It has been a long time since I last wrote about the Russia-Ukraine war. Over the past few years, this topic has become excessively heated online, with everyone holding their own opinions—many of which are irreconcilable and sharply opposed. After writing a short piece early in the war titled As an Ordinary Chinese, How to View the Russia-Ukraine War, I never updated my thoughts on the matter. Now, it’s time for an update.
How to View the Russia-Ukraine War
To me, the Russia-Ukraine war is an unsuccessful remake of another conflict—the Sino-Vietnamese War (the Counterattack in Self-Defense Against Vietnam). The two share many similarities:
- Both were triggered by a small country betraying a major power.
- Both small countries sought protection from external powers.
- Both small countries engaged in domestic ethnic cleansing.
- Both major powers aimed for a quick victory to punish the small country.
The difference lies in Russia’s incompetence, which prevented it from achieving a swift victory. Instead, it shifted to occupying eastern Ukraine.
Occupying eastern Ukraine is indeed a violation of another country’s sovereignty. But from a strategic logic perspective, it carries some rationality. Otherwise, Russia wouldn’t have taken such a risk.
Take Vietnam as an example. Before the war broke out in February 1979, Vietnam had already effectively cleansed its territory of over 200,000 ethnic Chinese, leaving almost none remaining.
Under such circumstances, even if China had invaded Vietnam, there would have been no motivation to annex its territory.
But eastern Ukraine is different. It is home to tens of millions of ethnic Russians, all of whom speak Russian.
From both practical and long-term perspectives, these millions of Russians could neither be resettled (unlike the 200,000 ethnic Chinese in Vietnam, who were absorbed by Guangdong and Guangxi) nor left under the control of the Kyiv regime without a change in its political stance.
Leaving them in place seems the only option—either eastern Ukraine becomes independent or is annexed by Russia.
After all, Europeans have long preached that “human rights outweigh sovereignty” and encouraged ethnic separatism.
Issues involving intertwined ethnic and national identities are inherently complex and cannot be resolved by rigidly adhering to the doctrine of territorial integrity.
There are also arguments like “historical claims,” “effective control,” “succession of sovereignty,” “self-determination,” “geographical proximity,” “security needs,” and “shelving disputes.” Countries flexibly adopt whichever doctrine serves their interests.
Even domestically, territorial claims are often based on different doctrines—no one would box themselves in with a single rigid principle.
Precedent + Capability = Legitimacy.
Background on the Counterattack in Self-Defense Against Vietnam
In early 1977, Vietnam launched a census under the pretext of “purifying border areas,” forcing ethnic Chinese to register as Vietnamese citizens. Many who retained Chinese nationality were stripped of employment and education rights, arbitrarily dismissed, and deprived of household registration and food rations.
By October 1977, Vietnam began expelling ethnic Chinese from provinces like Hoang Lien Son, Lai Chau, and Son La in the northwest, later extending the campaign across northern Vietnam. Most of the expelled were working-class Chinese. Vietnamese authorities routinely broke into their homes, forced them to sign “voluntary repatriation forms,” and seized their hard-earned possessions. Countless families were left displaced and destitute.
During their forced return to China, many were beaten or even shot by Vietnamese police and military. Their belongings were confiscated, leaving them with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Many elderly and children arrived in China sick and traumatized.
At the Fourth Plenum of the Vietnamese Communist Party in 1978 and subsequent meetings, Vietnam declared China its “direct enemy” and “primary adversary,” adopting an “offensive strategy” against China as a core strategic task.
Between April and mid-May 1978 alone, over 50,000 ethnic Chinese were expelled. By the end of May, the number exceeded 100,000, and by July 20, it surpassed 160,000—not counting those who fled elsewhere.
This was intolerable!
If Indonesia—a distant island nation—could get away with persecuting ethnic Chinese due to China’s limited military reach at the time, did Vietnam, a neighboring country, really think it could do the same without consequences?
