From the historical events after World War II, it is not difficult to see that the three countries of China, the United States and Russia have basically the same position on the issue of providing military deployment space for neighboring countries for foreign forces.
At that time, the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea was a buffer zone for China and the East Asian forces in the United States, while the Cuban Missile Crisis was a buffer zone between the United States and the Communist Camp in the Americas.
It can be said that in the era of nuclear deterrence that began after 1960, in addition to the Korean War, there was a common premise in the two major events, that is, both the United States and Russia did their best to fight for time to advance against each other's offensive weapons or ground armored forces.
At this time, the life and death line, the tactical missile level takes at least 15 minutes, and the ground troops need to travel at least 72 hours.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world's most important conflicts have occurred in Eurasia. Although the geopolitical conditions of the Chinese mainland are superior to those of Russia, the composition of power in the waters surrounding the mainland is far more complex than that of Russia's territorial waters.
If Russia's geography is easily invaded, then China's geography is vulnerable to siege, especially the South China Sea, which is one of China's life and death lines in every sense.
Looking at the South China Sea from the perspective of the Conflict in Ukraine, the United States is also repeatedly approaching China
Why did Russia have to beat Ukraine up this time? First of all, the loss of control of the Black Sea is small, once NATO deploys offensive weapons in Ukraine, the US missiles hit the Kremlin in just 4 minutes, which makes Putin sleep peacefully?
The outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is essentially the complete outbreak of Russia's bottom line of continuous infiltration of US power.
This issue is also like the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Vietnam in those years, and China's fight is also a kind of bottom line. If the United States had completely controlled Vietnam, the South China Sea region would have been completely plunged into the endless vortex of US proxy wars, and those Southeast Asian countries would have become members of the Western Pacific Treaty Organization.
This is not difficult to see from the fact that the United States has continued to use the South China Sea issue to repeatedly carry out political incitement to neighboring countries, and even mobilize aircraft carrier battle groups to continuously exert pressure.
To this day, Biden still wants to storm China's control over parts of the South China Sea through issues such as Scarborough Shoal, making the region a "strategic buffer zone for US Indo-Pacific forces to continuously encroach on China's territorial waters."
If we compare NATO's five-time eastward expansion, the United States' military pressure on the South China Sea issue is a "northward attempt" again and again, but the United States has not yet chosen a breakthrough similar to Ukraine's, but they have never given up such an attempt.
Without the initiative in the South China Sea, China may become the second Russia
What is the game between China and the United States in the South China Sea? The answer is determination, which does not refer to the United States waging war against China, nor is it China's first countermeasure against the United States, but how China and the United States want southeast Asian countries to choose their own positions, that is, how to establish their own regional pattern.
Taking Scarborough Shoal as an example, at present, the United States is massing heavy troops in the Indo-Pacific region, and the military and political influence of the United States on the Philippines has forced the Philippines to constantly change inside and outside the Philippines, and even Duterte, who has always been extremely unsupportive to the United States, has begun to keep his mouth shut, and the penetration of the United States can be seen.
The diplomatic kidnapping that the United States is good at, coupled with media hype and populist sentiment incitement, can easily shape its own "international justice" and cultivate ideological seedlings of hatred for China in the local area.
By constantly amplifying some sensitive bilateral issues, those countries that were not anti-China have been transformed into countries that are extremely anti-Chinese.
This is very dangerous for China, and if it is not tried to stop it, it will have a diffusion effect like a continuous drop of ink into clear water.
If the United States succeeds in the Huangyan Dao issue, there will be a second "international arbitration" in the South China Sea, and even a third "sovereignty dispute."
It is worth mentioning that the United States took the initiative to meet with Nguyen Xuan Phuc during its visit to Plaza Premium last year, when Powell intentionally or unintentionally proposed that the United States wanted to establish a new military base in Vietnam, but this proposal did not receive a clear reply from Vietnam.
If you think about it carefully, if the United States repeats the "radish and stick" tactic against Vietnam, proposing a series of economic cooperation and sending two aircraft carrier fleets to exercise cruises near Vietnam, will the other side waver in its position?
It can only be said that if Southeast Asian countries are under the military coercion of the United States for a long time, and China does not respond and plan in a timely manner, the situation in the South China Sea will face serious security challenges.
Now Biden has formally proposed a new Indo-Pacific framework to increase U.S. cooperation in the military, diplomatic, economic, trade, and scientific research fields in the Indo-Pacific region, aiming to shake the Indo-Pacific countries' stance toward China from many aspects.
For China, this is the beginning of a major challenge. Including former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Ahn Pei and others, they have taken the initiative to call on the United States to deploy offensive weapons of a "defensive nature" in Japan, and similar things have also imitated the clamor among some "Taiwan independence" elements.
In this case, if China's response to the South China Sea issue shows the slightest hesitation and allows a stone to stir up a thousand waves, then this diplomatic threat against China is bound to spread from the East China Sea to the South China Sea, thus making us lose the initiative and become the second Russia.
The United States has reason to project military power to neighboring countries in the South China Sea in the name of protection, or to try to deploy offensive weapons to China's doorstep under the pretext of "safeguarding the sovereignty of its allies," or to use these means to increase its bargaining chips with China out of thin air.
Russia's plight has reminded China of where the main battlefield lies
In this Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the actions of Western countries against Russia have given us a full insight into the despicable means of Britain, the United States and other countries.
