Some people say that China bullied them, really?

Spread the love

Source: jingsiyouwo666 (id:jingsiyouwo666)

In the past two days, two countries said they had been bullied. Both of them are still influential countries in the world. In particular, they are the die hard younger brothers of the United States. They have been holding the tiger skin as the flag in the world and bullying others.

Now, they say they have been bullied. Specifically, they have been “bullied” by China. The two countries are Canada and Australia.

On June 5, the official website of the Australian Ministry of defense released a statement. Please note that it is not the media, but the official website of the Ministry of national defense. It seems that he is really a matter. They said that on May 26, while conducting reconnaissance in the international airspace of the South China Sea, they were intercepted by Chinese j-16 fighters.

Most importantly, they said that the Chinese warplanes had made “dangerous moves” that posed a “threat to the safety” of their aircraft and personnel.

Just a few days before Australia issued such a bullied statement, the Canadian Ministry of defense also issued a statement. Please note that it is also the Ministry of defense that issued a formal statement, not the media. They said that the Canadian Air Force had “many interactions” with the people’s Liberation Army Air force when patrolling areas near the Korean Peninsula.

The word “multiple interactions” is the original language of their statement and the official language. Friends can seriously understand what is “multiple interactions”.

Of course, the most important thing is that they accused the Chinese Air Force military aircraft of “not complying with international aviation safety regulations”, which threatened them. They also said that the Chinese pilots made provocative actions such as “pointing the middle finger”.

To sum up, Australia ran thousands of kilometers, wandered in the South China Sea, and was intercepted by Chinese military aircraft. Canada even ran tens of thousands of kilometers to the vicinity of the Korean Peninsula, that is, to the East China Sea near China, and was intercepted by Chinese military aircraft.

Generally speaking, it is very normal for them to wander around the door of China and be intercepted by China.

They didn’t say how important interception was, because it was too normal internationally. What they accuse China of is that China’s interception is a bit dangerous and threatens their security – of course, nothing actually happened. So a simple description of this is that the scale and range of the intercepting action of Chinese military aircraft are relatively large, which frightens them and makes their little hearts a little unbearable.

Of course, as ordinary people, you can also start a guess that is not too rigorous and may not be confirmed. If they didn’t slip away quickly and are smart, something might happen.

When it comes to this, many friends may find it more enjoyable and have developed the ambition of the Chinese people. I think so, too.

However, if we stop here, we may miss “big fish”. By “big fish” I mean big problems.

The big question is, why did he say that Australia and Canada suffered losses? Especially why do you say it so loudly?

As I emphasized earlier, they made a statement through the official website of the Ministry of national defense, saying that they had suffered a loss, not just the media.

Some friends may think that it is normal for them to say that they have suffered losses and grievances. It seems that there is nothing to doubt.

In my opinion, this equates complex and strange international games, especially military struggles, with routine interpersonal relationships in life.

In the field of international military struggle, it is not necessary to say that we have suffered losses; In the same way, if you take advantage of it, you may not say it. It can also be generalized. If you don’t suffer a loss, you may deliberately shout that you have suffered a loss; In the same way, if you don’t take advantage, you may shout that you have won a major victory.

We often find it interesting that both sides of the war declare that they have won a major victory at the same time. It is reasonable to say that when there is a conflict, one of the belligerents will win and the other will surely be the loser. There can be no two winners. However, in the propaganda of military struggle, there are often wonderful scenes that both sides have won.

In a word, in the field of military struggle, the actual situation is one thing, but it is another. This is common sense, routine and normal. When we analyze international military struggles, we need to have such basic qualities.

My friends should feel this very much. Let me give two more typical examples.

On April 13 this year, Moscow, the flagship of the Russian Black Sea fleet, exploded and caught fire. The ship sank in the Black Sea on the second day, which was the heaviest loss suffered by the Russian Navy since the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. So who was the ship hit by?

The Ukrainian side claimed that its coastal defense forces hit it with the “Neptune” missile. However, the Russian Defense Ministry said that it was because the ammunition depot on the ship caught fire and did not admit to being attacked.

Why doesn’t Russia admit that it was hit by Ukraine? One of the important reasons is related to the morale of the Russian army. The Russian navy is very powerful, and the Moscow is the flagship of the Black Sea fleet. It is generally believed that Ukraine’s military strength is very weak and is unable to sink the flagship of a Russian fleet. Therefore, Russia would rather admit that the ammunition depot of its own ship caught fire, rather than admit that it was hit by the enemy.

