01
Recently, the "theory of consuming the United States" created by the concubines has suddenly become popular in the field of public opinion, and has been sought after by many people, and has even been praised as the "old conspiracy of the country".
This argument holds that China's characteristics lie in "energy consumption", "consumption" is "China's way to win", "another ten to fifteen years with the United States", China will basically "win".
But what exactly does "consume" mean? Why can the United States be "consumed"?
Combined with the context of the proposer of the "consume the United States" theory, and the usual method of the word "consumption" in daily life, it can be deduced that the meaning of "consumption" here is to stay up, to be anxious, to delay, and so on.
Or, in more academic terms, the "america-depleting" strategy is a way of advocating the use of China's very existence itself (rather than struggle) as the primary way to confront the United States.
If this reasoning is correct, then we can also make a little analysis of the real psychology of the proposer of the "death of America" theory and its possible effects.
02
What kind of psychology does the "america-consuming america" theory reflect?
First, this reflects a kind of mentality of advocating the United States and fearing the United States, fearing struggle and competition, and undoubtedly, this is also a kind of passive beating psychology.
The phrase "consume America" sounds confident at first glance, but the implication is that since "existence" itself can kill the United States, any struggle (whether active or passive) is unnecessary, even a risk.
This kind of "strategy" can only put China in a passive state of being beaten, losing the opportunity to seize the historical opportunity and gain a decisive advantage.
China needs time, so why does the United States not need time? The objective effect of the theory of "consuming the United States" will be to leave the United States with the opportunity to calmly resolve its internal contradictions and deploy to encircle China.
Judging from the historical experience of New China, how could Nixon have visited China without the great victory of the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea and vietnam to resist the United States? The breakthrough of the United States' encirclement of China in the early 1970s was not won by "attrition", but by daring to struggle and being good at struggle.
Second, the theory of "killing the United States" is in fact to create illusions in China, believing that over time, the end will automatically emerge, China will "lie to win", and the United States will "lie down to lose".
Chairman Mao has said that imperialism is both a paper tiger and a real tiger. But all our strategic arrangements should be based on whether imperialism or real tigers are based, and if we fantasize that one day the tigers will hit trees and die without fighting, they will inevitably make a big mistake.
03
In fact, the theory of "killing the United States" is nothing new, but it is just a copy of Chiang Kai-shek's passive anti-war policy of that year.
After the Battle of Wuhan in 1938, as the New Fourth Army of the Eighth Route Army advanced behind enemy lines, the battlefield behind enemy lines became the main battlefield of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, and Chiang Kai-shek's War of Resistance became increasingly passive.
After the outbreak of Pearl Harbor in 1941, Chiang Kai-shek became even more passive in the War of Resistance, bent on hitting the United States.
Chiang Kai-shek's policy of passive resistance to the War of Resistance caused serious consequences for China, causing China to be treated as a victorious country, treated by a defeated country, and betrayed by the United States and the Soviet Union at the Yalta Conference, not losing a large amount of sovereignty, but also losing a large area of territory.
04
Some people have compared the theory of "killing the United States" with the "protracted war," which is the worst time that the protracted war has been hacked.
The focus of a protracted war is "war" rather than "attrition." During the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression alone, hundreds of thousands of battles of all sizes were fought in the battlefield behind enemy lines alone, liberating more than 100 million people and recovering more than 1 million square kilometers of land.
Can we achieve such results by relying on "energy consumption" alone? Without fighting, how can we defeat Japanese imperialism?
Chiang Kai-shek wanted to "consume Japan to death," but until the eve of Japan's surrender, the frontal battlefield for which the Kuomintang was responsible was still losing ground.
05
In addition to national interests, geopolitical and other factors, there are also the meanings of ideological conflicts, and even the content of the clash of civilizations, and the harsh struggle in the future is inevitable, and it is absolutely impossible to "lie and win".
Like the War of Resistance Against Japan, we stand for protracted war, oppose the theory of quick victory, and also oppose the theory of national subjugation.
However, protracted war is by no means a passive "attrition", and at present, China is still in a strategic defensive posture, and it should adopt an "active defense" strategy, including taking the initiative when necessary.
In non-core areas of interest, it is necessary to carry out a reasonable, advantageous, and restrained struggle, and in areas involving core interests, it is necessary to confront each other tit-for-tat and fight for every inch of land.
In this way, China can gradually break the siege of the United States and open up a new situation in the next few years.