Home > Analysis, history, News, Opinion, politics > A rebuke of Chinese russophobes from the PLA Daily

A rebuke of Chinese russophobes from the PLA Daily

For those who read Chinese, here is a great article that calls on all Chinese to reject russophobia & get our strategic priorities straight.

http://military.china.com.cn/2015-05/12/content_35546603.htm

军报驳解放军亮相红场是”与强盗同庆”

发布时间: 2015-05-12 08:03:20    来源: 解放军报    作者: 王德华    责任编辑: 刘峻凌

解放军官兵与俄罗斯军事院校学员合影。

红场阅兵式因为有了“中国元素”,俄罗斯显得 并不孤独。西方主流媒体为此几乎打翻醋坛,扯破嗓子唱衰中俄关系。有的认为“中俄的接近更像是时局所迫的权宜之计”,“因为中俄有历史和现实的顾忌”, “再次化友为敌并非不可能”;还有的说,“北京可能已经在哈萨克斯坦挖起俄罗斯的墙角”云云。

一些网民也附和这种逢中必反的论调:“怎么能和强盗一起庆祝?”“国人好健忘……”“想到海参崴想到苏武牧羊的贝尔加湖”等等,这种声音试图翻开历史老账,与西方媒体一唱一和,给中国政府添堵。

今年是世界反法斯战争胜利70周年。西方把庆 祝战胜法西斯的伟大胜利变成“政治交易”的对象,“利用重要的时间点作为当前冲突中的武器”,力图孤立俄罗斯。庆祝活动也成为俄罗斯在世界上“真朋友”的 “试金石”。中俄两国同为反法斯战争的“主角”,两国互为最大邻国和友好邻邦,中国参加庆贺这一节日,具有特殊意义。

忘记历史意味着背叛。中国人民永远不会忘记苏联人民对中国抗日战争的坚定支持。有评论说得好,“今天我们回顾历史,是因为时间的河流里沉淀着人类用鲜血和生命换来的真理,回首是为了正确地认知,缅怀是为了更好地传承,共同守护历史真相与和平果实,才能让正义不可战胜。”

历史上列强都不是好东西,都对中国干了见不得 人的勾当。八国联军攻进北京城,“只要碰着中国人,无论男、女、老、幼,一概格杀勿论”,“把他们想要的东西装入口袋。”园明园的残墙断壁是中国人心中永 远的痛。我们认知历史牢记历史,但不应纠缠于历史,否则永远无法从仇恨中走出来并面向未来。

见不得中俄友好握手,拿中俄旧史挑拨,其目的是使两国一拍两散,对中俄各个击破。合纵连横这点小伎俩,中国人岂能看不破?我们的老祖宗在几千年前的战国就用烂了。

向中国贩卖“西式民主”这种廉价“政治毒 药”,并力图“颜色革命”中国的,是美国而不是俄罗斯;对中国进行高科技技术封锁的,还是美国而不是俄罗斯;支持藏独、疆独、台独、港独分裂中国,拉拢一 批小喽罗在中国周边舞枪弄棍,更是美国而不是俄罗斯。谁是我们的朋友,中国人心里自有一本账。

关系亲不亲,关健在民心。用中俄的历史问题挑拨离间中俄关系,完全是为实现美国“再当世界老大一百年”的目标“揣着明白装糊涂”,目的就是要造成国内反俄的舆论,为中俄友好添变数;中俄背靠背是西方反华势力最不想看到的,这打破了西方对中国和俄罗斯各个击破的战略构思。

西方很多观察家寄希望于中俄撕破脸皮。殊不知,中俄友好是必然的、唯一的选择。中俄两国有着数千公里的边境线,地缘政治与战略处境决定了中俄两国更需要长期稳定的友好关系。中俄互惠共嬴抱团取暖,既能赋予对方以安全,更能抑制霸权主义维护世界和平。

中俄两国彻底解决了历史遗留的边界问题,签署 了《中俄睦邻友好合作条约》,为两国关系长远发展奠定了坚实基础,两国不存在客观上或是主观上的冲突因子。中俄世代友好、永不为敌,是两国人民共同心愿。 普京说过,“俄罗斯需要一个繁荣稳定的中国,中国也需要一个强大成功的俄罗斯。”老是通过煽动历史仇恨为中俄关系抹黑是别有用心。

  1. May 15th, 2015 at 01:53 | #1

    Overall, I agree with the thinking of the article.

    However … I don’t see it as black and white.

    Yes – strategic cooperation with Russia is important in today’s context. I’d venture that China’s border boundary resolution with Russia in 1991 was brilliant. It brought on a peace that is critical to China’s development.

    But at the risk of being too direct, I’d still label China’s strategy of reaching out to and settlement with Russia as trading land for peace … or trading land for a reliable partner.