On February 17, 1979, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army launched a counterattack in self-defense along the Guangxi and Yunnan borders. By March 16, Chinese forces had captured the Vietnamese provincial capitals of Lang Son, Cao Bang, and Lao Cai, along with 17 counties and cities. They crippled four regular Vietnamese divisions and 10 regiments, killing 37,000 Vietnamese troops and delivering a harsh lesson to the Lê Duẩn regime.
The war left Vietnam economically stunted for 30 years.
How to View Volodymyr Zelensky
From the beginning, Zelensky’s sole purpose in leading Ukraine’s war effort has been to join NATO. Even now, as Trump calls for his resignation, he remains fixated on this goal.
While Zelensky’s defiance is commendable on the surface, a leader who pins all his hopes on foreign powers hardly qualifies as a hero.
Don’t compare Zelensky to Chiang Kai-shek
Chiang fought for national independence, not to join the Soviet or American blocs.
Even as he obsessively suppressed communists domestically, he strategically balanced relations with both the USSR and the U.S.
Modern Chinese history is littered with bloody lessons: when you lack strength, external allies are unreliable.
Don’t claim NATO is Ukraine’s only option
The first line of The Art of War states: “War is a matter of vital importance to the state; a matter of life or death, the road either to survival or ruin.” Recognizing the broader geopolitical landscape and avoiding total alignment with the U.S.—even by playing both sides—would have been wiser than backing Ukraine into a corner.
Choosing total alignment means surrendering your fate to another power in exchange for short-term gains. Historically, this has proven to be the greatest security risk. Both the Chinese Communist Party and the Kuomintang learned this the hard way. For instance, during Sino-Soviet friendship, the USSR provided 156 industrial projects. But when it sought to assert hegemony, it amassed troops on the border and threatened “surgical strikes.” Today, Canada, Denmark (Greenland), and even TSMC face similar dilemmas.
Don’t equate eastern Ukraine with Taiwan
China has waited 70 years for Taiwan’s 23 million culturally and ethnically identical compatriots. Does Ukraine, with its limited strength, have that luxury? Moreover, Russia initially didn’t insist on annexing eastern Ukraine outright. A month into the war, during four rounds of talks in Turkey, Russia proposed that Ukraine abandon NATO aspirations in exchange for negotiations on the region’s status. But Zelensky, emboldened by Biden’s empty promises, chose to fight on.
Now, Ukraine has lost over 10 million people, its youth decimated, its economy in ruins, and eastern Ukraine irreversibly alienated. Even if it wanted to regroup, recovery would take decades.
Don’t glorify fighting to the last man
History shows that “long divided, must unite; long united, must divide.” If fighting to the end means Ukraine is bled dry as the West desires, survival and strategic patience might be the wiser choice.
Chinese history is replete with cycles proving that “where there’s life, there’s hope.” Losing a battle is humiliating, but cutting losses and rebuilding is true resilience. The Sixteen Prefectures of Yan and Yun were lost for 455 years; Taiwan was repeatedly lost; the Yuan and Qing dynasties saw entire nations conquered by foreigners—yet all were eventually reclaimed. Even the non-resisting Zhang Xueliang later became a national hero.
Eastern Ukraine isn’t going anywhere. Like the South Tibet region, occupied by India for 80 years, it will be resolved one day. Or like the hundreds of South China Sea islands held by others—reclaiming them isn’t urgent.
Every European nation has lost territory, and “human rights over sovereignty” is now a popular creed. Shame doesn’t hinder resurgence.
The entire West is egging Ukraine to go all-in, yet everyone knows Ukraine’s chance of winning is zero. After the “referendums” in the four eastern regions six months into the war, this conflict became meaningless—except as a symbolic “glory.”
What else is left?
How to View Trump’s Shift on the Russia-Ukraine War
Trump’s changing stance on Ukraine lays bare the fangs of imperialism.
When a major power can’t be bitten, it turns to devour smaller ones.
Political Retribution
On the surface, U.S. Prime Minister Musk is slashing government jobs under the guise of cutting bureaucratic bloat. But a glance at federal spending shows that 2.74 million employees cost $240 billion—just 4% of the budget—while military spending nears $900 billion.
