In fact, friends who pay attention to international politics can find that the reporting caliber of the Western media is often very uniform and organized, that is, they will periodically change the tendency and focus of the report every once in a while, and recently a new trend has begun to set off, that is, to bring out "wolf diplomacy" to complain and accuse China's diplomacy of being too tough.
An article published in the New York Times on Wednesday focused on China's foreign service, saying that "the Chinese diplomatic corps as a whole is becoming more and more tough and incomprehensible," and specifically named spokesman Zhao Lijian, personally calling him very "aggressive" and warning that China "will be spurned by the people of the world if it continues like this."
Zhao Lijian is indeed a representative of this aspect, and China's diplomatic style has indeed undergone great changes after the epidemic in 2020, when some criticisms of Zhao Lijian can be seen on the domestic Internet, saying that his meaningless "wolf diplomacy" style will only damage China's international image; yes, long before foreign media issued similar views, some people with soft knees in China had already said such things.
Regarding the accusations of the US media, the official account of the China International Television (CGTN) press corps responded on Twitter: "No one wants to be a wolf, unless they are surrounded by many wolves"; this reminds me of a sentence that the Chinese Embassy in France said not long ago in response to the EU's malicious sanctions against China: If China has "wolves", then there must be too many "mad dogs".
In fact, these two responses point out a very fundamental problem: China's toughness is originally forced, at least in the Chinese of the Internet, we know very well that long before China's diplomacy became a "wolf warrior", we have been under various attacks, and it has been a long time since this change occurred, so it is precisely because there are too many "mad dogs" that Zhao Lijian, or Chinese diplomats, are forced to act like "wolves".
But if I want to say it, China's diplomacy is not a "wolf warrior" at all, but it is only to say that in the past, it was customary to look at it with a low brow and a good eye, and now we cannot adapt to seeing That China dares to fight back against some groundless accusations, and there is still a long way to go before the real "wolf warrior"; for example, we often see foreign journalists, political leaders, and envoys disregarding historical facts and issuing fallacies that are favorable to themselves; in contrast, we still attach too much importance to facts, are too reasonable, and "too face-to-face" in this regard.
For example, two days ago, the British ambassador to China said unashamedly at the World Peace Forum that Britain was one of the first countries to recognize China, and at that time it did not interfere in China's internal affairs and demanded the Western road, so China could not ask Britain to take the "Chinese road"; however, the British ambassador to China never mentioned the "purple quartz incident" caused by the intervention in the Liberation War in 1949.
Another very representative example is the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Afghanistan by the Australian, British and American militaries exposed in 2020, at that time, in our opinion, this matter was exposed by Australia's self-exposure, which is why some people on the domestic Internet later trumpeted it as the courage to admit mistakes, but then their reaction was shocking.
When the West, which has committed such crimes against humanity, immediately stopped discussing the matter when they found out that Chinese public opinion was discussing the matter, and turned to attacking China, criticizing China for its "indifference" to their attacks on crimes against humanity. When the rabble painted a painting, "The Division of Peace," angry Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison himself stepped down and cursed the streets, and the entire Western world immediately forgot about their crimes in Afghanistan and ran to criticize China's "aggressive diplomatic attitude."
What kind of rogue logic is this? That is to say, the West can do all kinds of disgusting things, but other countries, especially China, cannot say? It can only be said that the attitude of the entire West on many issues is too arrogant and unreasonable, and to some extent, Russia, which they accuse of being rendered like a monster, treats other countries more equally in diplomacy.
Of course, how the Western media and public opinion attack China on this issue we can't control, but I think of a lot of groundless accusations against Zhao Lijian on the Internet last year, although now there are fewer, maybe the knees have hardened after eating calcium tablets; but I still have to say that China's diplomacy has never been tough, it used to be weak with low eyebrows, but now it has become normal, and it has begun to deal with many problems in an equal position, and the West may not be able to adapt for a while, so we may as well become tougher.
Because you can't reason with those arrogant imperialists; and internally, there seems to be no shortage of people in China who can't make up for their knees and eat calcium tablets, who follow the West everywhere culturally, evaluate Western values, give up the right to speak to the enemy, throw the rights that originally belonged to us on the ground, and proudly regard it as "in line with international standards."
While demanding equality externally, we must not forget these internal enemies, they are all potential internal ghosts, now public opinion is favorable to us, they have no sense of existence, once the environment changes, they will immediately jump out to praise the Western democratic freedom, it is easy to cut off the braids on the head, and it is a long way to go to cut off the braids in the heart; in short, although the influence of the internal enemies on Chinese society is very small, it still requires the efforts of everyone to completely eradicate them.