Our world today is one that is torn and in conflict, a situation evident everywhere. In the United States, we see confrontations between the Democratic and Republican parties, the Middle East witnesses the conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Europe there is the war between Ukraine and Russia, and globally there are divisions between left and right even within the same country, and indeed nations rise against nations. Everywhere one beholds, there is confrontation and division.
It is difficult to remain unbiased and avoid getting caught up in the fray. Thus, the entire world is suffering from severe pollution of the mind, devoid of clear and calm voices.
Engaging in information analysis work in China for over 30 years, I believe that my professional experience alone surpasses the majority of other analysts in both China and the U.S. To this day, I maintain that objectivity and neutrality are essential for analysis in this profession, akin to engineers and scientists. Without these qualities, mistakes are inevitable.
Therefore, my professional experience is quite simple. Any strategic maneuvering is like playing chess, and analysts are the players. How can one win? This is an objective choice. As a professional analyst, the decision-making power does not belong to us; it lies in the hands of politicians.
I do not lean towards either the Democratic or Republican Parties in the U.S., and figures such as Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy are not within the scope of my concern. I base my conclusions solely on objective evidence, adhering to a dispassionate approach. The method too holds no significance to me.
What are the benefits of doing so? One can just look at the current Joe Biden administration. They have plenty of theoretical and intellectual supporters, yet their border policies are far from sensible. The Republicans and Donald Trump are correct, to the extent that the Biden administration has been forced to discreetly return to Trump's stance in the months leading up to the election.
The relationship between the U.S. and NATO is perhaps another example. Trump's stance was that European countries must increase military spending, exceeding 2% of their GDP; this was his core policy, not the withdrawal of the U.S. from NATO. Withdrawing from NATO was merely pressure from the Trump administration on European countries to increase defense spending, rather than relying entirely on the U.S., while these countries simultaneously using various means to criticize it.
In contrast to this, the current scenario portrays the U.S. having the appearance of wishing to withdraw from NATO, and this is seen as emblematic of Trump's primary misstep. However, such a perception primarily reflects partisan political agendas rather than objective factual assessment.
I prioritize competence over partisanship. Assessing the actions and strategies of people and the results they bring is essential in professional analysis. On the other hand, the rationale of these actions belongs to the realm of politics.
However, contemporary society such an aspect by often prioritizes the "why" of actions over the practical "how", resulting in significant social repercussions. As it stands, there is a pervasive trend where political leaders justify wars under lofty pretexts, leaving ordinary citizens to bear the brunt of the consequences, including loss of life. This reality has become widely accepted without scrutiny.
Between division and confrontation, seeking objectivity and supporting objectivity, even if it goes against our desires, directly relates to the future of the world. Whether we have a future depends on whether we possess this objectivity and rationality.