The real motive is political purging.
After surviving assassination attempts, impeachment, and imprisonment, Trump has every right to retaliate—a vendetta with inherent righteousness.
If the Democrats backed Ukraine, the Republicans will do the opposite.
In American logic, undoing the predecessor’s legacy is the essence of revenge.
Strategic Misstep
Ukraine is a pawn in the Democrats’ “universal values” narrative.
Whether to rally European allies, forge a “free world alliance,” or funnel hundreds of billions in military aid, it’s all part of the Democrats’ playbook.
Short-term, it wins allies; long-term, it brainwashes generations.
But the fatal flaw is that “universal values” don’t build hard power—they drain it.
Before the war, few saw Ukraine as a U.S. or European ally.
Yet the Democrats lured Ukraine into war, weaponizing their woke narrative to bind dozens of nations against Russia and pressure China to pick sides.
They overestimated their strength and underestimated China’s.
Three years in, the war hasn’t revitalized U.S. arms manufacturing. Instead, it exposed America’s hollowed-out industrial base.
The only innovation—suicide drones—was cribbed from China’s low-end manufacturing.
Meanwhile, China’s explosive military growth under Biden has stunned U.S. elites.
How can they compete?
Tactical errors can be fixed; strategic blunders are fatal.
Human Rights Over Sovereignty
Trump’s first term already targeted China as the top adversary.
But the Democrats, to uphold their narrative, pushed Russia to the brink, sparking an unnecessary war.
“Human rights over sovereignty” is America’s core ideological export.
But in Ukraine, do Russian-speaking Slavs even qualify for human rights?
Trump, meanwhile, resurrected the doctrine, dismissing sovereignty and territory as trivial, and blaming Zelensky for the war.
Who truly represents American values?
EU Membership Was Always a Scam
Despite Zelensky’s global charm offensive, Ukraine’s Soviet legacy is indelible.
The Baltics could ingratiate themselves by mindlessly opposing Russia.
But Ukraine?
After years of ethnic cleansing and self-mutilation to appease the West, eastern Ukraine—the economic and industrial heartland—remains overwhelmingly Russian.
The more Ukraine purges Russians, the more the east rebels.
And behind eastern Ukraine stands Russia—poor but armed.
Europe failed to crush Russia in centuries. Yet it urges Ukraine to believe in “democratic victory.”
EU and NATO membership were bait to lure Ukraine into the abyss.
That this farce lasted so long proves USAID’s propaganda prowess.
Profit, Profit, Profit
What has the Democrats’ war achieved?
Beyond reaffirming Europe’s inability to defeat Russia, what strategic gain does the U.S. have?
Sure, Democrats profited handsomely—but whose money?
Russia’s? Ukraine’s? China’s?
With the U.S.-China showdown looming, bleeding taxpayers and allies dry leaves 96% of the budget wasted.
The solution?
Redistribution.
If Democrats can pocket billions, Republicans will show them how it’s really done.
Ukraine? Who’s that? Pay up!
Weakness Invites Aggression
Many liken Ukraine’s plight to China’s modern history, invoking “anti-aggression” rhetoric. There’s truth to this.
China’s近代史 (modern history), especially its experience of foreign invasion, is undeniably traumatic.
But on the world stage, one must recognize the law of the jungle.
Between nations, there is no “fairness” or “justice.”
There is no “world police.”
Small countries have few choices beyond caution.
Even when confronting major powers, they must weigh their strength and avoid crossing red lines.
Otherwise, they’d better hope they can defend themselves.
Centuries of Western colonialism and decades of U.S.-Soviet bullying have left almost no victimized nation truly vindicated.
China’s historical grievances, too, remain unresolved.
Fortunately, modern China has escaped the era of “weakness invites aggression.”
But against the U.S., it can only defend itself or negotiate as an equal—far from being able to dispense justice.
Pessimistically, given current geopolitics, no single nation may assume that role for centuries.
Finally, over these three years, China’s neutrality on Ukraine has been its greatest contribution to world peace. It has offended no one.