The question of “values” in war
The two sides in the Russo-Ukrainian war, as well as the supporting forces behind each, it should be said that it is very clear who is the righteous side and who is the evil side.
The Russian nation has a very long and in-depth understanding of Europe and the United States, as well as a history of dealing with Europe and the United States.
From Peter the Great putting on makeup to go to Europe to learn industrial technology, to Catherine’s overall education and industrial reforms, and finally to the October Revolution and shock therapy after the collapse of the Soviet Union, all of them were based on the European system to shape their country.
Russia has never been part of Asia or the world, but has always planned itself and made choices around Europe.
And throughout Russia’s history, most of the time it united with Britain and others to fight against another European power.
They first joined forces to fight against the Ottoman Empire, and later joined forces to fight against France led by Napoleon. Then during World War II, the United States and Britain supported the Soviet Union in fighting Germany…
Could it be that Russia has been on the right side of history most of the time?
Is the United States powerful enough? Why did it maintain isolationism before World War II?
This is because no country in Europe can be easily understood and influenced by other countries.
During World War II, Spain seemed to be on the side of the Nazis, but when Hitler asked the Spanish government to send troops to support Hitler, Spain stood still.
Hitler was so angry that he went to Spain to scold Franco.
Franco greeted Hitler with a smile and said: You are my idol, don’t be angry.
But he still didn’t send troops.
What’s even more interesting is that before the war, Britain, France, and Russia agreed to “sanction” Hitler together.
But Britain was the first to go back on its word, which led to the Soviet Union and Germany signing a non-aggression agreement, and Hitler began to confidently attack Poland.
If you don’t understand what these histories mean, then take a look at how Italy scolded the EU during the 2020 epidemic, and then welcomed China’s assistance.
But after China’s aid and when it came time to talk about values, Italy withdrew from the “One Belt, One Road” initiative initiated by China.
It needs you when there is a crisis or war, but it changes its face again when things develop together.
This is why Turkey and Ukraine in the future can become members of NATO (military organization), but economic organizations such as the “EU” will not want them.
Let me make a prediction here: it will be easy for Ukraine to join NATO, but it will be difficult for Ukraine to join the EU.
NATO approved Turkey’s membership in 1952 in order to fight the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
Therefore, if you do not understand the historical entanglements involved, it would be too exciting to rush to divide justice and evil when a superficial appearance appears.
During World War II, since everyone thought Germany was anti-human, why were there neutral countries right next to Germany?
Doesn’t it mean that neutrality is an accomplice of evil?
Why didn’t the United States and the Soviet Union liquidate these neutral countries after the war?
Why was it that Germany was not the most violent anti-Semite on the European continent before the war?
Why wasn’t even Spain, which supported Hitler, liquidated?
The real result of World War II was that Britain, which had the strongest sense of justice and was number one in the world before the war, was pulled down from its altar by World War II. The world’s number one position therefore changed hands.
In fact, what really changed the entire historical operating system of Europe was not the endless European wars, nor the unclear hatred between family and country, nor the wrong actions of a specific country, but the rise of the United States.
Before the rise of the United States, the geopolitical history of the entire European continent can be explained clearly with one logic, that is: the second and third sons unite to defeat the boss.
Whoever rises up and is the strongest will be united to fight against him.
At first, everyone united to fight Spain, and then joined forces to fight France, Russia, Germany, etc.
In the end, because Britain was high above the sea and unable to fight, it became the most powerful country in Europe.
But when World War II came, the United States’ aid to Britain basically came with huge conditions, including Britain allowing its overseas colonies to become independent, and British overseas military bases being taken over by the United States.
With the help of World War II, Britain, the world leader, was defeated.
Moreover, for a long time in European and American history, the United States, France, and others joined forces to fight against Britain, because Britain was the leader at that time.
After the complete rise of the United States (after World War II), the habitual operating logic of the entire geopolitics was completely changed, and the United States became the boss, uniting with the third and other countries to fight against the second.
Therefore, after World War II, whoever rises, whether it is Britain, Germany, Japan, or emerging Latin America, Southeast Asia, etc., the United States will unite with other parts to attack them.
This has changed all the historical operating logic of the entire Europe. From the original situation where everyone united to defeat the boss, now the boss unites everyone to defeat the second one.
This is a bit strange.
As the saying goes: When a whale dies, everything will grow.
It is normal logic for everyone to unite to defeat the boss.
But the fact that the boss unites everyone to beat the second child is a bit confusing.
But there’s nothing we can do about it. The United States is too strong, and its arms can’t twist its thighs, so when it comes to joining forces to fight, let’s just watch it while fighting.
But as time goes by, everyone has discovered that the more we fight, the more unbalanced the development of the world will be, and the more we fight, the less we will benefit.
Until now, Japan has lost thirty years.
If Europe had not united, no single country could catch up with individual states in the United States (California’s GDP is nearly $1 trillion higher than that of France as a whole).
The euro has also been basically crippled.
Currently, only China is left among the BRICS countries, and other developing countries have already returned to poverty overnight.
Having said this, many people have said that “values” are very important.
I don’t deny this.
But after so many years of fighting in Europe, can anyone figure out the specific differences in values between countries such as Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Western Russia?
The United States replaced the United Kingdom to influence Europe and become the world’s leader. Is it because the United States’ values are better than those of the United Kingdom? Or is it because the UK was on the wrong side and was liquidated by the US?
One thing here is eternal, that is, if a specific country cannot truly develop and grow, its “values” will suffer serious backlash.
Why is the United States leaving Afghanistan?
Because when the “values” of the United States fail to bring real comprehensive economic development to Afghanistan, the “values” will soon encounter backlash, and religion and extremism will quickly return.
When the Indians have basically disappeared from the earth, and the Palestinians have been trapped in a high wall and can only gradually self-destruct, there is a high probability that in many years, no one will discuss the right and wrong of the past.
History will only pass by in one stroke: the Indians perished because they failed to master advanced productive forces, and the Palestinians perished because they failed to find the correct path to founding a nation…
Few people may say that the demise of Indians and Palestinians is not on the side of justice.
You must know that after the victory in World War II, the righteous side began to aid the defeated countries Germany and Japan.
Why don’t they continue to retaliate against Germany and the Japanese?
After the end of World War II, there was no bottom-line liquidation of Japan and Germany, not because of any simple progress of civilization, but precisely because of the lessons of World War I!
Because World War I liquidated Germany too thoroughly, Germany rebounded and launched World War II.
If cosmopolitans say that the concept of “country” is not important and does not conform to universal human “values”, then countries with universal human “values” should first dissolve their own countries.
Even U.S. President Biden has said that within the United States, there are still division issues such as xenophobia, racial discrimination, and localism.
The concept of “country” is to solve the problems Biden mentioned.
“The state” has gone far beyond racism and localism in resolving many human conflicts.
Without the concept of country and without defending the concept of “country”, all the world will leave us with is racial vendetta.
This is one of the reasons why the United States vetoes Palestinian statehood (unable to join the United Nations).
Ethnic vendetta has a primitive “ambiguity” in its existence, and its crimes are far lower than “invasion” and “national destruction” based on the concept of the country.
Because racial vendetta is linked to “backwardness”, it is often unclear who is right and who is wrong.
War between “countries” belongs to the judgment of modern civilization, and it is easy to make behavioral judgments.
Just like the legal definition of fighting, it mainly depends on who strikes first.
This is why in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the United States emphasizes the subject of “state” (good for Ukraine); while in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the United States emphasizes ethnic conflict and terrorism (good for Israel).