This is an example of the reluctance to admit publicly even if one has suffered a loss in the military struggle.

I would like to give another example of how it is not easy for the generous side to admit that they have taken advantage of the war.

On march14,1988, China and Vietnam broke out the Nansha sea war. In this war, China controlled nine islands and reefs including Yongshu Reef, which led to China’s later island building in the South China Sea.

We will not talk about the course of the war. We will just talk about the result.

One person was injured in China. The injured comrade was yangzhiliang. Because the number of injured people is too small, we should point out the specific name of the injured hero every time we say it. How many people did China sacrifice? The answer is 0. How much did the Chinese ships lose? The answer is 0.

What about Vietnam? It is estimated that more than 300 people died. How many ships did Vietnam lose? The answer is: two ships were sunk and one was seriously injured.

I would like to emphasize one detail with my friends, that is, the Vietnamese ship seriously injured by the PLA, because it actually sank very soon.

Do you think this ship was seriously injured by the PLA? Or was it sunk by the PLA? At that time, China announced that the Vietnamese ship had only been wounded by China and had not been sunk. The implication is that it sank later. He sank it himself, not me. The other two ships sank without a minute’s delay during the battle, so China had no choice but to declare that the two ships were attacked by China.

Why should China be so modest in publicizing the fruits of war?

We can tell by looking at the time of the Nansha naval battle: 1988.

At that time, China had just carried out reform and opening-up, and was concealing its strength and biding its time. It was bent on developing the economy and did not want to create big contradictions with the surrounding countries. Therefore, even if it took advantage of it, it did not want to claim its victory. As long as it got it really cheap.

Let’s take another look at the conflict between China and India in the kalwan Valley on june15,2020, two years ago. As soon as the conflict broke out, the media reported that 20 people died in India. What are the number of casualties in China? There has been no news for a long time, and China will not publish it. It was not until February 19, 2021 that China announced that three people had been killed and one seriously injured.

Why did China not disclose the number of casualties for a long time after the end of the conflict? Because the comparison of the number of deaths and injuries is too wide. 20 people died in India and three people died in China, which may intensify the contradiction. At present, China is not willing to have a fierce conflict with India fundamentally. It advocates calming down the situation, making big things small, and improving relations with its neighbors.

Therefore, we have found that in military struggle, whether we suffer losses or take advantage of them, it is one thing in itself, and it is another thing to say externally. These are completely two things.

Having understood this truth, let’s take a look at Australia and Canada’s recent mobilization to say internationally that they have suffered a loss this time and have been bullied by China.

There is no doubt that it is one thing whether they have suffered a loss or whether they have been bullied by China, but it is another thing for them to say it with great fanfare.

To put it simply, they must have another purpose to say that they have been bullied and suffered losses internationally.

So what is the purpose?

My answer is that on the surface, they are talking to China. The Australian Minister of defense also said that he had communicated with China through appropriate channels. In fact, he said that he had suffered losses and been bullied. Not a word was said to China.

So who was he talking to?

I think it’s mainly for three groups of people.

The first wave, the parliament of their country. What are they trying to do to make their National Congress hear that they have suffered losses and been bullied? Picture one word: money.

The logic here is: you see, we are losing money and being bullied because our weapons are not good enough and there are not enough good weapons. Congress, give us money quickly.

The second group is the people of their country. If they want to confront China, they must get the support of the domestic people. If they want the domestic people to support their confrontation with China, they must vilify China’s image and enhance people’s antipathy to China. So they have to publicize that they have been bullied by China this time, and they have suffered a loss in front of China this time.

By the way, the notorious laundry detergent incident, that is, before the United States wanted to invade Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State Powell held a bag of white powder bottles at the United Nations Security Council and said that it was evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Who is this big lie trying to deceive?

Generally speaking, the focus of public opinion is that the United States wants to deceive the world. In fact, how can the world cheat? All the people in the world pay attention to this matter are politicians. Are people at this level so easy to be cheated? What medicine is sold in your gourd? Others can see it at a glance, so it can’t be deceived.

But why should the United States cheat like this? In essence, he is not trying to deceive the world, he is trying to deceive his own people, because if Iraq is not described as a demon with weapons of mass destruction, his own people will not support him in launching an aggressive war.

Of course, it is reasonable to say that he cheated the whole world. It means that he can use this lie to make up a set of logic. But this is just for him to justify himself. Fundamentally, he can not deceive the world.

