Yanwen’s blog

As the days grow shorter and the weather turns colder, the Ukraine-Russia war enters its third winter, with both sides enduring heavy casualties. Amid rising global uncertainty—driven by the upcoming U.S. election and escalating tensions in the Middle East—the West is recalibrating its objectives. The prospect of total victory seems distant, and the pressure on Ukraine to reach a settlement continues to grow.

The proposed deal reportedly allows Russia to retain control over four Russian-speaking territories, while Ukraine would be granted NATO membership in exchange.

This news stirs many reflections. First, while the war is fought between Ukraine and Russia, one must question how much control Ukraine truly has over its own fate. Its future seems to lie in the hands of outside powers, which is both tragic and disheartening.

Second, the notion that Ukraine's NATO membership will ensure lasting peace seems dangerously naïve. The belief that U.S. and Western allies can guarantee Ukraine’s security overlooks a harsh reality: Ukraine remains a small neighbor to Russia, caught in the geopolitical tug-of-war between two global powers.

Lastly, European history shows that peace is often merely a pause in the ongoing cycle of conflict. The Peace of Westphalia (1648), celebrated for ending the Thirty Years' War and the Eighty Years' War, was meant to usher in a new era of stability. Yet just forty years later, Europe found itself in the Nine Years' War (1688-1697), followed by the War of Spanish Succession (1701-1714), the War of Austrian Succession (1740), the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815), the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), World War I, World War II, and beyond. From Korea to Vietnam, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan—war has remained a constant, with peace treaties serving only as brief intermissions.

A Chinese saying goes, 东山再起 (dōng shān zài qǐ), which literally means "to rise again from Mount Dongshan." Figuratively, it speaks to the idea of making a comeback after defeat or setback. 

As Europe's history has shown, peace is often fleeting, a pause before the next chapter of war. NATO membership may strengthen Ukraine’s position, but it will not erase its proximity to Russia or its vulnerability as a pawn between great powers. The future may well hold another resurgence of tensions, much like the countless wars that have scarred and plagued Europe for thousands of years.

As the Chinese saying goes, to rise again after a setback, will Ukraine, emboldened by NATO’s backing, initiate its own resurgence of conflict with Russia? Only time will tell if this so-called peace is truly the end or merely the beginning of another cycle.

Less than a month before Election Day, November 5, someone remarked that "the die is cast and fate is sealed"—unless a 黑天鹅事件 (hēi tiān’é shìjiàn) or Black Swan Event, occurs. A Black Swan Event refers to an unpredictable, high-impact event that defies normal expectations. 

The mention of elections and a Black Swan Event brings to mind the Iran hostage crisis (November 4, 1979 – January 20, 1981) and the 1980 presidential debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. I was in college at the time, and I still vividly recall both events, particularly the disappointment and a sense of injustice I felt when Carter lost the election.

Following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, President Jimmy Carter stood by the ousted Shah of Iran, granting him entry into the U.S. for medical treatment. This decision inflamed anti-American sentiment in Iran and culminated in the hostage crisis.

While the crisis itself may not qualify as a Black Swan Event, the timing of the hostages' release certainly does. Their release, which coincided precisely with Reagan's inauguration, 1/20/1981, seemed almost too well-orchestrated. Even from the other side of the Pacific, in Beijing, I couldn't help but suspect that there was some behind-the-scenes deal between Iran and Reagan's campaign to ensure the hostages were freed at just the right moment.

Additionally, the hostage crisis had a major negative impact on Carter’s presidency and re-election bid, and the immediate resolution under Reagan’s administration appeared to highlight a dramatic contrast between the two leaders.

The whole event felt as though the lives of those hostages had been leveraged for political gain, which is unsettling.

Later, I came across the "October Surprise" theory, which suggests that Reagan’s team, possibly led by campaign manager William Casey (who later became CIA director), secretly negotiated with Iranian officials to delay the release of the hostages in order to defeat Carter’s re-election bid. Although no definitive evidence of such a deal has ever surfaced, the suspicion lingers, especially involving the work of CIA.

The Iran hostage crisis, whether by coincidence or clandestine dealings, had a profound impact on the outcome of the 1980 election. It remains a potent reminder of how unpredictable events can reshape the political landscape. The idea that lives could be strategically leveraged for electoral victory is disturbing, and while as with most of secret dealings the truth behind the "October Surprise" may never fully emerge, the lingering suspicion will persist, serving as a reminder of the murky intersections between power and human lives. 

It leaves us pondering how much of history is shaped by the hidden currents beneath them. The hostage crisis wasn’t just a geopolitical issue; it was a test of morality, trust, and the unpredictable forces that often define our world today.

First of all, this is a good question but I don't have the answer to this question.

I recently came across an intriguing Chinese expression: 油腻感 (yóu nì gǎn), which translates to "a greasy feeling." Literally, it refers to the sensation of something being oily, heavy, or overly rich—unpleasant in an excessive way.

What makes this expression particularly interesting is its metaphorical use to describe people who exude an undesirable sense of excess, heaviness, or insincerity. It can evoke feelings of second-hand embarrassment, especially when someone is trying too hard to impress.

Figuratively, it’s often applied to describe individuals who come across as overly flashy or desperate to appear sophisticated, resulting in an impression of shallowness and pretense. 

More specifically, it's commonly used to critique middle-aged men who are seen as self-indulgent, pompous, or lacking in refinement. They might appear unkempt or give off an air of insincerity, marked by false confidence or vanity, as they attempt—unsuccessfully—to project success or charm.

The term gained traction in Chinese internet culture as a way to criticize these men who, in their efforts to seem worldly or accomplished or successful, actually seem out of touch or unappealing. 

