Thoughts triggered by the Russo-Ukrainian War

In the past two days, the Internet has been full of news about the war between Russia and Ukraine, and netizens have formed two groups with distinct views. Although online public opinion cannot influence politics, it can have many impacts on reality, so I will also share my thoughts.

Opinions are often affected by stance, but stance itself is simple to say, but it is not easy to clarify it cognitively.

The so-called standpoint refers to interests, first of all, personal interests, and then it can be expanded to the interests of family, relatives, friends, groups, hometown, motherland, and of course, the interests of mankind. , the interests of the earth, if there is an invasion of aliens...

Among these interests, personal interests seem to be the least likely for us to make mistakes, but in fact this may not be the case. Because the information in reality is incomplete, we cannot clearly judge what choice is optimal for us based on limited information.

For example, for students, how to choose liberal arts and sciences; what kind of job to choose after graduating from college; and choosing our life partner is related to happiness in the rest of our lives. However, in all of these, it is difficult to say that we have made the optimal choice.

However, no matter what choice we make, we will think that our choice follows the standard of maximizing self-interest.

This is where I disagree with many netizens: when the other person’s point of view is inconsistent with mine, I think there is something wrong with the other person’s position. Of course, this cannot be ruled out, but it cannot be generalized.

Some people may receive "salary" from foreigners. Some people may have relatives and friends in Russia or Ukraine, or they may be studying or working in these countries, or they may have other origins...

If it is the first situation, it is really an unforgivable sin. If it were other circumstances, that would still be understandable.

Except for these few special circumstances, we should believe that self-interest is human nature, and the interests of the vast majority of people are tied to small groups, large groups, and our motherland.

However, even if the position is consistent, the views will be very different.

First of all, regarding the Russia-Ukraine war, I am on the side of Russia, but first let us look at the other side's point of view.

Regardless of those overly extreme views, the main objections are based on the following reasons:

1. Russia has bullied China;

2. Ukraine helped through China;

3. Russia has bullied some countries in Eastern Europe and the former CIS during World War II and after, which means that it is aggressive in nature;

4. Ukraine is a sovereign state No matter what the reason is, invading a sovereign country is an evil because it sets a bad example for other countries;

5. War itself is an evil and it embodies a kind of power. , Power itself is also an evil.

These reasons are mainly reflected in two aspects: one is interest-based, mainly because it has caused harm to China in history; the other is moral, and morally aggression is an evil.

Among the opposite views, there is a view that we should not analyze the problem from the perspective of morality, but should analyze the problem from the perspective of interests. We should advocate whatever is beneficial to China at present.

This view is essentially correct, but its problem is that it pits the moral point of view against the interest point of view.

As a responsible major country, China is committed to promoting the construction of a global community for mankind. Therefore, its foreign policy must be based on the commanding heights of morality, or it is in the interests of the country to support moral justice.

However, this act of war is completely contrary to the Five Principles of Peace and Security that our country has always advocated.

But at the same time, in recent years, China has been subject to strong competitive pressure from Western countries led by the United States. This competitive pressure has even been directly manifested in real conflicts in the United States, from trade wars to technological wars to financial conflicts. War, public opinion war, cyber war, and even the risk of triggering a hot war...

Although Russia has not become an ally with China, it is obvious that we have the same enemy. The existence of Russia has greatly reduced the pressure on the West and given us greater confidence in dealing with challenges from the United States and Western forces.

Here, practical interests seem to conflict greatly with moral justice. Therefore, many netizens and even some scholars have made public initiatives to condemn Russia's aggressive behavior.

Let’s analyze it from a moral perspective first. Is the war initiated by Russia just?

From the point of view of some netizens, war is not just, let alone aggression against a sovereign country. The key is that this is also contrary to the Five Principles of Peaceful Decision advocated by our country.

However, if Russia did not initiate the war, if we go back to five days ago, how should we view this conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Many netizens who don’t care much about current affairs may not know the ins and outs of this conflict, but the reports in the past two days have been overwhelming. Any netizen who is slightly more upright should be able to understand that this war is actually It was forced out by NATO led by the United States.

Before the Soviet Union disintegrated, it agreed to the reunification of the two Germanys, and the United States agreed that NATO would never expand an inch eastward. But in fact, the Soviet Union has disintegrated, NATO has expanded eastward five times, and missiles have arrived at Russia's doorstep.

We are fully aware of this. The United States deployed the THAAD system in South Korea. Although it claims not to target China, this is a joke in the international community. Even the most naive public intellectuals will not really believe it.

What should Russia do when its national security is faced with a real threat?

This issue is a bit like self-defense, which has been discussed lively on the Internet in China in recent years. What is legitimate defense? What level of infringement is required to justify self-defense? What kind of defense is legitimate without being accused of being too defensive?

These issues are naturally clearly defined in law. However, it is difficult to reach a public conclusion in disputes between countries, especially when the right to speak is controlled by the West. It is very difficult for Russia to obtain justice through negotiations.

Looking at how the media in Western countries report on China, we should understand that without strength, you have no right to speak.

In this case, we sympathize with Russia's situation, but should it launch a war? Should we condemn its behavior?

In fact, the most classic version of the answer to this question is the view of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “All parties should form a balanced, effective and sustainable European security mechanism through negotiations, and Russia’s reasonable security concerns should be taken seriously and solve".

This has two meanings: First, we want peace, not war. This seems to be a criticism of Russia, but in essence it is a criticism of the United States. Because we want peace, the international community should do more things that are conducive to peace. However, the United States and some Western forces continue to add fuel to the fire, hoping that a war will start to bring down Russia. .

Second, Russia’s reasonable security should be taken seriously. This is direct support for Russia, but it also reminds Russia not to close the door to peace talks, because in fact war is also the worst option for Russia.

This view not only avoids following Western forces such as the United States and directly criticizing our partners, but also once again clearly demonstrates our peace-loving views. Of course, this view also avoids direct confrontation with Ukraine.

Those public intellectuals who talk about morality should really learn from it. I really hope their position is not problematic and is simply due to political immaturity.