclear weapon .
So although NATO trained the Ukrainian army, it only trained for a few months. Although it aided weapons and equipment, it did not give key equipment such as M1A2 tanks and F16 fighter jets artificially extended the entire Russian-Ukrainian conflict, dragging Russia to Ukraine to bleed.
This kind of unethical behavior will only cause some equipment losses for NATO. The personnel of the volunteer army are not in the NATO combat sequence, but for Ukraine, they cannot stand it. The lack of key advanced heavy equipment has led to weak front-line offenses. He can only rely on Hummer and light infantry forcibly attacked, and eventually turned into a "Sky Spirit Cap to consume the mace". In recent months, the Ukrainian army has indeed made considerable achievements on the Southern and Northern lines, but the casualties caused by this may be astronomical. NATO and Russia "fight to the last Ukrainian" is definitely not just a verbal talk
to play really? US media threatened that the "Russian Empire" must be destroyed. Against the backdrop that the rift between NATO and Ukraine has already arisen, the US media's attitude towards the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has become increasingly tough. The well-known American website " Atlantic Monthly " published an article titled "The Russian Empire must perish."
In this signed article, the author Anne Applebaum believes that a better future for Russia requires the failure of Putin and the end of the "imperial ambition". She also interpreted the opposition model in Russia, saying that liberals used to have a lot of soil in Russia, but their failures around 2000 made them no longer dare to speak out, and they did not understand how Russia's "imperialism" today nourishes the high-pressure internal environment. Anne believes that Ukrainian President Zelensky once asked the Russian name "Do you want war?", but he never received feedback from Russian citizens, which led to Zelensky becoming more hostile, which is a bilateral phenomenon.
In fact, if you look at this remark from Americans throughout the article, the core is not only ancient, but even a bit ridiculous.
Because the United States itself is the largest imperialist country in the world, it is really a bit like "thieves shouting to catch thieves" when turning around and standing on the so-called moral high ground and taking responsibility for Russia. At the same time, Americans have brought out traditional art ideological , shifting the contradiction between the United States and Russia to the ideological contradiction between the two countries, and trying to export values, which will criticize the top Russian leaders represented by Putin. But can Americans know that when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, they believed that Russia was "the most free" even in Moscow , there were still a large number of people who could not eat or wear clothes.
After Putin came to power, Russia officially abandoned the former "Great Slavism", and Russian modern nationalism was officially formed, which in turn stabilized the Russian social structure. As these Western countries said, Russia's economic level and environment may not be very good, but it has sufficient resilience. Although oligarch is emptiing Russia's national wealth, it has supported the entire Russian country on another level, allowing the Russian people to live with dignity in the world. This is the most fundamental issue of foothold, not the issue of food and clothing they say.
What's more, if it is true as they wish, the Russian "empire" will be declared destruction and disintegrated into pieces again, and will face the crisis of lack of industry again. By then, it will not be as simple as eating for three days and hunger. Russia's main resource division will be controlled by Western capital, and the people will not be able to enjoy any benefits. In addition to the powerful Western financial offensive, a wave of harvesting against the Russian lower-class people will be carried out again, and the entire country will be in a state of doom. This is by no means exaggeration.
. Although the Russian army has experienced a certain decline in the current Russian-Ukrainian battlefield, history has proved that the Russians have strong resilience and resistance to stress. On the contrary, Ukraine has to rely on shaking its tail and begging for mercy. Only by praising the West can we get assistance. Even if we win this war, we can only become a puppet of the West, and die standing or live kneeling. Zelensky obviously chose the latter.
To be fair, the arguments of the Atlantic Monthly are full of ignorance of the lives of the lower-class people in Russia. Without investigation, there is no right to speak. It is the most appropriate to evaluate Anne Applebaum.