    But can India demand the same? Hey, give us a small province here and there, and we will let you develop strategic depth with the world’s most populous (or soon to be most populous) nation….

    What about Japan? Hey, give us a few rocks here and there and we will let you develop strategic depth with Asia’s most advanced economy…

    What about Vietnam and Philippines … Hey give us a few islands here and there and we will back off on our overtures with the U.S….?

    Or the U.S. … Hey, defer always to our military and political leadership … and we will allow you to continue building your economy?

    Yes, I know Russia, Japan, and India … and down the list to U.S. occupy different strategic importance … but still, but my question is: at which point is it ok to swap land for peace, or for partnership…

    Again, I am not saying swapping is wrong. Over the course of history, China’s territory has always been fluid: either growing or in ebb. That coupled with the fact that going forward, economic, technological, and cultural development will be so much more important for China than land grab per se – as the former can be win-win and is in principle is infinite in potential while the latter is finite and zero-sum, but … again where do you draw the line? Must China always give? And when China gives to one but resist another, can China be criticized?

  2. May 15th, 2015 at 23:58 | #2

    I think in this circumstance all we need to do is ask ourselves a few questions & the correct strategic path will be quite obvious:

    1. Is there a realistic path to getting back the territories that used to be in dispute between Russia & China? If someone’s answer is ‘yes’, then he/she should unpack that strategy & describe in detail what that path would look like.

    2. If the answer is ‘no’, then how can China make the best use of its current strategic circumstances?

    I think it’s a mistake to think of the relationship with Russia as “trading land” for “partnership”, as so many Chinese nationalists do. You can’t trade something you don’t possess & will not possess in the foreseeable future. Whether we like it or not, the reality is that those formerly disputed territories are a sunk cost, and should not influence future decision making.

  3. May 17th, 2015 at 08:37 | #3

    I agree that getting territories back from Russia is not feasible in today’s geopolitical context. But so what? China can tell Russia, let’s not let that prevent us from cooperating on other things … the same way it is telling India … or even Japan … or Philippines.

    India has little chance of getting land back that it thinks it “lost” to China, but that doesn’t prevent it from standing firm on its claims.

    Same with Philippines…

    So why should China give up its claims simply on account there is no “chance” of getting it back in the foreseeable future?

  4. May 19th, 2015 at 10:10 | #4

    The key thing is accepting there is dispute and negotiate to work it out. The Soviet Union didn’t want to accept accept there is a dispute hence a border was was fought in 1969. Russia eventually want to settle the dispute and both sides negotiate and settled the border.

    Although China won the border with India in 1962, its forces retreated back beyond the contested areas. It is India that is occupying the disputed areas now. So there is no chance of any war breaking out now.

    China settled the land dispute with Vietnam but the maritime border issue wasn’t being discussed. However, it is possible as relationship with Vietnam is actually close. Tell me which country has closer trade or govn’t to govn’t to Vietnam. China and Vietnam are now having joint armed border patrol.

    http://www.guancha.cn/military-affairs/2015_05_18_319885.shtml

  5. May 19th, 2015 at 10:28 | #5

    China also settled its border with Myanmar but due to failed national policy in the latter country, there is still no peace. The following video gives a glimpse of the situation in Kokang, one of the border region. Frankly the condition is so complex on the ground that China is in a catch-22 situation. The mass western media always paint Myanmar as a client state supported by China but it is definitely not the truth.

    http://v.ifeng.com/mil/arms/201504/010a92ed-ba6a-46c0-9f31-4f7deeec2ef8.shtml

    http://v.ifeng.com/mil/arms/201504/01f7248e-eb6a-4d6d-9799-7ee70c105f10.shtml

    http://v.ifeng.com/mil/arms/201504/01bb019f-b9a2-45ce-a3e7-e8ec2454397c.shtml

    http://v.ifeng.com/mil/arms/201504/01c3b4be-b41a-4a0d-9a0c-b687de1c05bf.shtml

  6. Black Pheonix
    May 19th, 2015 at 10:42 | #6

    @Ray

    “China settled the land dispute with Vietnam but the maritime border issue wasn’t being discussed. However, it is possible as relationship with Vietnam is actually close. Tell me which country has closer trade or govn’t to govn’t to Vietnam. China and Vietnam are now having joint armed border patrol.”

    That should also demonstrate the long truism that in international politics, there are no “friends” in the long run, only political expedience.

    While China is settling disputes with Vietnam (China could have demanded better terms), Vietnam is playing its own game to woo US aid to get more leverage against China.

    To which, China is just holding itself steady, with no significant response.

    similarly for Philippines.

    I think Vietnam should draw a lesson from Russia. Russia played that game before, thinking that perhaps once Russia became “democratic”, NATO and US would ease up on Russia, and Russia should play for advantages from an alliance /friendship with NATO and US.

    Except 30 years on, Russia realizes that it was all just a pipe dream.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.