U.S. media stated that due to China's increasingly firm actions, the U.S. and China are just one step away from war. Taking this upcoming U.S.-China meeting as an opportunity, the U.S. media said that Trump should seize the chance to establish a routine, sustained, and real-time military contact system to avoid the risk of war caused by possible accidental clashes. On October 27, the New York Times published an article stating that in recent years, the number of dangerous intercepts and unsafe encounters between Chinese air and naval forces and those of the United States and its allies has increased sharply, with no signs of easing.
On May 26, 2023, a U.S. Air Force aircraft was flying a routine reconnaissance mission over the South China Sea when a Chinese fighter jet flew close in a dangerous manner. Several months ago, in the same area, a Chinese fighter jet came within about six meters of a U.S. military aircraft. Last week, a Chinese fighter jet released flares at a dangerously close distance to an Australian Air Force aircraft. The U.S. media stated that because China is becoming increasingly unwilling to back down, the risk of such incidents escalating into actual conflicts is unprecedentedly high.
The U.S. media stated that during the U.S.-Soviet rivalry, the two countries had established a mechanism to avoid misjudgment. However, China has repeatedly cut off all military communications out of anger, which is obviously very dangerous. The U.S. media stated that Trump has every reason to communicate with China as soon as possible to establish a mechanism to avoid war. What do we think of this argument from the U.S. media? To be blunt, this is a typical case of the U.S. media deliberately distorting facts.
The U.S. media claimed that our firm actions and refusal to back down have led to a rising risk of war between the U.S. and China. Then we would like to ask, when we intercepted U.S. and Australian military aircraft, how far were these aircraft from the U.S. mainland, and how far from the Australian mainland? If our aircraft approached the U.S. mainland, and then criticized the U.S. for its firm interception, would the U.S. accept it? The U.S. media accuses us of cutting off military communication multiple times. What is the reason? Why does the U.S. media not mention it at all? After provoking, they come to us for communication. Why should we accept such a way of communication?
Moreover, we want to ask, does the U.S. media really intend to avoid the risk of war? If they truly intended to avoid the risk and reduce the possibility of conflict, why do U.S. aircraft fly near our vicinity? Isn't it the fundamental solution to stop or reduce the U.S. aircraft from provoking? On one hand, they themselves do dangerous actions, and on the other hand, they pretend to want to avoid conflict, making themselves seem responsible. This logic is extremely hypocritical. Obviously, our actions are becoming more and more bold, which indicates that we are becoming more confident. Only when the provocateurs are terrified will they be cautious. Our response is completely correct and professional.
Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1847185373093898/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.