Not only did Switzerland, which claimed to be "permanently neutral", take the initiative to freeze Russia's state assets, but even Apple stopped its terminal services to Russia, and some European countries began to expel Russian students.
Not only did they forbid Russia to participate in all sports and cultural activities, but even in the eyes of the European Zoological Society, they did not spare even the "cats from Russia".
Is it true that imposing international political struggle on people-to-people exchanges means what the West calls "no borders in economy and trade, no borders in science, and no borders in culture"?
Look at the false propaganda on the Western Internet, many of which are clearly protest marches in Ukraine and Russia, with demonstrators holding up signs of "English slogans" in their hands, which is the classic passage of the CIA's course on "How to Evolve Peacefully."
Even the "touching stories" that keep popping up on the Internet, which are clearly photos of victims of the Syrian war, have been described as "a tragedy caused by Russia."
It is clear that the Scene of The Ukrainian Personnel tearfully saying goodbye to his daughter in order to protect his family from the continuous attacks of Ukraine has been tampered with as "a Ukrainian father bid farewell to his daughter in tears to resist the Russian invasion."
Such a network public opinion war is happening all the time, and Russia has been completely surrounded by the trap of western public opinion. But beyond the Ukrainian battlefield, Russia is simply powerless to respond more.
Similar international pressures have created an "international moral constraint against Russia," in which Westerners believe only in what they "see with their own eyes" through social media, but not in the facts that their governments are trying to clarify and the diplomatic stance they want to maintain.
These countries have begun to brew anti-Russian sentiments from the people, and have constantly forced the government to make diplomatic statements on the Russian-Ukrainian issue. Some of the actions of European non-governmental organizations are produced under the pressure of this kind of international propaganda that is "not in line with the facts".
Ukrainian President Zelenskiy has repeatedly delayed the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations, and his confidence in making demands has become more and more sufficient, which is obviously waiting for the public opinion offensive in Europe and the United States to continue to ferment.
Zelenskiy wants to wait for the international community to sympathize with Ukraine and let the mainstream Ideology of the West deny all legitimate claims of Russia for him.
Even under the siege of the Western public opinion offensive, the world will not hear how Sanders loudly asked in the US Congress: "Why do we not accept the military threat from Cuba, but ask Russia to accept the military threat from Ukraine?" This is the power of the public opinion war.
Looking at the South China Sea from Ukraine, can China withstand the pressure of public opinion war?
The "South China Sea International Arbitration" in 2016 is the product of the public opinion war between Europe and the United States.
However, the diplomatic strategy of the United States at that time was to force China to submit, but China made preparations for a backwater war, so that the Showdown plan of the United States did not succeed.
However, if their aim is only to control the diplomatic tendencies in Southeast Asia and avoid direct conflict with China as much as possible, the United States may not be deadlocked with the Philippines after that.
Now, the United States has proposed a relatively complete Indo-Pacific economic and trade framework, and they seem to want to advance step by step around China.
The fact now is that the United States has begun to use the public opinion fermentation of the Russian-Ukrainian issue and has made every effort to try to decouple the world from the Sino-Russian economy and trade.
For example, while European countries need cheap gas from Russia, if the war of public opinion in the West turns Russia into an outright "evil Nazi." What country would risk "helping the Nazis" and being sanctioned by the international community to continue to cooperate with Russia?
The Nord Stream 2 project was voluntarily stopped by Germany, which is undoubtedly the best proof. Even Germany, which has always been pragmatic and cautious, and its strength is the best in Europe, has been forced to take sides, and who in other European countries can withstand the moral pressure of international public opinion?
Although the price of natural gas in the United States is much higher than that of Russia, the United States, which strongly supports Ukraine, is obviously the more "international moral" side, so the natural gas from the United States is undoubtedly "more moral".
As long as they think that part of the price they have paid is worth it, people will be willing to use extra money to "buy this international morality.".
Looking at the South China Sea, ASEAN is now China's largest trading partner located around the South China Sea, and if the United States takes advantage of the continuous infiltration of the South China Sea issue to seize the diplomatic initiative around the South China Sea and launch a public opinion war against China, the future economic and trade situation will be greatly beneficial to European and American countries.
This new "international ethic" could force Southeast Asian countries to reduce their trade dependence on China.
At the same time, the United States can also use the propaganda slogan of "democracy and freedom" to "more reasonably" transfer a series of additional burdens caused by the decoupling between China and the United States to ordinary people, and accelerate the domestic infrastructure of the United States in one fell swoop, stimulating the secondary cycle of the internal economy of the United States.
Therefore, whether it is a foreign or internal affair for the United States, or a disguised containment and suppression of China, using the South China Sea issue to play a game with China is an indispensable step.
The question is, can China now withstand the pressure of the battlefield of public opinion and stabilize its peripheral position in the South China Sea?
Judging from the way Europe and the United States attack Russia, we may still be ill-prepared to deal with international public opinion, and China still does not have an international platform of its own. Including our international version of Douyin, the operator is not China.
International mainstream platforms such as Twitter have always implemented double standards for content involving China, and some US Winter Olympic athletes have been officially banned by Twitter just because they shared the true side of China.
In fact, the biggest enlightenment of this Russian-Ukrainian conflict to China is that we must be cautious about us diplomatic behavior in the South China Sea, we must not lose the diplomatic initiative and regional influence in the South China Sea, at least we should find a way to do something, so that Southeast Asian countries are not brainwashed by unilateral pressure from the United States, thus affecting the diplomatic trend of the entire South China Sea.