Therefore, capitalist countries often make lies in order to start wars. In fact, they mainly want to deceive the people of their own countries, and of course, they also deceive the good people in the world.

Well, this time Australia and Canada say that they have suffered losses and been bullied in front of China. They also want to create an image of Chinese bullies in front of their people, so as to pave the way for them to fight in front of China in the future.

The third wave of people are some countries in the world. The effect they want to achieve is: you see, China bullies people. They are afraid of people. Today, he bullies me. Tomorrow, he may bully you. Therefore, we should all work together to deal with China.

This is in fact echoing the strategy of their master – the United States’ alliance to encircle China.

After this analysis, we will find that Australia and Canada have recently portrayed themselves as victims, saying that they have suffered losses and been bullied, which is actually a public opinion war against China.

The means is to discredit China and create China threat theory.

Therefore, we must not follow the enemy’s routine. We should say well, who bullied who? Did I bully you?

To clarify this issue, we must first clarify a question, that is, where did this happen? Is it near China? Or is it near Australia or Canada?

The two things mentioned today, one in the South China Sea and the other in the East China Sea next to China, are at the gate of China. The two places are tens of thousands of kilometers away from Canada and thousands of kilometers away from Australia.

Excuse me, have you ever found someone else’s door to be bullied by others?

Moreover, due to the lack of public information, it is not clear whether the location of the conflict is within China’s territorial sea and airspace.

In a word, you have traveled thousands of miles to my door. You may have climbed over the wall of my courtyard. Even if you are beaten, you deserve it. Who is bullying who?

This is the first question.

Question 2, what is bullying?

As I said earlier, it is normal for some countries, such as the United States, Australia and Canada, to be intercepted by others when they wander around the world. Even they do not say that the interception itself is evidence that they have been bullied.

The important thing is how to intercept. There are rules and standards. For example, there is an international aviation safety code. There is also the “rules for accidental encounters at sea”, which was first proposed by Australia and New Zealand, officially announced at the Western Pacific Naval forum in 2000, and adopted at the 14th annual meeting of the Western Pacific Naval forum hosted by the Chinese navy on April 22, 2014.

These rules are the criteria for judging whether to bully.

It’s a bit like you’re always hanging around my door, so I’ll come out and hang around with you. You want to go this way, I also go this way, you want to go that way, I also go that way, I let you not cross, but we do not touch, we do not violate the rules. Well, as long as this is the case, I will not bully you.

But there is a problem. If I suddenly raise my hand and you see me raise my hand, you think I want to hit you. You are scared. Your little heart can’t stand it. You run away quickly. If you say I bullied you, you don’t blame me. That certainly can’t be counted as I bullied you. You can only blame your poor health and your cowardice.

At present, the Chinese Ministry of defense has officially replied to the Canadian speculation. On June 6, the spokesman of the Ministry of defense, senior colonel Wuqian, replied as follows:

“The Chinese side firmly opposes the Canadian military aircraft’s provocation against China’s approach, which endangers China’s national security and the safety of front-line personnel on both sides. In response to Canada’s provocative acts and unfriendly and unprofessional operations, the Chinese military quickly took reasonable, forceful and professional measures to deal with them, and made solemn representations to Canada through diplomatic channels.”

Senior Colonel Wuqian’s reply has two meanings:

The first level means that Canada first provoked us, and your actions were very unfriendly and unprofessional. That means, if it doesn’t matter who bullied who, you bullied me first.

The second layer means that China’s disposal is rational, powerful and safe. There are four words:

That’s right. That’s what I just said. You bullied me first. You were unfriendly and unprofessional first.

The word “forceful” indicates that China’s response is still very strong, which also confirms that Canada’s small heart can’t stand it.

If it is safe, it means that it has not caused any substantial damage to you. You just can’t stand it.

The most important thing is the word “specialty”, which is to comply with various specifications.

Since I am safe and professional, you can’t say I bullied you. Still that sentence, your little heart can’t stand it. It’s because you’re timid. It’s because you’re in poor health. You can’t blame me for bullying you.

For another example, Australia said that he was bullied. Australia said that he was bullied and that China made dangerous moves, mainly referring to the fact that Chinese warplanes dropped infrared jamming bombs and chaff jamming bombs.

This chaff jamming bomb can be generally understood as a glass fiber similar to tin foil. After it is released, it can interfere with the enemy’s radar and make the enemy’s radar make a wrong judgment, so that the enemy’s military aircraft can not attack our military aircraft.

