爱生活的晴

The deadlock between China and Japan remains unbroken, Russia is giving Japan a hard lesson in the Kuril Islands, is a Sino-Russian mixed doubles match coming?
It is estimated that Japan must be regretting it now! At this sensitive juncture where Sino-Japanese relations have fallen into a deadlock, Japan initially wanted to rely on hugging the United States tightly to hold the scene, but unexpectedly, a loud bang came from the northern border first. Russia directly used a live-fire drill to give Japan the hardest 'territorial lesson'. The official announcement from the Russian Pacific Fleet on the 25th clearly stated: the large landing ship 'Pereusvet' has just completed a defensive exercise in the Kuril Islands (referred to as the Northern Territories by Japan). Those in the know understand that at this point in time, in this location, it is not 'routine training' at all but a strategically significant signal aimed at a specific target. First, let's clarify the geographical accounts: the four islands at the southernmost tip of the Kuril Islands have always been considered the core of Japan's 'territorial claims', but the reality is that all four islands are currently under the actual control of Russia, making them a focal point of unresolved disputes between Russia and Japan.
The Russian military chose to act here, and it is clear who the guns are aimed at. Japan's situation is purely 'self-inflicted'. Take Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, for example, who has made strong statements against Russia regarding the Northern Territories issue, saying 'we must fully reclaim' one moment and then claiming 'Russia's occupation of the islands is illegal' the next, wearing down Russia's patience to an almost breaking point. Russia has always followed the principle of 'if one does not offend me, I will not offend others; if one offends me, I will retaliate', and this exercise is a clear message: if you dare to bounce around on territorial issues again, you will bear the consequences. What is even more worth pondering is that this exercise coincidentally intersects with the 'stumbling block' in Sino-Japanese relations.
Recently, the divergences between China and Japan have continued to ferment in multiple fields, with no signs of the deadlock easing. Russia's actions at this juncture are certainly not an isolated coincidence but rather resemble a tacit diplomatic understanding among major powers. You are pressuring Japan from the east while I am sounding the alarm from the north, creating a strategic effect that is much greater than the sum of its parts. This point has been evident for some time. In the past few weeks, Russia has repeatedly called on Japan regarding issues like 'denuclearization', demanding clear explanations from the Japanese side. It should be noted that Japan is simultaneously following the United States in 'military deregulation' while being ambiguous on the nuclear issue, which in itself has crossed Russia's red line.
Now that the exercise has taken place, it effectively upgrades the previous 'verbal warnings' to a 'show of force', aimed at making Japan realize that Russia has no room for concession on territorial and security issues. At this point, there will surely be those concerned: is this the prelude to a Sino-Russian 'mixed doubles'? Objectively speaking, China and Russia have never engaged in so-called 'military alliances', but they have always been highly consistent in their stance on maintaining regional peace and stability and opposing hegemonism. Recently, Japan has been flipping back and forth between China, the US, and Russia, wanting to gain an advantage in Sino-Japanese competition while trying to gain an edge on the territorial issue with Russia, even cooperating with the US to form a 'small circle' in the Asia-Pacific region. This kind of 'three-way juggling' is unrealistic in itself.
The current situation is very clear: the Sino-Japanese deadlock remains unbroken, and Japan's strategic space has already been compressed; Russia's action in the Kuril Islands is equivalent to directly sealing off Japan's 'northern retreat'. Next, it remains to be seen whether Japan can recognize reality; under the strategic pressure from the two major powers, continuing to follow the US down a dark path will only force Japan into a more awkward position. Finally, to put it frankly, territorial issues can never be resolved merely by 'shouting slogans'; great power competition emphasizes 'strength speaking'. If Japan cannot take to heart the lesson Russia has taught through this exercise, there will be even more 'hardcore' lessons awaiting in the future. As for whether China and Russia will further form strategic responses, let's wait and see. But it can be certain that any forces wishing to stir up trouble in the Asia-Pacific should not expect to succeed easily.

The Beginning of Internal Chaos
Recently, large-scale anti-corruption protests will be held in various places, including Rizal Park in Manila and the EDSA People Power Monument in Quezon City, Philippines. The Chinese Embassy and Consulates in the Philippines remind citizens in the Philippines to enhance safety precautions and avoid going out unless necessary. It is advised to plan transportation, avoid areas of protest, stay away from crowded places and traffic control zones, and take measures to ensure personal safety.
The problem in the Philippines is that most people have been influenced by the American propaganda system, resulting in a subconscious belief. People's thoughts do not arise out of thin air; if everyone had never been influenced by propaganda, they would behave like primitive people, eating when hungry, drinking when thirsty, only eating when it’s mealtime, and stopping work once they’ve earned enough for food, becoming like the "Sanhe Gods."
Work for one day, play for three days; they have not absorbed anything others have told them since childhood, such as hard work, long-term development, or moderate consumption. They have never learned any of it, so they become only concerned with their own basic needs as "Sanhe Gods." The American propaganda machine repeatedly promotes one thing in the subconscious: as long as there is a protest, the problem is solved. Americans strive to avoid the situation in France, where strikes happen frequently, and those who do not participate in strikes are targeted; a unified front for striking must be achieved.
Americans understand deeply that as long as they control the input of information, they can control the collective memory of the people. As long as they control the collective memory of the people, they can control everyone's mental model. By controlling the total number of these models, they can make society manageable. The French strike because negotiations have failed, and they have no choice but to resort to this tactic. Americans do not engage in dialogue; they promote unilateral slogans, avoid rationality, and embrace passionate emotions, leaving people confused but enthusiastic, even allowing for drug use.
Recently, we also have experts who, we don’t know if they are children under the influence or if they have taken money from Americans, now have to say hello to drugs. How can this bottom line be compromised? Unworthy individuals somehow managed to write an intelligible text that harms people, worse than a good dog. It is meant to make people abandon rationality, thought, and calmness, believing that simply shouting passionately will solve problems. This is a sign of the beginning of internal chaos. If the problems in the Philippines are not resolved, a significant confrontation between North and South will likely emerge.
Both the Marcos and Duterte families are wealthy clans in the Philippines, having monopolized various resources for generations, with their followers spread throughout the country. The masses in the Philippines are invisible because their input has been controlled and they believe such inheritance is justified. However, if a minor official exhibits some corrupt behavior, they will protest because it provides an emotional outlet for them. Simplifying deep structural contradictions into singular, moralistic slogans like anti-corruption, and through continuous, fragmented information bombardment, igniting short-term, effective emotions like anger and despair, replaces public discussions that require patience and logic, shaping the protests themselves into a symbolic ritual for solving problems. With just a few strikes, the problem is solved.
But has it really been solved? This approach works when the economy is still growing and can export contradictions, but the issue is that the economic growth in the Philippines is limited, and it cannot compete with others in exporting contradictions. If this continues, it will fall into a state of mutual blame between the eastern and western parts of the country, akin to Ukraine, where the abandonment of thought leads to mutual accusations of sabotaging the nation, which is not far off. Once the internal power struggles among the elites become zero-sum, various parties will mobilize public opinion as a weapon, and the inevitable result will drag the entire society into the abyss of civil war, inviting external intervention.

The more you expose your backside, the more you stand out
According to a report from a U.S. defense website, a test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile at the Yasnaya Polyana test site in Orenburg Oblast, Russia, ended in failure. The missile exploded mere seconds after launch, at an altitude of about 200 to 400 meters, and then fell back to the ground, leaving a purple cloud at the site. The British report states that the failed test occurred at the Yasnaya launch site, which is allegedly part of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces. The launch pad is one of Russia's 11 bases capable of executing land-based long-range missile launches. The purple smoke is due to the fact that this type of missile uses toxic propellant.
Things can be serious or trivial, but it is concerning to encounter those who would exploit the situation. Currently, it is the right time for the U.S. to lead negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Putin should make an appearance to secure better conditions regarding territorial issues. Nuclear weapons have their greatest power only when they are on the launch pad, but first, it must be known that this launch pad can fire. If it cannot fire, or if there are doubts about its firing capability, the deterrent power of nuclear weapons will be diminished. Russia does not have only one type of missile capable of launching nuclear warheads; similarly, our country has several types of missiles like Dongfeng-41, Dongfeng-31, and Dongfeng-5, all capable of launching nuclear warheads. Russia has Sarmat, Yars, and Topol, and there have been accidents before, such as the Sarmat explosion.
There is no choice; to ensure it still has nuclear deterrent capability, it can only launch the Topol again. The issue is not that Russia lacks nuclear weapons, but rather that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it no longer has complete industrial design capabilities. Much of the research and development work for nuclear weapons was originally the responsibility of Ukraine's Dnipro Design Bureau. This design bureau later became Ukraine's design bureau, resulting in half of Russia's nuclear weapon design and development capabilities disappearing. Now the situation is awkward; when Russia succeeds in doing something, it is often because the original Soviet system is still intact domestically. When things fail, it is often because the research and development systems are either in Ukraine or along the Baltic coast; a shattered system is truly shattered. Therefore, in the midst of the ongoing territorial negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, it is perfectly normal for Russia to expose its backside. However, at this moment, the more it exposes its backside, the more it stands out, because a powerful country can get things done, and everyone will say that's normal, just like a noodle vendor at Weiqiao who can develop an airplane, which seems to be a normal thing.
But when a country that is not so powerful can still get things done, people will wonder why. Just like the Houthis in Yemen can fight back against the U.S., people will ponder why the Houthis are so strong. Russia can engage in a conflict against Ukraine, supported by the entire NATO, and still advance; when there was no NATO support, Russia reached the capital of Ukraine, and with NATO's support, Russia still advanced from Mariupol to the west. Why can Russia engage in a conflict against the entire NATO-supported Ukraine and still gain the upper hand? Is it really just because of Russia's incomplete research and development capabilities that they can produce some fiber-optic drones to counter this?
NATO has developed this system, and we are not surprised. The U.S. is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, and Ukraine has a complete set of drone equipment, which is also not surprising. However, why does Russia, in a place where it cannot even launch nuclear weapons steadily, have fiber-optic drones? The more such times arise, the more negotiations are needed; the more it exposes its backside, the more it can show its face. It must make the U.S. and Ukraine ponder, primarily making the U.S. think about who is supporting Russia. When a person runs naked, people will say he is crazy, he is abnormal. But when a king runs naked, even if he has been deceived, people will say they have seen the most exquisite clothes in the world. Because to show one's backside without restraint is not about the effect of showing one's face; it is the true support of an army in the king's hands.

The biggest scoop of the weekend
The hottest discussion in the weekend market is Meituan's third-quarter financial report. Under Meituan's third-quarter report announcement on Xueqiu, there are nearly 1,200 comments, making it one of the most discussed financial reports in Xueqiu's history.
This third-quarter report from Meituan, as the market expected, is quite disappointing, with third-quarter revenue of 95.5 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 2%, and a net loss of 18.6 billion yuan. Wang Xing stated that the takeaway price war is unsustainable and expressed confidence in defending Meituan's position in the instant retail market. In the market share of orders over 30 yuan, Meituan accounts for more than 70%. Calculating it, in the entire third quarter, Meituan burned 30 billion, Alibaba burned 40 billion, and JD burned 14 billion, totaling over 80 billion burned by the three companies in one quarter, which is more intense than the national subsidies.
Many people exclaimed that Meituan's third-quarter report greatly exceeded expectations, referring to the subsidy amount exceeding expectations. Some optimistic about Meituan believe that burning money so fiercely, without generating substantial returns, will lead Alibaba and JD to exit the takeaway business. Others, with a more rational view, believe that Meituan's operational efficiency and competitive moat still have advantages. However, from my actual life experience, the takeaway competition Meituan faces is secondary, merely losing some market share in the already mediocre profitability takeaway market;
What really troubles Meituan, and what the market overlooks, is Douyin's continuous assault on the in-store business. The in-store business is Meituan's true core, the source of profits and cash flow. Once Meituan's in-store business is dethroned, there seems to be no hope of a comeback, because there is indeed a synergy effect between in-store business and takeaway. Back to the takeaway war, it is evident that Meituan has suffered severe losses, burning over 30 billion, with the effect being that the order volume did not significantly decline.
Alibaba burned 40 billion, and the takeaway order volume went from only a quarter of Meituan's to now being on par, and it also added an extra 100 million DAU from Taobao. Finally, I want to say that Meituan's popularity is still so high, it is obviously not an opportunity to bottom out. Protect your money well; waiting until no one is discussing it, and everyone is silent, may be the opportunity, buying when no one is paying attention. As for the short-term trend, I think it's quite okay; on Friday evening, Meituan's ADR only fell by 2%, indicating that at least foreign investors do not feel that Meituan's third-quarter report is particularly below expectations.

The Other Side of the Hong Kong Fire
Let's talk about the Hong Kong fire from another perspective. The direct cause of this fire was the bamboo scaffolding, which has recently drawn severe criticism from the Hong Kong Bamboo Scaffolding Association. Let's briefly discuss the deeper issues behind bamboo scaffolding, especially after the incident, when many Hongkongers desperately tried to prove the bamboo scaffolding's innocence, even though they are not construction professionals. This is worth discussing, as it indicates that there are not just interests at play, but other factors as well.
The reason bamboo scaffolding has persisted is partly due to the protection and operations of interest groups like the Bamboo Scaffolding Association, and partly due to cultural psychology, which I believe has a greater influence. What cultural psychology? It means that as the development gap narrows, mainland China has already surpassed Hong Kong in many areas.
For some Hongkongers, this means that the 'Hong Kong advantage' is disappearing. Culturally and psychologically, this triggers a subtle anxiety — a fear that their unique lifestyle, customs, and even cityscape will be assimilated.
In this psychological context, local elements like bamboo scaffolding, which have visual recognition, are endowed with symbolic meanings beyond their functions. They are seen as a 'visible difference,' becoming a mark that distinguishes Hong Kong from mainland urban landscapes.
Even from the perspectives of safety and efficiency, these traditional practices may not be optimal, but as cultural symbols, they carry psychological anchoring for some people regarding their 'Hong Kong identity.' Thus, preserving these differences is sometimes not purely for practicality, but a way of seeking self-identity.
In simple terms, some Hongkongers fear being assimilated by the mainland, so they hold tightly to everything that is different from the mainland, even if those things do not truly represent Hong Kong culture, and even if they are not good things, they still refuse to let go.
Bamboo scaffolding is just one of them.

Performance is terrible, Meituan suffers a huge loss...
Meituan released its financial report, with a revenue growth of 2% and a loss of 19.8 billion. Last year during the same period, it was profitable.
Meituan's business segments include core local commerce and new businesses, the latter of which includes Xiaoxiang Supermarket, Keeta, etc., which have always been losing money. The former includes takeout, flash purchase, and in-store travel, which lost a lot in the third quarter, going from a profit of 14.6 billion to a loss of 14.1 billion.
Everyone has some idea about the poor performance of Meituan's third quarterly report, as it was a peak battle in the takeout market. Although Meituan has always been the leader in the takeout market, its cash-burning ability is obviously not as good as Alibaba's.
In other markets, when facing market competition, as long as the leader lowers prices, it can effectively hit and even drive back newcomers, as newcomers are usually weaker.
However, Alibaba's determination to engage in takeout and flash purchase is so strong that as long as it is willing to burn money and can afford to burn money, the orders will increase rapidly, and the subsidy efficiency can be higher than Meituan's.
Meituan is burning the most among the three in takeout, with the latest quarter expected to burn 30 billion. In the best-case scenario, it can only maintain a gradual decline in market share, rather than a sharp drop.
To some extent, Meituan's current predicament is also self-inflicted, as it was the one that first crossed into retail.
Of course, Meituan is mainly competing for JD's market. Meituan's flash purchase can deliver 3C products, which has little impact on Alibaba's remote e-commerce.
Therefore, JD, as the defender, first opened fire on Meituan in the takeout market. Even though JD is a rookie in the takeout market and incurs heavy losses, it is still worthwhile to disrupt Meituan's pace.
In fact, this move by JD can be considered a big win, as it has stirred Alibaba.
As for Alibaba's motivation to re-engage in takeout, I guess it is mainly because Alibaba is eyeing instant retail.
The instant retail market is quite large for Meituan, but not so much for Alibaba. However, instant retail can generate certain synergies for almost all of Alibaba's businesses, such as Ele.me, AutoNavi, and Fliggy.
Therefore, Alibaba is burning money to engage in takeout, but its ambition is not in takeout.
Currently, Meituan is still leading, with over 70% share in orders above 30 yuan, and over 2/3 share in orders above 15 yuan. Including takeout, Meituan can probably have about 10% to 20% more total order volume than Alibaba.
The latest situation is that Alibaba and JD are looking to reduce their investment in takeout.
JD is not worth discussing; it is destined to be unable to make a profit and cannot continue to spend money, so Meituan's future is entirely in Alibaba's hands.
Alibaba suddenly pulling back is because Alibaba's order volume is not much different from Meituan's anymore. During peak periods, it can reach an average of 100 million orders per day. At this point, burning money would also hurt Alibaba, and it would be useless.
At this time, what is most important for Alibaba is retention, how to retain users, how to shift orders from low price to high price, and how to improve delivery efficiency.
In this round of the takeout war, I think there is a lesson worth learning, which is that the understanding of Meituan's moat needs slight adjustment.
Previously, we all believed that Meituan had a moat, which came from its scale of delivery riders, algorithms, and efficiency.
But now we find that as long as Alibaba slightly changes its understanding of takeout and starts to exert its cash-burning ability, many things suddenly change. Even after the flames of war settle, Alibaba will still not be able to replicate Meituan's delivery efficiency 100%, but this war has left Meituan with enough psychological shadow.
In short, no matter how you put it, the third quarterly report may be Meituan's worst financial report, and after the intensity of the takeout war eases, it will be a positive for the stock prices of these three companies.

The Sign of a Great Power's Rise
We often talk about the rise of great powers, but few can clearly articulate what the true sign of a great power's rise is. Is it a large population and vast territory, or is it a strong economy and military superiority? If we turn to modern world history and carefully examine those countries that have truly changed the world order, we will find a common code: their rise has provided a new way of thinking and methods for the common development of humanity while being strong themselves, pushing civilization forward. This is not an empty theory, but a logic repeatedly verified by history. Britain was once known as the Empire on which the sun never sets, and its greatest contribution to humanity was not the steam engine, not factories, and not colonies, but a completely new rhythm of life and organization. It made time a standard, efficiency a pursuit, and division of labor a norm. Britain also established modern parliamentary law and maritime systems, which are still used worldwide today.
Portugal, a small country, opened the global geographical space through navigation, truly connecting world trade for the first time. Portugal monopolized the spice trade, transporting Eastern goods to Europe while conducting trade with China and Japan through bases like Macau, accelerating the global flow of goods, people, and culture. Spain opened up global currency flow with silver, but also declined due to over-reliance on external wealth. It taught humanity that wealth without institutional progress ultimately becomes a burden to civilization. France's contribution to humanity was changing the world through ideas. The Enlightenment and the Napoleonic Code prompted people for the first time to think about where a nation's power comes from—divine right or from the people? The Netherlands ushered in the age of capital with modern financial tools like stocks, insurance, and joint-stock companies, allowing capital to flow and enabling ordinary people to invest, turning cities into economic engines. Germany's contribution was turning knowledge into power; modern universities, research systems, military institutions, and legal frameworks are deeply imprinted with Germany's mark.
It taught humanity that a country can rise rapidly through education, technology, and university organizations. The United States, in an unprecedented way, combined individualism, market economy, democratic systems, technological innovation, and popular culture, forming a civilization model completely different from European traditions. What the United States truly brought to humanity was a technological revolution, from electricity to computers, from the internet to biotechnology, making technological innovation the core driving force of the world's operation, allowing humanity to see a brand new mode of social organization. However, the crises in the United States also prompted the world to reflect on whether a technology-driven society would bring new imbalances. Looking back at the journeys of these countries, we clearly see that the true rise of a great power is not a matter of chance but a structural innovation. It is not simply doing more and better but creating a new set of rules that the world cannot bypass. The British industrial system, the Dutch financial order, and the French intellectual revolution are all examples; they provide fuel for human progress at the right time.
So, standing in today's China, what historical crossroads do we face? There is no doubt that China already possesses remarkable advantages, unmatched scale, and market. We have the world's most complete industrial system and the largest unified market, providing an excellent testing ground and scale effect for any new model's incubation. Our strong engineering and execution capabilities, from high-speed rail to ultra-high voltage, from 5G to Beidou, have repeatedly demonstrated our ability to turn grand blueprints into reality through infrastructure and organizational mobilization. In the digital age, our first-mover advantage in areas like mobile payments, e-commerce, and artificial intelligence applications has put us at the forefront of the world, accumulating vast amounts of data and rich application scenarios. However, having advantages does not equate to having completed our rise. History tells us that scale itself is not the answer; we must make the key leap from being a giant in size to being a pioneer in logic.
Therefore, the direction of China's rise is exceedingly clear. We must provide a Chinese solution to the common challenges faced by the world—a new system that others must adopt and the world must reference. Technology, institutions, organization, reality and virtuality—each dimension could become a new breakthrough point. In technology, can we transcend mere technological catch-up and build an innovative ecosystem that is different from Silicon Valley and more inclusive and sustainable? In social governance, can we explore a modern governance model that maintains efficiency, transparency, and stability in a super-large society, providing a new paradigm for global governance? In development, can we distill a modern path that truly serves as a reference and replication for latecomer countries, breaking the myth that modernization equals Westernization?
In the face of global challenges like climate change, energy crises, and aging populations, can we contribute systematic solutions that make the world think of referencing China's wisdom first when addressing these issues? The competition for the rise of world powers has entered a new track; future competition is no longer about whose ships are sturdier or whose cannons are sharper, but about whose ideas are more forward-looking, whose systems are more inclusive, and whose logic can lead the future. Therefore, we can no longer be satisfied with being the best followers on a stage set by others; we must dare to create our own paradigm and prove to the world that this paradigm can not only solve China's problems but also open up new possibilities for humanity's common future. Only when the world finds it indispensable to the ideas proposed by China, the systems created, and the standards established, will it be the moment of our rise from a great power to a strong power!!

China's dominance in rare earths globally stems from a statement made by Deng Xiaoping during his southern tour in 1992...
How did China become the global leader in rare earths? Recent reports from U.S. media indicate that China's ability to dominate the global rare earth production and processing industry has been built over decades of accumulation. Since the 1990s, China has actively pursued strategies to consolidate and maintain its monopoly on rare earth minerals. Rare earth minerals are crucial for manufacturing magnets needed in cars, wind turbines, jet fighters, and other products. Reports indicate that China has historically provided financial support to domestic companies, encouraging them to acquire overseas rare earth assets while legally prohibiting foreign companies from acquiring Chinese rare earth mines. Ultimately, China consolidated its domestic rare earth industry from hundreds of companies into a few major players, giving it greater pricing power. The U.S. was the leader in the rare earth industry in the early 1990s; reports suggest that in 1991, due to the large rare earth mine at Mountain Pass in California, the U.S. was then the world's largest rare earth supplier.
At that time, China had abundant rare earth resources, and its long-term development strategy was gradually taking shape. Mitchell Presnick, an American involved in uranium trade, recalls that in the early 1990s, he proactively proposed collaborating with a large Chinese state-owned trading company to invest in Chinese rare earth resources. He said that at the time, the other party informed him that such an arrangement would be very difficult. In 1991, China passed a law categorizing rare earths as a 'strategic' resource and restricted foreign mining companies from cooperating with Chinese companies to mine certain Chinese deposits. It even prohibited foreigners from entering these mining areas without special authorization. The government also used export tax rebates to encourage domestic companies to expand production. While dining with counterparts from China's state-owned mining giant, China Minmetals, Presnick heard about China's impressive heavy rare earth reserves. Presnick pointed out: they (China) knew at that time that rare earths were more important than we thought. China also realized that to control the rare earth industry, it needed to enhance its industrial value chain. Beijing not only needed to mine rare earths but also needed the capability to process rare earth ores and manufacture magnets, skills that were only found overseas at that time.
Acquiring General Motors' rare earth business to gain valuable technology In 1995, a Chinese state-owned enterprise received approval from the U.S. government to acquire the rare earth materials and magnet business of General Motors, known as Magnequench. In the following years, Magnequench's owners closed all their rare earth plants in the U.S. and moved the equipment to China. Top engineers from the U.S. were given the opportunity to establish new factories in China. A magnet expert who agreed to go to China stated: 'Some colleagues were adamantly opposed, saying they would never help China learn our technology.' This expert noted: 'When I arrived in China, I couldn't believe what I saw. The sheer number of new factories being built and the speed at which they were being constructed was incredible.' Former Magnequench engineer Mitchell Spencer stated that he agreed to go to Tianjin to assist in setting up a factory that was originally planned to be a sister plant to his factory in Indiana. He later received a call asking him to double the capacity of the Tianjin plant, which left him confused. Spencer returned to the U.S. and soon learned that the Indiana plant was about to close.
By the mid-2000s, the U.S. rare earth industry was nearly completely destroyed. The main rare earth mine in the U.S., Mountain Pass, had closed, and nearly all factories that processed rare earths and manufactured magnets had also shut down. At that time, China produced approximately 97% of the world's rare earths, effectively holding a global monopoly. U.S. companies attempted to revive the rare earth industry but failed. Starting around 2005, the Chinese government tightened regulations and imposed export taxes on rare earths, leading to increased production costs for Western magnet manufacturers. With virtually no rare earth mines outside of China, automotive parts manufacturers and other companies heavily reliant on rare earths chose to move their factories from the West to China to obtain cheaper raw materials. Western rare earth production became so low that an American company named Molycorp attempted to reopen the Mountain Pass mine and produce magnets on its own.
The company labeled its plan as the 'Phoenix Project,' but it was destined to fail. On October 9, 2025, China's Ministry of Commerce announced tightened restrictions on rare earth exports, shocking Western countries and highlighting Beijing's strong control over this industry closely tied to the global economy. Media reports noted that the U.S. had previously held a leadership position in the rare earth industry, but everything began to change after a statement made by former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping during his 1992 southern tour. Deng Xiaoping said: 'The Middle East has oil; China has rare earths.' In 2012, the Obama administration, along with the EU and Japan, filed a complaint against China with the World Trade Organization, accusing it of improperly using export quotas to limit overseas rare earth supply. China claimed that its restrictions were aimed at maintaining sustainable mining growth and protecting the environment. In 2014, the WTO ruled against China, stating that its export quotas were unfair.
China lifted these quotas, leading to a surge in exports to the U.S. With the influx of imports, U.S. rare earth prices plummeted, and Molycorp ultimately went bankrupt. U.S. companies' plans to revitalize the rare earth industry ended in failure. The Mountain Pass mine eventually fell into the hands of an American company named MP Materials. The company subsequently sought assistance from Chinese partners to restore the mine's operations. Chinese rare earth producer Shenghe Resources provided preliminary financing and acquired a small stake in MP Materials. Shenghe Resources then distributed MP Materials' rare earths to Chinese buyers for magnet manufacturing. In July of this year, the U.S. government announced it would acquire a 15% stake in MP Materials. MP Materials took over the Mountain Pass mine and is currently constructing rare earth processing and magnet facilities. The U.S. government has also introduced new measures, such as setting a price floor for the company's rare earths, to ensure it can withstand any future influx of low-priced Chinese minerals.
However, the advantages that China has accumulated over the years cannot be completely overturned overnight. Recently, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stated at an investment forum: 'For the past 20 to 25 years, we have not remained vigilant; no one has been paying attention. Everyone has been complacent.'

Taiwan enters "quasi-war state"? Lai Ching-te spends 12.5 trillion, mainland issues reserve personnel certificates

Recently, amid rising tensions in Sino-Japanese relations, the Lai Ching-te administration has thrown out a huge defense budget and promoted the so-called "2027 military unification" theory, with Ma Ying-jeou criticizing that it is pushing Taiwan towards a "quasi-war state." As China strongly retaliates against Japanese right-wingers, the People's Liberation Army announces the issuance of reserve personnel certificates. Does this mean that the mainland is really preparing for military unification?
1. Lai Ching-te's 12.5 trillion defense budget: Political gamble or defense need?
Lai Ching-te officially announced on November 25-26 that Taiwan will invest **12.5 trillion New Taiwan dollars (approximately 40 billion US dollars)** in a special defense budget over the period of **2026-2033 (within 8 years)**, claiming that the purpose is to "enhance deterrence capabilities and defense resilience, responding to the increasing military pressure from mainland China," and promoting the threat of "mainland military unification of Taiwan in 2027."
The Taiwan authorities aim to achieve two core goals:
First, by 2027: attain high combat readiness capabilities of the joint combat forces, "effectively deter mainland threats." Second, by 2033: establish "comprehensive deterrence capabilities," creating the so-called "Taiwan Shield."
In fact, this is merely the wishful thinking of Taiwan independence advocates! Experts indicate that no matter how much money is spent or how many American weapons are bought, it is no longer possible for Taiwan to have the capital to confront the mainland. Even Taiwan's fighter jets and early warning aircraft, once airborne, could be shot down by mainland missiles; talking about deterring the mainland is truly laughable.
2. Domestic reactions: Outcry, Ma Ying-jeou criticizes "quasi-war state"
Ma Ying-jeou frankly stated: "Lai Ching-te's actions are almost equivalent to declaring Taiwan's entry into '39'; this will push Taiwan into a dangerous abyss."
Public opinion in Taiwan widely criticizes:
- This is a "draining Taiwan" plan, scraping the people's resources to please the U.S. for personal gain. - The defense budget will account for one-third of Taiwan's annual budget, occupying 3.32% of GDP in 2026, with plans to increase to 5% by 2030, seriously harming the interests of the Taiwanese people, which is a typical act of treason. - The biggest problem for the Taiwan military is not money, but a severe shortage of personnel; an increase in budget cannot compensate for the gap in combat power, and it is impossible to gain any advantage.
Taiwan's personnel crisis:
- The number of eligible conscript-age men has dropped below 100,000, and it is expected to be only 74,000 by 2031. - 24.47% of Taiwan's voluntary soldiers retire early, with about 12,900 preferring to pay compensation to escape the military. - Recruitment standards have been continuously lowered: the height requirement has been reduced to 152 cm, restrictions on color blindness and tattoos have been lifted, and even retired soldiers from many years ago are being recalled to fill the ranks.
In fact, many people are unwilling to become cannon fodder for Taiwan independence forces; they clearly state that once the People's Liberation Army launches a unification war, they will surrender directly. What combat power can such a Taiwan military have?
3. Mainland reserve personnel certificates: Modernization of national defense, or a signal of military unification?
Official news: Approved by the Central Military Commission, the People's Liberation Army will formally issue the new "People's Liberation Army Reserve Personnel Certificate" starting from March 1, 2026, while the old version of the "Reserve Officer Certificate" will be phased out simultaneously.
Core features of the new certificate:
- Uses high anti-counterfeiting technology, system-generated unique identity numbers, valid nationwide; - Marks an upgrade of the national defense mobilization system towards standardization, informatization, and precision; - Integrated into the "Reserve Personnel Law" (effective March 2023) supporting system, providing legal guarantees for rapid mobilization in wartime.
Strategic significance:
- Achieves nationwide management of reserve personnel information, facilitating precise cross-regional allocation during wartime; - Millions of reserve personnel (covering multiple arms and professional technical talents) form a seamless combat capability loop with active-duty forces; - This is a normal step in China's national defense modernization and has no direct connection with Taiwan's "quasi-war state."
4. Comparative analysis: Huge gap in military strength between the two sides
Taiwan's defense dilemma:
- Invested heavily in outdated American weapons, with military sales delayed and amounts reaching 19.1 billion US dollars, equipment cannot form combat power. - Taiwan's military is assessed to be able to hold out for a maximum of 30 days under a PLA attack; most analysts believe it will not exceed one week, and even retired generals predict it can only resist for 4 days.
- The actions of "Taiwan independence" are unpopular, and anti-war sentiment is high in the island; a poll of 16,000 netizens shows strong opposition to increasing the defense budget.
Mainland military advantages:
- Focused on new types of combat capabilities such as drones, electromagnetic countermeasures, cyber warfare, and artificial intelligence, it has occupied the high ground of military technology. - The reserve system emphasizes quality and specialization rather than sheer numbers, building a truly "reliable and effective" second line of defense. - Active-duty military personnel number about 2.035 million, with 1.1 million armed police; in wartime, forces can be expanded to 21 million within 72 hours, with industrial capacity producing 300 large warships and 3,000 advanced fighter jets annually.
Peaceful unification is the only way out
Lai Ching-te's 12.5 trillion defense budget is not about "defending Taiwan" but political manipulation, pushing Taiwan to the dangerous edge of a "quasi-war state," ultimately harming the interests of the Taiwanese people.
The mainland's issuance of reserve personnel certificates is a normal measure for national defense modernization, aimed at improving the efficiency of national defense mobilization and has no necessary connection to the "military unification timetable."
Taiwan's return to China is an important part of the international order after World War II, from the Cairo Declaration to the Potsdam Proclamation, and then to United Nations Resolution 2758, the international community has long recognized that Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese territory.
Any separatist actions that go against historical trends will ultimately be settled by history. Peaceful unification is the only way out for Taiwan.

BYD challenges Japanese cars, testing the waters of global strategy!
China’s electric vehicle giant is launching a mini electric vehicle, targeting the last undeveloped market! BYD is introducing a compact urban mobility vehicle named Racco to enter the Japanese market, aiming to conquer this automotive market entrenched in traditional views. This is also the first model developed specifically for export by a Chinese electric vehicle giant, directly challenging competitors like Nissan and Suzuki. No other country in the world reveres microcars as much as Japan. In Japan, about 40% of cars are so-called K-cars—these compact cars are no longer than 3.40 meters, occupying almost the same space as a parking space. BYD is now entering this niche market with a square-shaped electric mini-car, which officially debuted at the recent Tokyo Motor Show.
BYD showcased the Kcar BYD Racco at the Tokyo Motor Show, making a splash in the global automotive industry: sliding doors, extended wheelbase, nearly vertical rear—design uncompromisingly pursues practicality. This vehicle is designed for urban traffic in cities like Tokyo, Osaka, or Yokohama, where even an extra centimeter or a centimeter less could determine whether a parking space can be found. This new model uses BYD's mature blade battery, with a capacity of 20 kWh. A range of about 180 kilometers may not sound long, but it is more than enough for urban traffic in Japan. Thanks to BYD's self-developed battery cells and efficient driving technology, its energy consumption is expected to be much lower than that of competitors.
The electric platform also achieves a flat floor and maximized internal space utilization—this is crucial in densely populated urban areas. The cockpit has also been fully digitized: central touchscreen, smartphone integration, OTA air upgrades—BYD is bringing a new generation of software technology into this otherwise innovation-scarce segment. European media are focusing on BYD's entry into the Japanese Kcar market: 'Compact body, ambitious goals.' This is the European media's evaluation of BYD Racco. BYD will directly challenge the Japanese automotive industry—in its home ground. Japanese light vehicles symbolize Japan's engineering prowess, with brands like Nissan (Sakura), Honda (N-Box), and Suzuki (Spacia) dominating this field.
But BYD sees an opportunity. This Chinese manufacturer benefits from economies of scale, lower battery costs, and its own supply chain—an advantage that Japanese manufacturers have yet to match. BYD's global electric vehicle sales have already surpassed Tesla. BYD is now developing a model that is entirely self-developed and tailored for the Japanese market, sending a clear signal: it is no longer satisfied with simple exports but hopes to compete in the local market and create a product that meets every detail of consumer demand. Analysts believe this move is a strategic trial.
Japan is a litmus test for its global market. If BYD succeeds in entering the Japanese market—a country with strict regulations, high brand loyalty, and demanding consumers—it will open the door for BYD to other markets. European urban traffic could be the next target market. In cities like Paris, Rome, or Hamburg, an electric microcar with a range of 180 kilometers and an affordable price would perfectly meet market demands. Currently, there are no similar products in Europe—BYD understands this well. It remains to be seen whether this new electric mini-car will be sold outside Japan.
To Europeans, BYD's history indicates that initial niche experiments can quickly evolve into mass-market products. Gazing up at the favor of Japanese car fans, BYD has adopted a strategy that is in stark contrast to many competitors. While Western manufacturers are still struggling to enter the Chinese market, BYD has exported China's engineering technology to a field that was previously inaccessible: the Japanese domestic market.
For the Japanese automotive industry, this is a warning signal. Chinese competitors are no longer merely relying on price advantages to penetrate the Japanese market but are achieving this through localization, design expertise, and technological advantages. BYD's electric mini-car is not just an ordinary electric vehicle—it symbolizes a shift in the power dynamics of the global automotive industry. When a Chinese enterprise steps onto Japanese sacred ground, it marks that the transformation of the industry has entered a new phase. What matters is not scale, but the grasp of future technology.

This crucial point in China has already been targeted! Once breached, decades of strategic layout may be destroyed in an instant!\n1. The United States is once again extending its black hand - this time, it is aimed at China's 'economic backyard.' This action by the United States is not about trade, not about rules, not about cooperation. It is brandishing knives, it is showing shackles, it is throwing a political ultimatum to Southeast Asia that must be signed on bended knee and must obey after signing! Poison pill clauses - the sharp blade of America's implementation of geopolitical hegemony has once again been drawn. What is a poison pill clause? Very simple - the United States says: whoever dares to cooperate with China will be punished by me! This is not an agreement, this is coercion! This is not a rule, this is extortion! This is not free trade, this is political kidnapping! The United States deliberately blurs the definition of 'being seen as a threat,' because it does not follow rules at all - what it says is: as long as I say you are a threat, then you must be a threat! This is naked, brutal, and utterly shameless economic hegemony!\n2. Why is the United States fixated on Southeast Asia? Because it determines the future economic pattern of Asia! Don't forget - Southeast Asia is the second hinterland of China's industrial chain, the key to reshaping the supply chain, and the cornerstone of the future economic order in Asia. Whoever influences Southeast Asia holds the future of Asia.\nThe United States is not unaware of this, so it has started a frenzied attack: it is forcing Cambodia to sign! It is pressuring Malaysia to sign! It is even threatening Indonesia with tariffs to sign! - However, this time, the United States has failed. Indonesia directly refused! Refused to face! Publicly refused! This is a direct counterattack against American hegemony and a hard blow to American coercive diplomacy! The United States has always fantasized about making Southeast Asia its pawn, but the countries in Southeast Asia understand very well - China brings factories, brings investment, brings markets, while the United States only brings demands, threats, and empty talk.\n3. The 'poison pill clause' is doomed to fail! The United States has hit the three great mountains of the times!\n(1) Southeast Asia wants development, not to play camp confrontation with you, the United States! Southeast Asian countries have their own national interests - they want growth, want employment, want industrial chains, want investment. Not to follow the United States in a new Cold War, not to cut off their own economic lifeline. The United States shouts 'choose a side,' Southeast Asia knows clearly - standing with the United States means giving up development; cooperating with China means real benefits.\n(2) The credibility of the United States is bankrupt, and allies' trust has long fallen to the center of the earth. The United States is destroying contracts, trust, and its own system. It signs today, tears it up tomorrow; it promises today, reneges tomorrow. What rules can such a country talk about? Even allies can't stand its capriciousness, let alone developing countries. The credibility of the United States has not just declined, but collapsed.\n(3) China brings real benefits, while the United States only has empty slogans. What does China provide to Southeast Asia? Railways! Ports! Factories! Digital economy! Cross-border payments! Upgrading the industrial chain! What does the United States provide to Southeast Asia? An empty phrase: 'Follow me, I will protect you.' And the result? No money, no market, no projects, only political pressure and threatening clauses. Southeast Asia is not foolish; it knows very well who the real friends are and who the disruptors are!\n4. Conclusion: The United States wants to shackle Asia, but the times no longer allow it! The United States today is restarting poison pill clauses, seemingly aggressive, but actually exposing that - it has lost the initiative in Asia! It has lost control in Southeast Asia! It has lost legitimacy in the rule system! The only thing it can do is: rely on threats to maintain influence; rely on intimidation to stop cooperation; rely on bullying to cover up decline. This is not the posture of a strong power; this is the struggle of a strong bow at its end!\n5. The future of Asia does not belong to hegemony, does not belong to shackles, does not belong to the old Cold War of the United States. What Asia wants today is: development, not confrontation; cooperation, not division; win-win, not zero-sum. The future of Asia is an interconnected Asia, a shared destiny Asia! In this new era, the 'new Cold War' of the United States, the 'coercive diplomacy' of the United States, the 'poison pill clauses' of the United States - all will fail! All will be discarded by the times! China is taking the path of cooperation, the path of openness, a path of common development and prosperity with the region. Therefore, the conclusion can be summarized in one sentence: The United States' attempt to use 'poison pill clauses' to trap Southeast Asia will ultimately only trap itself! Asia will not accompany the United States' hegemony to the grave,\nhistory will not stop for the decline of the United States.\nThe tide of the times has already rolled forward -\nStanding on China's side is to stand on the side of the future!

Broken mirror, impossible to piece together
On November 27, when Putin was asked by a reporter about how he views "Russia possibly being invited to rejoin the G8"? His response was, "In today's situation, I find it hard to imagine how we could dialogue and cooperate with them (the G7). Can you imagine? We come in, say 'hello', and then what, just staring at each other with a grim face?" Putin spoke very honestly. Russia has not been out of the G8; Putin has also attended G8 summits and various meetings.
But almost every time, there was no good impression, after all, he was always alone at the summit. On various issues, Western countries always besiege Russia, and Putin is not like Yoon Suk-yeol, so why return to the G8? To be besieged by them? After Medvedev was elected in 2008, every time he attended the summit, he was also besieged and lost face, and he was still an extreme pro-Western figure, yet the West still gave him no face. During that time, although it was nominally the G8, Western countries verbally referred to the G8 summit as the "G7+1" summit.
This "1" is Russia. You are not 8, but 1; you are a G8 member, but only a nominal member, not a formal one. We are ashamed to be with you, so we do not recognize this as the G8 group; there is no G8. There is only G7+1. Trump was somewhat naive, always thinking that if he invited Putin, Putin would come, but Putin never forgot the past meeting scenes. Coming to Beijing, or going elsewhere, at least no one scolds him.
To actively seek scolding every day, isn't that sick? This is also the reason Macron attempted to invite us to the G8 summit, even not ruling out an invitation to join the G8 group, but we are not interested; there is no need to attend a besieged occasion. Putin's attitude towards the G8 is a microcosm. Previously, there was a necessity to join the G8, after all, during the Yeltsin era, it seemed that Russia could become a member of the Western family. Economically, the G8 group accounts for more than 60% of the world's GDP. Joining the G8 also has economic benefits, at least it increases the voice a bit. More than twenty years have passed, the times have changed, and the G7's economic weight advantage has shifted from an absolute advantage to a relative advantage. This is reflected in diplomacy, making G7's words not as effective as before.
Therefore, there is no need to shamelessly join the G8 anymore. Participating more in organizations mainly composed of developing countries better aligns with Russia's interests; even chatting with Modi is much better than trading barbs with European leaders. After all, India is still buying Russian oil and gas, facing tremendous pressure from Trump. Putin's point is that he not only does not want to return to the G8, but he also does not want to return to the past regarding many issues, such as NATO's eastward expansion and Ukraine's westernization.
After all, the best time for Russia-West relations coincided with the most fervent NATO eastward expansion and Ukraine's westernization. No one wants to revisit those unbearable times. Thus, Putin's attitude is very clear: what I should take, I will take; what you took from me, I want back. But the relationship between the two sides cannot be repaired; there can be economic and trade exchanges, and cultural interactions, all shallow interactions are fine. But for deep exchanges, let's forget it.
In fact, Biden and the Democrats are correct in their strategy towards Russia. Although they are anti-Russian to the point of being somewhat obsessed, they are clear that the world has changed. Trump always thinks that the world hasn't changed and can return to the state of more than 20 years ago when everyone was fine. But a broken mirror is destined to be impossible to piece together.

Is Japan trying to find a backdoor with China and Russia? With China and Russia teaming up to restrain Kishi, the first target for strikes is emerging in case of conflict. The saying goes: "Good words are hard to advise a dying ghost," and this is certainly true for Kishi Sanae. Trump made a phone call urging her not to further provoke China, but it went in one ear and out the other, and before long she reached out to the rear of both China and Russia. What exactly is she trying to do? The Japanese government has decided to hold a Central Asia summit in December, inviting leaders from the five Central Asian countries to Tokyo to discuss cooperation with Japanese Prime Minister Kishi Sanae. However, it is obvious to anyone that against the backdrop of the historical low points in Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese relations, Kishi wants to extend Japan's influence into Central Asia, and it is certainly not just for the markets of the five Central Asian countries. Kishi's aim to court the five Central Asian countries is actually very clear: firstly, to align with the U.S. Central Asia policy, and secondly, to influence the diplomatic stance of the five Central Asian countries. In recent years, the U.S. has invested considerable effort in courting the five Central Asian countries, regardless of how the leaders of the five “Stans” think, they still hold a summit with the leaders of the Central Asian countries every year. Japan hosting a similar summit in Tokyo is, in fact, showcasing Japan's posture of moving in step with the U.S. in diplomatic policy. Meanwhile, with Japan and both China and Russia at odds, Japan's actions also aim to exchange absolute interests for the Central Asian countries to maintain neutrality in their political and diplomatic stance. However, Kishi's efforts are doomed to be in vain; from a certain perspective, the five Central Asian countries, along with Mongolia and the U.S.-Japan alliance, are maintaining contacts with special geopolitical circumstances to seek benefits. Yet, whether it is the U.S., Japan, South Korea, or European countries, it is difficult to change the stance of the Central Asian countries because the objective geopolitical situation is set. The five Central Asian countries will not, cannot, and dare not cooperate with the Western world to undermine the security situation in the rear of both China and Russia. In fact, it is already too late for Japan to change tactics; China and Russia are fully prepared for counterattacks. After Kishi made erroneous remarks, a statement from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, "If Japan militarily intervenes in the Taiwan Strait issue, it will be regarded as an act of aggression," defined all actions of the Kishi government. The term "act of aggression" might be commonplace in the U.S., but it is an absolute bottom line in China. Several wars in Chinese history were launched for self-defense against aggression. Once Japan's acts of aggression are made clear, the consequences need not be elaborated. In addition to defining the actions of Kishi's cabinet, China has also elevated the issue of Kishi's cabinet to a new level. In a letter to the UN Secretary-General and all member states, China explicitly stated that the erroneous remarks and actions of Kishi's cabinet are provocative acts that violate the correct historical view, essentially challenging the post-World War II order. This is not a warning from China; the Taiwan issue is not just a consensus of the world but also clearly stated in the official documents establishing the post-World War II order. Japan's failure to acknowledge or hinder China's unification is essentially interfering in China's internal affairs and blocking the operation of the post-World War II order. From this perspective, Japan is not only an enemy of 1.4 billion Chinese people but also an enemy of the entire world. Compared to China's actions, Russia's measures against Japan are more characterized by "Slavic features." Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zakharova issued warnings regarding Japan's erroneous remarks and dangerous actions on the 18th, 20th, and 27th, emphasizing the dangers posed by the deployment of offensive weapons by the Japanese Self-Defense Forces in disputed areas to regional security. Zakharova's condemnation of Japan aligns very well with the territorial defense policy promoted by the Putin government in recent years. Objectively speaking, the Japanese government and the Japanese Self-Defense Forces have demonstrated increasing aggressiveness over the past several years, especially after Shinzo Abe promoted the lifting of the ban on collective self-defense rights. Japan now possesses the capability to threaten Russia's security, which, coupled with Japan's special relationship with the U.S., has raised Russia's vigilance. Zakharova clearly stated in her third warning that Russia reserves the right to respond firmly to Japan, meaning that Russia has the right to take military action to protect its legitimate rights when Japan undermines global peace and stability. At the same time, while China and Russia take their respective actions, they are also discussing how to deal with the Kishi cabinet together. According to the Foreign Ministry, from November 28 to December 20, 2025, China and Russia held three rounds of consultations at the bureau level in Moscow, covering topics such as outer space security, missile issues, and artificial intelligence, with both sides exchanging in-depth views on topics of mutual concern. In addition, Russia invited Wang Yi to Russia in December for the twentieth round of high-level strategic security consultations. Various evidence shows that as the situation in East Asia becomes increasingly threatened by the Kishi cabinet, China and Russia are maintaining close contact, clearly intending to jointly address the deteriorating situation in East Asia. In the past two years, China and Russia have conducted numerous joint military exercises around Japan, but there has been a lack of regular joint patrols. This might be a good strategy aimed at Japan, as Japan is an island nation that fears its maritime shipping routes being blocked. If China and Russia can demonstrate their relevant strength, it will undoubtedly be a huge blow to the right-wing factions in Japan, as they say, "One does not know the pain until the stick hits oneself." Only by truly letting these right-wingers understand the consequences of offending China and Russia can Kishi's cabinet's mindset be genuinely changed. However, if Japan insists on going its own way, it is not impossible. China has actually made ample preparations and may have already determined the first targets for strikes after the outbreak of war. What are these targets? Firstly, the Japanese Self-Defense Forces base on Yonaguni Island is undoubtedly the primary target. This is the forefront of the Japanese government's interference in the Taiwan Strait situation, possessing advanced radar and being home to relevant intelligence departments all year round, making it the first choice for the deployment of offensive weapons by the Self-Defense Forces. As one of the most threatening bases, Yonaguni Island is certainly the first target for strikes. To be honest, Japan has probably guessed that Yonaguni Island is the primary target. Therefore, the Japanese Self-Defense Forces have been arming surrounding islands such as Ishigaki, Naha, and Miyako Island in recent years to achieve dispersed deployment and prevent being taken out in one blow by the PLA's missiles. But ultimately, all of Japan's attempts are in vain; the PLA has enough missiles to strike all Japanese Self-Defense Forces bases. What Kishi Sanae should do now is apologize, rather than continue to provoke China and Russia.

Koshi Takami, the next Zelensky!
Since Trump's 28-point 'Ukraine Peace Plan' was released, some have stood up for Ukraine, and even more have described it as a so-called 21st-century version of the 'Munich Agreement.' Anyway, the implication is that if Zelensky accepts, Ukraine is finished.
Now the question arises: if Zelensky does not accept, will Ukraine not be finished?
Is it possible that accepting would mean losing a lot, but not accepting would mean losing even more?
Those who are still 'strongly supporting' Ukraine, one way or another, are just talking without understanding the pain, and it’s not out of any sense of justice. If they truly had a sense of justice, they wouldn’t have 'welcomed' Trump’s 21-point 'Gaza Peace Plan,' nor would they demand that Ukraine 'fight to the last Ukrainian.'
Taking Europe as an example, it’s simple for Europe to 'administer justice'—just send troops to Ukraine. A million French, German, or British soldiers deployed, and I don't believe Russia would not make any concessions. What good is it to just stand on the sidelines and shout?
As for the public intellectuals, they are more about impotent rage. The Russo-Ukrainian war has been going on for more than three years, and we’ve heard enough of 'Russia is doomed.' More than three years ago, I said that if public intellectuals kept hyping Ukraine, they would surely be in for an embarrassing situation in the future. I’ve said this before; they just keep blaming others.
War reports may lie, but the front lines do not. After more than three years, Ukraine has lost 20% of its territory, its population has decreased by 25%, and its GDP has been halved. A generation of young Ukrainians is either in the grave or missing limbs. May I ask, is it 'Russia is doomed' or 'Ukraine is doomed'?
In fact, Trump is right. Whether Ukrainians want to accept his 'Peace Plan' or not, it will ultimately be accepted, and it will be accepted on Russia's terms, not Ukraine's. The reason is simple: whether there is a ceasefire or not is up to Russia, while Ukraine's opinion doesn’t count. Any 'ceasefire agreement' or 'peace plan' is just a piece of waste paper as long as Russia does not agree.
Now Zelensky is in a dilemma, where sticking his neck out means a knife, and pulling back also means a knife. Agreeing to the 'Peace Plan' will not spare him from Ukraine and Europe, while disagreeing will not spare him from the U.S. and Russia.
What Zelensky is probably thinking the most about right now is how to 'safely retreat.' Whether it’s dignified or not doesn’t matter, as long as he can leave Ukraine alive and then be a wealthy man somewhere in the world with the money he acquired, that would be the biggest victory.
The joys and sorrows of humanity are not the same, but at this moment, Zelensky's situation must resonate with Koshi Takami.
Ever since the war cries against China successfully ignited the anger of the Chinese people, Koshi Takami has been making various statements and 'showing goodwill,' trying to 'de-escalate.' Recently, she even let it slip through others that 'Koshi Takami has actually retracted her previous statements.'
In response, we say that not mentioning something and retracting erroneous statements are two different matters, with completely different natures. The Japanese side’s delusion of downplaying, glossing over, and covering up Koshi Takami's serious erroneous remarks by not mentioning them is akin to burying their heads in the sand and talking to themselves. China absolutely will not accept it.
Just as it doesn’t matter how much Zelensky fumbles with the 'Peace Plan,' it’s useless as long as Russia doesn’t nod. As long as China does not accept or is not satisfied, Koshi Takami's performance of 'virtual retraction' is also useless; after all, Japan is the one in a hurry, not us.
According to reports, prices in Japan have skyrocketed. Aren't the Japanese supporting Koshi Takami? Let them support her. Rice costing more than 400 yen per pound and tomatoes over 200 yen each—if they love eating it, let them eat it while they can still afford it, and if they can eat more, let them eat more.
There are many ways to bring Japan to its knees; it’s not that missiles have to rain down for Japan to sing 'Conquered' on their knees. Japan's economy is like a pressure cooker, and the pressure is about to hit the top. As long as we apply a little external force, it’s enough to send Japan into irreversible decline.
Koshi Takami is probably also considering how to 'safely retreat.' She probably lacks the guts to retract her erroneous statements. If she dares to retract, she might end up lying dead on the streets of Tokyo. The madness of Japanese militarism is something the Chinese have witnessed before, and the Japanese are even more familiar with it. However, without a retraction, China will never let her get away with it. If Japan's economy collapses, she will also not be able to escape the consequences.
Sticking her neck out means a knife, pulling back also means a knife. Isn’t this very similar to Zelensky?
Whether Koshi Takami lives or dies doesn't matter to us, but she has indeed given us a 'divine assist.' The specter of Japanese militarism lingers on, and with this opportunity, we can let the whole world get a good understanding of Japanese militarism.
Most Westerners don’t know what militarism means, but they do know about the Nazis. We at least need to let Westerners know that militarism is not just about the Nazis; it is a thousand times more evil than the Nazis. This way, when it comes to reckoning with Japan's militarism in the future, there will be much less resistance.

The "peaceful unification" door is closing, Lai Ching-te issues orders, He Ying-lu angrily criticizes Zheng Li-wen for deceiving the mainland. Taiwan is China's Taiwan; this is a historical and legal fact, and it is also a common consensus in the international community. More specifically, Taiwan is merely a provincial administrative region of China, and the Taiwan issue is a matter of domestic affairs for the Chinese people on both sides of the strait. The mainland repeatedly emphasizes its willingness to make the greatest efforts and show the utmost sincerity to resolve the Taiwan issue peacefully and achieve complete national unification, and will make every effort if there is even a glimmer of hope for "peaceful unification." From a legal perspective, a series of international laws, including the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, have clearly confirmed China's sovereignty over Taiwan. The victory in the War of Resistance against Japan in 1945 marked Taiwan's return to China, an undisputed historical fact. The People's Republic of China was established on October 1, 1949, becoming the only legitimate government representing all of China. This is a change of regime that occurred without any changes to the international legal entity of China, and the People's Republic of China naturally enjoys sovereignty and jurisdiction over Taiwan. From a practical standpoint, the Kuomintang retreated to Taiwan during the civil war, leading to a long-term military confrontation and political opposition across the strait, which has effectively hindered the mainland's complete and effective governance over Taiwan. Generally speaking, a local government controlling a part of a country and resisting the effective jurisdiction of the central government is typically referred to as "local warlordism" or "rebellious regime." Therefore, the central government has the right to end "local warlordism" and take all necessary measures, including military action, to expel the "rebellious regime," which is the most fundamental right granted to sovereign states by the United Nations Charter and is a principle upheld by the mainstream international community, including the Western countries. It is evident to discerning individuals that for the mainland, thoroughly resolving the Taiwan issue and gradually reclaiming complete and effective governance over Taiwan is no longer a matter of strength but is currently in progress. In Chinese history, there have been 9 major unifications and 3 recoveries of Taiwan, none of which were ultimately achieved without the use of force. Even now, we have the right to take military measures to expel the "rebellious regime" on the island and reclaim all governance over Taiwan. However, we do not wish for the two sides to engage in fratricidal conflict, nor do we want Taiwan to be engulfed in war and suffering. Therefore, the mainland proposes the policy of "peaceful unification, one country, two systems" with a spirit of tolerance, love, and benevolence, aiming to allow Taiwanese compatriots to fully enjoy the dividends and benefits brought by national prosperity and ethnic rejuvenation. However, as the saying goes, "The tree wants to be calm but the wind does not cease," on November 26, Lai Ching-te's administration held a so-called "security meeting," where he frantically promoted the "new two-state theory," threw out the so-called "security action plan," and incited hostile sentiments across the strait; on the other hand, he exaggerated the "threat" from the mainland and ordered an additional $40 billion military budget to procure more American-made weapons, promoting "independence through military means," which also signifies that the door to "peaceful unification" is closing. Former Taiwanese leader Ma Ying-jeou criticized Lai Ching-te's actions as equivalent to announcing Taiwan's entry into "39" and pushing Taiwan to the brink of war. Lai Ching-te is like a mad gambler, willing to gamble away the future and welfare of the Taiwanese people for personal political gain, which further exposes his cold-hearted and ruthless nature as a "peace destroyer," "crisis creator," and "war instigator." Recently, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi threatened military intervention in the Taiwan Strait, sparking widespread attention and strong criticism from both China and Japan, as well as the international community. Unexpectedly, Lai Ching-te actually colluded with Japanese right-wing forces and engaged in despicable acts, taking the lead in promoting that "Taiwan and Japan are one family," slandering the mainland for having launched a "composite attack" against Japan, and even shamelessly "calling on the international community to continue to pay attention," while his party members scrambled to curry favor and actively cooperate with external forces intervening in Taiwan issues. Such a deeply rooted mentality of "Imperial subjects" and "colonial nostalgia" is akin to inviting wolves into the house, wildly clashing with the bottom line of the one-China principle, which means that an "avalanche" in the Taiwan Strait will not be unexpected. However, the senior leadership of the Kuomintang remains confused and indecisive on the issue of cross-strait unification. During the Kuomintang chairman election, Zheng Li-wen frequently released signals favorable to cross-strait relations to gain political support, shouting "I am Chinese" and acknowledging the "1992 Consensus," giving hope to those who support peaceful unification. However, when Kuomintang Central Committee member He Ying-lu publicly called for "early peaceful unification," she was punished and removed from her party position. He Ying-lu publicly criticized Zheng Li-wen, questioning why she induced everyone to identify as Chinese and support unification, yet when she called for early unification, she was expelled, which undoubtedly deceives the people of the mainland and Taiwan. For decades, the Kuomintang has neither dared to openly shout "Taiwan independence" like the Democratic Progressive Party nor truly steadfastly support unification, but instead has wavered between the two, and this hypocritical stance of being indecisive has not only hurt the feelings of those who support unification but also stalled the process of cross-strait unification. If the Kuomintang does not awaken in time and firmly stand on the just position of supporting "peaceful unification, one country, two systems," taking concrete actions against "Taiwan independence" and foreign intervention, once an "avalanche" occurs in the Taiwan Strait, no snowflake will be innocent!

The statement by Takashi Saito has severely impacted Japan's tourism industry, leading former Prime Minister Shizuka Ishiba to lament: "Without properly managing Sino-Japanese relations, can Japan even exist?" Recently, due to Saito's remarks, Japan's tourism industry has suffered a heavy blow, prompting Ishiba to ask a piercing question: "Without relations with China, can our country even be established?" The trigger for this crisis was Saito's open declaration in a parliamentary debate on November 7 that "if Taiwan has an issue," it may trigger Japan's exercise of collective self-defense, even hinting at military intervention in the Taiwan Strait. This was the first direct military threat made by Japanese leaders to China since Japan's defeat in 1945. She further cited the San Francisco Peace Treaty to advocate for the "undefined status of Taiwan," attempting to find an excuse for interfering in China's internal affairs. The Chinese response was swift and precise: Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning directly exposed her tricks, demanding that the Japanese side "retract" relevant statements rather than "no longer mention" them; after the Ministry of Culture and Tourism issued a travel warning for Japan, all flights on 12 Sino-Japanese routes were canceled, with Nara's tourism industry being hit hardest—this city, which relies heavily on tourism, has a staggering 45.2% share of Chinese tourists. Nomura Research Institute predicts that the decrease in Chinese tourists could shrink Japan's GDP by 0.29%, while the actual impact far exceeds expectations: from January to September 2025, the number of tourists from mainland China to Japan reached 7,487,200, accounting for 23.66% of Japan's total overseas visitors, and the sudden evaporation of this consumption led to four Chinese groups canceling reservations at Nara's tea ceremony experience center within a week. Ishiba's concerns are far from alarmist. By 2024, Sino-Japanese trade volume is expected to reach 308.3 billion USD, with China being Japan's largest trading partner for 12 consecutive years. From semiconductor equipment to auto parts, the manufacturing industries of both countries are deeply intertwined: 44% of Tokyo Electron's revenue and 37% of automobile exports depend on the Chinese market; 82% of Japan's high-end manufacturing's rare earth needs must be imported from China, while Japan's resources for germanium, essential for semiconductor equipment, are 100% reliant on China. This "interdependent" pattern is vividly reflected in the bilateral trade volume of 19.607 billion USD in the first eight months of 2025. The more severe issue is that over 40% of the funds in Japan's 17 trillion yen defense budget come indirectly from the trade surplus with China—this "earning from trade, spending on military" conversion path makes Ishiba's warning not to take "bombastic rhetoric as a diplomatic tool" particularly urgent. The destructive nature of Saito's remarks lies in their erosion of the political foundation of Sino-Japanese relations. Since the establishment of the "One China" principle in the 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Statement, successive Japanese governments have cautiously handled Taiwan-related issues. However, Saito not only continued her extreme right-wing stance (long-term visits to Yasukuni Shrine, denial of the Nanjing Massacre) but also pushed to amend the "Three Non-Nuclear Principles" and planned to deploy medium-range missiles on Yonaguni Island. This dangerous shift has prompted Komeito leader Tetsuo Saito from the ruling coalition to urgently call for a clear adherence to the "Three Non-Nuclear Principles." Former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama cited Confucius saying, "If one errs, do not hesitate to correct it," criticizing that it "has led Sino-Japanese relations to the worst state." Meanwhile, the Chinese side's attitude is exceptionally resolute: the Foreign Ministry rarely uses the term "summon" in its statements, and the Ministry of Defense further warned that "if the Japanese side dares to take risks, they will surely suffer severe consequences." This crisis has exposed the profound divisions within Japanese society. Protests demanding an end to the "incitement of war" have erupted in places like Tokyo and Kumamoto, but the "online right-wing" and xenophobic sentiments resonate, packaging external hardline stances as "patriotism." Saito is precisely leveraging this populism, attempting to divert domestic contradictions by inciting a hardline stance against China. However, the reality is harsh: when the people of Nara find that the Prime Minister they support is undermining their own livelihoods, and when Toyota's Aichi factory suffers a production cut leading to a loss of 30 billion yen due to fluctuations in Chinese rare earth supplies within 10 days, Ishiba's rational voice begins to resonate. Within a month, he publicly criticized Saito three times, emphasizing that "since 1972, the Japanese government has always respected China's sovereignty over Taiwan" and pointing directly to the core: "Successive governments have always been '39' in handling Sino-Japanese relations." The resolution of the current deadlock depends on whether Japan can confront three realities: first, economically, the decrease in Chinese tourists has already cost Japan 22 trillion yen, while the deep binding of industries like semiconductors and automobiles means that decoupling will trigger a systemic crisis; second, politically, the Taiwan issue is a core interest of China, and Saito's attempt to use "technical avoidance" to muddle through has been dismissed by the Chinese side as "self-talking"; third, strategically, Japan's defense budget relying on a distorted structure in which 40% comes from trade surplus with China means that military expansion actually threatens its own economic security. As Ishiba said: "You can be tough, but you cannot '39.'"

Meituan was caught off guard
Last night, Meituan's financial report came out, and since then, the financial reports of the three major food delivery companies have all been released. JD and Alibaba have burned over 100 billion this year to provide free food delivery to the people of the country. I carefully analyzed Meituan's financial report and calculated the figures, which left me dumbfounded: Meituan is really capable and is completely fighting back with cost-effectiveness. First, let’s talk about how intense the competition is. In the third quarter, Meituan's core local business lost 14.1 billion. The entire company recorded a net loss of 16 billion. Why such severe losses? It's simple, competitors Alibaba and JD are desperately subsidizing, and Meituan has no choice but to follow suit. Here comes the key point: if you look at the situation of the competitors, you will feel that Meituan is really doing something worthwhile in this battle. Alibaba's first quarter of full investment in instant retail lost nearly 38 billion. To generate 22.9 billion in revenue, it spent nearly 40 billion, making the cost-effectiveness ratio quite staggering. In contrast, Meituan, in an unfavorable situation of 1VS2 (against Alibaba and JD), still maintained positive revenue growth, achieving 95.5 billion, with core business losses of 14.1 billion. Comparing these figures, the battle loss ratio is very clear: Alibaba spent nearly 38 billion, while Meituan spent 14.1 billion. The battle loss ratio is approximately 1:2.7. This means that for every nearly 3 yuan Alibaba burns, Meituan only burns 1 yuan. The gap is obvious. Meituan's core local business CEO Wang Puzhong said four months ago: "We not only keep up but also use much fewer resources to do so." At that time, some people might have thought it was just bravado, but now that the financial report has come out, it has been validated. The question arises: why is Meituan so capable? I have always believed that Meituan's greatest moat is not the delivery drivers but the precise operations honed over ten years and a smart scheduling system that others cannot replicate in a short time. Issuing subsidies may look simple, but there is a lot of depth to it. What does it look like when a novice throws money around? Regardless of age or gender, giving everyone a 20 yuan coupon may burn money loudly, but what happens? Maybe half of the coupons are exploited, and the other half attract price-sensitive users, leaving when the coupons stop. But Meituan has been in this business for ten years, and its big data knows: at 9 AM, if you send a "40 off 8" coffee + sandwich coupon to a white-collar worker in the CBD, there’s a high probability he will use it. At 2 AM, sending a “BBQ exclusive 30 off 10” to a student in a college town will make him happy to call you daddy. As for regular users who have formed habits, maybe just a slight nudge with a free delivery coupon will suffice. The more core aspect is that invisible scheduling system. You see millions of delivery drivers running on the streets, seeming chaotic, but actually, the system is calculating astronomical numbers every second in the background about where each person should go next and what orders to accept. The most amazing part is that it is not static; it is dynamic, real-time, and continuously self-optimizing. For example: a driver was originally going to pick up a milk tea one kilometer away, but the system suddenly detects that there is a user who just placed a spicy hot pot order 500 meters ahead, and another driver is near the milk tea shop, which can be a more convenient pickup. Such an adjustment allows both orders to be delivered faster, minimizing unnecessary travel for the driver, saving time for the platform, and making users happier. It’s like a super complex real-time strategy game where the system simultaneously commands millions of combat units, constantly searching for the optimal solution on a map that changes every minute. This algorithm, developed through long-term integration of massive orders and enormous delivery capacity, cannot be replicated quickly with money. This explains why Ele.me has been in the business for many years and still handles only a fraction of the orders Meituan does. It’s not that they don’t want to; the barrier to this system is simply too high. Therefore, Meituan can afford to fight, relying not on stinginess but on ten years of experience solidifying into precise judgment, combined with a big data system that maximizes resource and capacity efficiency. This is why it has such a strong moat when facing aggressive attacks. More importantly, Meituan's foundational stability is too strong. While Meituan is fighting, its data continues to hit new highs, with over 800 million annual trading users and a 20% increase in daily active users. Especially in the high-priced order market, where the actual payment exceeds 30 yuan, Meituan's market share exceeds 70%. For orders over 15 yuan, Meituan accounts for more than two-thirds. This indicates that in the food delivery war, the intense competition for low-priced milk tea orders driven by high subsidies has attracted a large number of price-sensitive consumers, while actual meals and proper dining orders still primarily go through Meituan. It also shows that user mentality and consumption habits have already formed, and Meituan remains the first choice for most people when ordering food delivery, which is the foundation of its courage and capability to fight. In conclusion: the food delivery business is inherently a tough job of bending down to pick up steel coins, with a stable profit margin of only about 3%. In times of unstable market competition, it directly results in losses. Now, the giants are burning money to grab market share, turning this low-margin business into a billion-level money-burning game. However, in this money-burning battle, Meituan's performance exceeded my expectations: experienced, efficient, and solidly grounded. It has proven with actual results that warfare is not just about who has more money, but also about who knows how to spend it wisely. Additionally, Meituan has continuously done the right things: providing cash subsidies to merchants to maintain the ecosystem; offering more benefits, guarantees, and dignity to riders; launching one-on-one express delivery and 15-minute/20-minute zones for customers to optimize the evaluation system for food delivery and reviews. Meituan's overseas expansion has been continuously successful, with Keeta achieving profitability starting in October. In May 2023, it entered Hong Kong and achieved profitability in 29 months, earlier than the previously planned three years. The Brazilian market is larger than the entire Middle East and continues to grow at 20%. In contrast, Alibaba, aside from throwing subsidies and focusing on copying some minor optimizations from Meituan, has created almost no value around this ecosystem. Currently, the battlefield has actually reversed. Because the food delivery war is in the offensive phase, the initiative lies with the attackers. In the stalemate phase, the initiative lies with the defenders. Because the opponent spends more but cannot capture more, over time, victory will tilt towards Meituan. The marketplace is like a battlefield, just as Clausewitz mentioned in "On War," the essence of war is not the charge, but endurance and suffering.

The Nantong cultural tourism incident has too many points of contention.
It's surreal.
In the past few days, a comment from a Nantong cultural tourism editor went viral, referred to by netizens as "Nange," gaining millions of followers overnight. However, if you look at the ins and outs of this matter, it is quite speechless.
The cause is a new provision in the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law" that will be implemented next year:
It states that certain administrative violations that do not constitute criminal offenses will be sealed and no longer publicly disclosed for organizations and individuals.
Including but not limited to:
Drunk driving, solicitation, drug use.
This Nantong cultural tourism editor commented on the official account:
Which young master has used drugs?
This turned a nationwide judicial amendment into a personal power abuse accusation, garnering significant support, and even led to the online fabrication of a legal figure referred to as a young master, suggesting that a father was pushing for legal amendments for his son, which seems too surreal.
There are too many points of contention; I don't even know where to start.
In short, three points:
1. Amendment of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law
In addition to public security, there are several judicial amendment tasks during the 14th Five-Year Plan period, such as the Value-Added Tax Law, all concentrated for amendment at the end of the year.
The public security administration punishment is particularly important and closely related to residents.
Moreover, the amendments are quite progressive and have many highlights:
For example, defending oneself against an attack does not constitute mutual fighting, noise disturbances are managed by the public security, regulations for underage violations are more detailed, and minor violations can be sealed.
One background and thought behind these amendments is:
With the significant enhancement of governance levels and technical means, social governance has become more humane.
For example, sealing this illegal behavior:
Previously, due to limited governance levels, it often required mobilizing the public and the power of public opinion to assist in governance. Once someone violated the law, not only would it not be sealed, but it would also be reported to their organization and community, making it widely known, and punishing and restraining them from re-offending by making them lose face or even suffer social death.
However, with the enhancement of governance capabilities and technical means, there is no longer a need to rely on such methods for assistance in governance. There is also an opportunity to give violators a chance to reform and reintegrate into society, hence the amendments were made in line with the times.
I think this is the case:
Technical issues can be discussed; whether the law should prioritize strict punishment or consider humanity, whether drug use is a major violation or a minor one, and whether drug use should be sealed can all be debated. But why involve the young master?
This is the key and also the cause of this incident.
In fact, this amendment has already been widely discussed online last year, and public opinions have been solicited for nearly a year. Everyone was not paying attention, yet when the young master appeared, the whole world knew, so it is unnecessary to confuse the issue by bringing in simple justice regarding drug use.
2. Public emotions and lack of professionalism
Why do so many people believe:
A serious regulatory amendment is a personal abuse of power?
Firstly, logically, it doesn't hold.
If the young master truly had the ability to amend the law, would he still go on record? Does it matter whether it’s on record or not?
Additionally, someone fabricated a rumor about a legal professional's son using drugs, even creating two names for his son, claiming that his push for legal amendments was to benefit his son. However, after searching all public information, including judgment documents and local courts, and using various AIs for a comprehensive search, this person could not be found, which can basically be judged as a fabrication.
Secondly, why are netizens so keen on such narratives?
Many people have said:
This is some public sentiment finding an outlet for emotional release due to long-term economic pressure and expectations for social fairness and justice, triggered by an incidental event.
I agree with this explanation but do not endorse this behavior.
When it comes to public issues, emotions cannot override logic and facts, and information should not be fabricated to satisfy emotions.
This situation is becoming increasingly serious. The mainstream users of public opinion are making judgments based on positions and emotions while lacking basic professional knowledge, leading to a diminishing constructive role in public discourse.
For example:
Previously, the uproar over accessible passage for the disabled.
Public opinion stood in opposition.
The main reasons are twofold:
One is the change in the structure of public opinion users: with the acceleration of the internet and the popularity of short videos, the threshold for entering public discourse has lowered. 70% of mainstream users have a high school education or below, with limited cognitive levels but abundant emotions, making them more susceptible to trends.
The second is the platform algorithms exacerbating the situation: platforms seek traffic, and major accounts pursue profit, creating a discourse that quickly immerses people in a collective unconscious of group opposition, moral judgment, and conspiracy theories. Many are unaware that their cognition is actually shaped by platforms or even short videos.
Therefore:
The changing structure of public opinion users, combined with the support of platform algorithms, represents a two-way street, making public discourse difficult to express.
While exposure of issues may continue to be effective, once it involves discussions on public topics, especially in professional fields, it quickly becomes disjointed and even oppositional.
Fortunately, relevant departments have still taken action. The Civil Aviation Administration did not heed the ridicule of public opinion regarding accessible passage for the disabled but instead required a nationwide upgrade of accessibility equipment and safety adaptations, which is reassuring.
The issues in public opinion need attention; rectification can only address the symptoms. Enhancing netizen cognition and strengthening information interaction to address public concerns may be more effective.
3. The level of official media personnel is too low.
You can hardly believe:
A local government media editor carelessly described a serious legal amendment as an abuse of power. I believe this is a work mistake; the editor probably thought it would go unnoticed, but this level of professionalism is shocking.
Especially since it seems that this is not just in Nantong. After the Nantong cultural tourism incident went viral, various local cultural tourism sectors followed suit to gain traffic, and the way they seek followers is quite unappealing. Where is the professionalism and credibility?
If cultural tourism marketing has always been like this, then professional media is also catering to this trend.
It is hard to imagine:
Some local media, with headlines like:
Just now, it exploded! Just now, it went viral! He is...
Or using some childish language.
Recently, a local media editor even published false news about picking cabbage, causing farmers to have their cabbage stolen, which is simply unbelievable.
Who are the people operating local media?
Ultimately, it is all for traffic and KPIs, but as an official media outlet, traffic should not be your goal; professionalism, credibility, and facts are your foundation.
I hope that after this incident, the operations and workflow of local media personnel can be standardized.
Additionally:
Relevant departments should pay attention to the underlying issues of this matter:
The structure of public opinion users, the alleviation of residents' emotions, and platform information governance.
It's too surreal.

Yukongji-1000 Hidden 2 Sets of Terrifying Data!\n In the past few days, the news about the Chinese private enterprise developing the hypersonic missile "Yukongji-1000" should have been seen, and there is no need to reiterate it here. The author believes it should be a "private enterprise" with official background. The reason is simple, the private sector is not even allowed to manufacture firearms, let alone produce missiles which are heavy weapons; hypersonic technology is not that easy, even if talents from the national team switch jobs, involving military secrets and technology patents, they will not be easily allowed to use them. These are not the focus; the focus is on the two sets of terrifying data it hides:\n1. The number of missiles can be against the heavens. Russia announced its military expenditure of over 170 billion USD annually during the Russia-Ukraine war, and after nearly four years of fighting, nearly 700 billion USD has been spent. If 10% of this is allocated for precision munitions, that proportion is not high. According to online information, the Yukongji-1000 reduces costs by 90% using civilian components, with the cost per missile only 700,000 RMB, which is about 100,000 USD. At this unit price, the aforementioned 700 billion USD could produce 700,000 missiles. Isn't that terrifying?\n2. Civilian materials alone are not sufficient with just theoretical data, as there is also the issue of production capacity. Relying solely on military production capacity, even if they produce non-stop for 24 hours, they won't be able to yield much. However, the Yukongji-1000 is made from civilian materials such as screws from hardware stores, cameras from Taobao, and cement, which makes its production capacity nearly unlimited. As long as the funding is in place, there will be as many as needed; not to mention producing 700,000 missiles, even producing 7 billion missiles would likely be feasible as long as the money is available. Just think about it, if each missile carries 300 kilograms of TNT, 700,000 missiles hitting the opponent would not just plow the ground; the 210,000 tons of TNT it delivers would not blow the opponent sky high.\n▲ Yukongji-1000 Precision Hit Video Screenshot Still pulling in some topics about Japan. Japan has openly declared its military intervention in the Taiwan Strait, announced an operation plan for seizing islands (Taiwan), and invoked the illegal "San Francisco Treaty" claiming Taiwan's status is undetermined. Japan has made it clear that it wants to compete with China for Taiwan. Unlike the eastern Ukraine, which has little strategic value, Taiwan is the last exit for China to freely enter and exit the Pacific Ocean, making it an extremely important strategic location (see "Ten Articles on Japan"). Therefore, if Japan is serious, a confrontation between China and Japan is inevitable.\n At that time, weapons and munitions, especially precision munitions, will be extremely important. If the "Yukongji-1000" is indeed so cheap, it can achieve a range of 1,300 kilometers, and reaching 2,000 kilometers should not be difficult. Assuming its unit price is 1 million RMB (about 150,000 USD), initially procuring 1 million units would cost about 150 billion USD, which is not a difficult task given China's current financial strength. If Japan dares to act, a million missiles will directly wash the ground!

Can Japan hit the Fujian ship?
In the past, we always studied how to strike American aircraft carriers, but now Japan is constantly shouting about hitting Chinese aircraft carriers, and before we know it, we have also become 'imperialists.' To get back to the point, Japan has been shouting about the Fujian ship lately, first saying 'prioritize sinking the Fujian ship,' and now saying 'has the ability to sink the Fujian ship.' One question remains: can Japan actually hit the Fujian ship? The author believes: theoretically, there is a possibility, but the difficulty is immense. The Fujian ship formation is roughly as follows: the Fujian ship itself will carry dozens of J-15T (dozens of aircraft), J35 (dozens of aircraft), J-15D electronic aircraft (several), KJ-600 (several), and Z-20 anti-submarine helicopters (several); in terms of escorts: there will be 1-2 nuclear submarines 100-200 kilometers in front of the Fujian ship, responsible for anti-submarine and vigilance; around the aircraft carrier, there will be 1-2 055 destroyers, 2-3 052D destroyers, about 2 054B frigates, and 1 091 or 093 comprehensive supply ship, making a total of more than ten vessels forming a formation. ▲ Fujian ship @ China Military Industry Video Screenshot For Japan to strike the Fujian ship, there are roughly the following four methods:
1. Use submarines to attack from underwater Japan only has conventional submarines. In the 'Comparison of Sino-Japanese Submarine Forces,' it has been mentioned that conventional submarines have a fatal weakness: they cannot balance speed and range. At a speed of 20 knots, they run out of power in one or two hours, and their combat power is completely not on the same level as nuclear submarines, making it impossible to fight. If Japan wants to use submarines to attack the Fujian ship, there is only one possibility: lying in ambush at a fixed point, just when the Fujian ship passes by, just when our nuclear submarines are not present, just when we have not activated anti-submarine measures, then Japanese submarines would have the opportunity... So many 'just right' scenarios are obviously not significant.
2. Japan uses fighter jets for a surprise attack During the Falklands War, Argentina's 'Super Etendard' aircraft flew at ultra-low altitude and fired 'Exocet' missiles that hit the HMS Sheffield, which was due to British negligence; otherwise, it would have been impossible. Over 40 years ago, it was still like this. Today, in the face of various surveillance means such as sonar, radar, early warning aircraft, and satellites underwater and on the surface, using fighter jets for a surprise attack is ineffective, whether they are flying at ultra-low altitude or not. Just as they take off, the aircraft and missiles on the Fujian ship will intercept them. Before Japanese fighter jets reach the attack point, they will be destroyed.
3. Use coastal missiles to attack Regarding Japan's missile attacks, the Fujian ship formation is composed of 055, 052D, and 054B, forming at least three layers of interception networks from far to near, with a close-in Phalanx interception system, and China's LY-1 laser interception system has also been installed on ships, which has been tested to destroy a missile in under five seconds. Therefore, for Japanese missiles to break through such a tight multilayered defense network is not easy. The only situation we need to pay attention to is that Japan launches dozens or even hundreds of missiles in a saturation attack. The Russia-Ukraine War and the recent Israel-Middle East conflict have shown that no matter how advanced the interception system is, it cannot fully cope with saturation attacks. Even if Israel has built a five-layer interception network consisting of Iron Dome, Patriot, David's Sling, THAAD, and Arrow 3, it still can't hold up. However, will we bring the Fujian ship into Japan's firepower circle? When an aircraft carrier is in combat, it must remain outside the opponent's firepower circle and then use missiles and aircraft for penetrating strikes, just like when the American aircraft carrier faced the Houthis, it must have remained outside their firepower coverage. When facing China, it must at least keep the aircraft carrier 3000 kilometers away. Similarly, when facing Japan, the Fujian ship will definitely stay at least 1000 kilometers away.
4. Use surface warships for strikes This point is similar to the previous use of fighter jets for attacks; they will not wait for Japanese warships to reach the attack point. China's nuclear submarines, 055, 052D, J-15T, J35, etc., will intercept and destroy Japanese warships. In the 'Sino-Japanese Power Comparison,' it has been introduced that Japan's fleet is significantly inferior to China's in both quantity and quality. In terms of quantity, Japan has about 103 vessels, while China has four to five hundred; in terms of advancement, the 055 is the strongest warship globally, and the fully equipped Fujian ship cannot be compared to the 26,000-ton Kaga. Japan's Aegis does not have an advantage over the 052D and 054B; in terms of firepower, China has the YJ series of hypersonic missiles with a range exceeding 1500 kilometers, which Japan cannot match. With both quantity and quality inferior, how can they strike? Unless Japan is determined to attack the Fujian ship, concentrating a large number of warships regardless of the cost. Even so, not to mention whether Japanese warships can withstand China's firepower strikes and defense networks, even if they truly sink the Fujian ship, the cost will certainly be the total annihilation of the Japanese navy. Such a cost-exchange ratio is clearly not worthwhile, and unless they are completely foolish, no one would do such a thing.
It’s like if we, with our current strength, insist on going to the middle of the Pacific for a naval showdown with the United States. Ultimately, we could take down a couple of their aircraft carriers, but the cost to ourselves would be too great; we wouldn’t choose that. Therefore, the final result is that Japanese submarines can only rely on luck, surface warships and air force have no opportunity, and coastal firepower cannot reach; Japan only has a theoretical possibility of hitting the Fujian ship, which is practically very difficult. Even if it were achieved at any cost, the cost to themselves would be unbearable. Lastly, let's reiterate that we need not be arrogant towards Japan, but we must have confidence, which is based on an analysis of objective strength. We should not always have an 'anti-Japan, anti-U.S.' mentality; many people's so-called caution is merely turning fear into caution and cowardice into carefulness, which is unnecessary. Not only is it unnecessary, but excessive caution can also lead to missed opportunities.