"Greasiness" conveys a sense of complacency, indulgence, or someone who has grown too comfortable in their habits, trying too hard to be charming or sophisticated, but ultimately leaving a negative, off-putting impression. 

It's worth noting that this type of "greasy" man isn't exclusive to Chinese culture; men with inflated egos, overconfidence, and a desperate need to project success exist in every society. 

Whether in the East or the West, the traits of vanity, insincerity, and excess seem to transcend cultural and national boundaries. It's no exaggeration to say that men—no matter where they are from—are often susceptible to letting their egos get the better of them, creating the same uncomfortable, greasy impression, even when they're trying to achieve the opposite.

Most Chinese are familiar with the famous line from Romance of the Three Kingdoms: "话说天下大势，分久必合，合久必分" (huà shuō tiān xià dà shì, fēn jiǔ bì hé, hé jiǔ bì fēn) "In the grand scheme of the world, long periods of division will inevitably lead to unity, and long periods of unity will inevitably lead to division." This reflects the cyclical nature of Chinese history, marked by repeated patterns of fragmentation and reunification.

While we know these words, we often don’t dive deeper to ask: what are the forces behind division and unity? Why has China achieved prolonged periods of unity, whereas Europe has struggled to unify?

This is a complex and interesting topic, but here’s a brief overview of the key forces in China and Europe.

Forces of Division

Divisive forces arise from differences in ethnicity, language, religion, ideology, and culture. When groups prioritize their unique identities over shared interests, unity becomes challenging. The stronger the sense of localism, the weaker the central government’s ability to maintain control. Historically, weak central governments make division more likely. External forces can subvert a unified country, as we often see today.

Forces of Unity

Unity is driven by shared identity, such as common language, culture, history, and geography. A strong central government and political stability are essential to foster a sense of unity. When effective governance addresses the needs of different groups, the desire for separatism is minimized. 

Interestingly, external forces can also unite otherwise divided groups for survival. A clear example is how China came together during the Japanese invasion. Additionally, charismatic leaders at critical moments can inspire people to overcome divisions and unite around a common cause.

Why China Has Achieved Long Periods of Unity

China’s long shared history, culture, and identity, spanning over 2,000 years, are key reasons for its enduring unity. Chinese nationalism has been further strengthened under the current government, which appeals to the idea of national rejuvenation and the "China Dream." This vision unites the population, and for centuries, the forces of unity have outweighed those of division.

Why Europe Struggles with Unity

Europe’s inability to fully unify stems from its deeply rooted historical and cultural divisions. Centuries of political fragmentation led to the development of diverse languages, cultures, regional identities, and political traditions. The rise of the nation-state system, solidified by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, emphasized national sovereignty over continental unity.

Nationalism in the 19th century further deepened these divisions, as nation-states were formed around distinct cultures, languages, and ethnicities. This made it difficult for European countries to relinquish their differences and come together under one entity, such as the European Union.

Moreover, Europe has seen continuous internal conflict. From the Hundred Years' War to the two World Wars, and even the current Ukraine-Russia conflict, Europe has remained a battleground for power and dominance. Each of these wars reinforced divisions rather than achieving unity.

The 2016 Brexit vote is another example of the tension between national sovereignty and broader European integration, while the collapse of Yugoslavia and its ensuing conflicts reflect how deep-seated ethnic and political grievances continue to hinder unity.

Conclusion

In both China and Europe, the forces of unity and division have continuously shaped their histories. The longer a country remains unified, the harder it is for divisive forces to prevail—and vice versa. China, with its long history of cultural continuity, a unified language, and a strong centralized government, has managed to maintain periods of unity far longer than division. The idea of national rejuvenation and shared identity has only strengthened its unity in modern times.

Europe, on the other hand, has been shaped by centuries of fragmentation, competing sovereignties, and fierce rivalry for dominance. While attempts at unity have been made—most notably through the European Union—the continent's historical divisions remain a formidable challenge.

Ultimately, the balance between forces of unity and division is delicate, and while China may continue to uphold its centralized strength, Europe will likely struggle with its historic tensions. But as history has shown, neither unity nor division is permanent. These cycles continue, influenced by shifting political, social, and external pressures, reminding us that the grand narrative of nations is always evolving.

I shared a post about a group of classmates from Tianjin who dedicated their lives to China’s foreign affairs. One reader commented, “They’re just mouthpieces of the government.”

These words linger in my mind. It’s actually an honor for them. Not everyone can serve that function, and in a way, aren’t we all mouthpieces of something—believers of some sort? We rarely have completely original thoughts or create anything entirely new. Most of us echo the ideas of others or of the country or of their social group, and we are all subject to various limitations. Absolute freedom is an illusion we like to entertain.

Each individual’s path is shaped by personal aspirations, values, allegiances, and sometimes circumstances beyond their control. As the saying goes, “人各有志” (Rén gè yǒu zhì)—everyone has their own ambitions. The key is not only to respect others’ choices but also their loyalty and dedication to something larger than themselves. Ultimately, we are all driven by something that extends beyond personal interests.

It’s more meaningful and sensible to align ourselves with a cause greater than our own desires. In doing so, we may discover a deeper sense of fulfillment and satisfaction by the time we reach retirement.

This larger-than-life perspective reminds me of William Manchester’s The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America, which presents two intertwined themes: glory and the dream. 

The glory celebrates the achievements and aspirations of a nation, highlighting technological advancements, wars and social reforms. Similar glory can be attributed to those who dedicate their lives to the cause of China's foreign affairs.

The dream, epitomized in Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech, underscores the challenges and disillusionments many face in pursuit of their ideals, such as inequality, racism, and economic hardship. This "dream" embodies both hope and the harsh realities that often accompany it.

By recognizing these dualities, we can better appreciate our roles within the larger story of our societies—where personal dreams meet collective glory.