According to Australia, China’s move made him very uncomfortable and dangerous. Some chaff was sucked into the engine of the Australian military aircraft. If it was not done well, he might destroy the aircraft and kill people, so their hearts could not stand it. They said that China’s move was very dangerous.

However, the release of chaff jamming bombs and infrared jamming bombs by China is a passive action, and an automatic launching program is set up on the Chinese military aircraft, that is, when the enemy military aircraft is in a state that threatens our security, our aircraft will automatically launch this thing. On the contrary, since this thing was launched, it means that you bullied me first.

As for saying that you wanted to bully me, but in the end, you couldn’t steal a handful of rice by yourself. That’s not my fault. It’s really about bullying. I’m not bullying you. You’re bullying me!

Did your friends find out? It is more difficult to fight in peacetime than to fight in earnest! Why? We should not only defeat others and make the enemy’s little heart unbearable, but also let others seize the handle and be unable to let go!

PLA, it’s not easy!

Let’s think further and more carefully.

The Chinese military aircraft launched infrared jamming bombs and chaff jamming bombs, and the Australian military aircraft sucked some chaff jamming bombs into its engine. If it was not done well, the aircraft would be destroyed and people would die, which could lead to major accidents.

On the other hand, the reason why we launched such a jamming bomb is that Australian military aircraft have threatened the safety of our personnel. If we do not handle it properly, it may be us who destroyed the aircraft and killed people.

What does that mean? This means that the situation was very dangerous!

How dangerous is it? Let’s just think about the scene where Chinese martyr Wang Wei died on april1,2001. In fact, the scene that martyr Wang Wei faced was exactly the same as the one I described today, except that the Chinese soldier Wang Wei was in danger at that time. At that time, China’s fighter planes were too low-grade, several generations behind the American fighter planes.

This has forced us to think about a deeper question: is this really a war?

There may be sacrifices at any time. There may be machine destruction and human death at any time. There may be major events that shock the world at any time. Isn’t that war?

Some friends always ask me when I will fight. I always answer: in fact, I fight every day!

There is no such thing as a quiet time, but someone is carrying a heavy load! So it is clear that there is war every day, but you are asking me when I will fight.

Today, I said that we are fighting almost every day, which is not a metaphor or a casual remark. Let’s look at some numbers.

Take Canada, which hyped his bullying this time. According to Canadian media, since the end of December 2021, the people’s Liberation Army has conducted more than 60 interceptions against Canadian military aircraft, of which about 20 were very dangerous. For this time, the distance between the military aircraft of both sides is between 6 meters and 30 meters.

As for the confrontation between the Chinese military aircraft and the Australian military aircraft, the Australians have seen the Chinese pilots raise their middle fingers to show their contempt, and they call it “provocation”.

Also, let’s talk about the United States. In the whole year of last year, about 4000 to 5000 US military aircraft of various types conducted close reconnaissance against China in the air; On the water, about five warships are operating in the South China Sea, the East China Sea or the yellow sea every day… The PLA should accompany them in all these provocative actions!

Every time I play with them, it is very dangerous. I don’t know when there will be danger!

In late March this year, CCTV’s seven “military reports” program interviewed the heroic unit of the “sea and Air Eagle regiment” of the Chinese naval aviation force. Pilots Wang Mao and Li Liang introduced their experience.

On one occasion, they had just finished their routine patrol and were preparing to return after the handover. Suddenly, they found that another enemy plane was trying to approach. What should we do?

Their biggest problem at this time was that they had just finished a routine patrol, and there was not much oil on the plane. Pilot Wang Mao recalled:

“At that time, the fuel gauge of the fighter had reached its limit.”

What should I do? The enemy won’t come until you fill up the tank, and we can’t go back to fill up the tank to meet the enemy. The enemy often comes when your fuel tank is out of fuel. What do you do?

Pilot Wang Mao said, “the brave will win if they meet on a narrow road”. They immediately turned at the maximum gradient, loaded up and returned to the mission airspace to face the enemy.

Wang Mao finally said:

“We fully defend our territorial waters and airspace and are ready to sacrifice at any time.”

This is the current situation of military struggle facing China.

The peace and tranquility enjoyed by each of us is not “as it should have been” or “as it should have been”. It is only because some people are on guard, some are driving away jackals, tigers and leopards, some are ready to turn back, and some are not planning to return when they embark on the journey

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *