–魏晓鸣

翻译：戈冰

当表达逐渐成为风险，沉默便成为常态。本文从个人写作经验出发，思考言论空间收缩、公共讨论消失与社会信任流失之间的关系，并提出：真正的自信，不在于消除不同声音，而在于能够面对它们。

表达原本是一项权利，却在现实中变成风险。因为当一个社会开始习惯沉默，它所付出的代价，远远超过个体所承受的压力。

我之所以持续写下去，并不是因为情绪，而是因为现实本身不允许人们假装看不见。一个普通人，仅仅因几段言论被约谈、被限制、被警告，这并非个案，而是一种结构性的常态。当公共讨论被视为“敏感”，当批评被轻易贴上“敌对”的标签，问题就不再是某个人说了什么，而是这个社会还能不能允许不同的声音存在。

言论自由的意义，从来不在于赞美，而在于质疑。赞美不需要勇气，质疑才需要。真正考验制度自信的，也不是听到掌声时的从容，而是面对批评时的态度。一个连质疑都无法承受的权力，本身就暴露出脆弱。

近年来，围绕“意识形态安全”的强调越来越频繁。官方反复提出必须维护主流舆论阵地，强调网络空间治理和舆论导向统一。在一系列治理框架下，“安全”成为高频词汇。然而，当安全的边界不断扩大，表达的空间就不断缩小。问题在于，究竟什么才是威胁？理性的批评是威胁吗？对政策的不同看法是威胁吗？普通人的疑问又算不算威胁？

如果所有不同意见都被归入风险管理的范畴，那么公共理性就会被行政逻辑取代。平台自我审查，媒体统一口径，个人学会闭嘴。久而久之，社会形成一种奇怪的共识：大家都知道问题存在，但没人公开讨论。沉默不代表认同，只代表恐惧。

恐惧会带来两个后果。第一，是社会活力的消退。没有自由讨论，就没有创新思想；没有思想的碰撞，进步也就失去了土壤。第二，是信任的流失。当人们无法通过公开表达解决问题，便只能在私下发泄情绪，信任便会逐渐瓦解。

有人会说，稳定压倒一切。但稳定从来不是压出来的，而是建立在透明和信任之上。如果批评者被视为破坏者，那么社会就只剩下两种人：沉默者与承担风险的人。这样的结构，本身难以长久维持。

继续写下去，并不是为了对抗谁，而是为了记录。当表达需要勇气时，写作就具有了见证意义。哪怕声音微弱，也意味着社会还没有完全陷入沉默。

一个真正强大的社会，应当允许人们提出问题，而不是只允许重复答案。真正的自信，不在于屏蔽不同声音，而在于面对它们时仍然能够保持从容。

如果连讨论的空间都没有，未来又从何而来？或许有人会问：这样写真的有用吗？历史给出的答案是，思想从来不会因为压制而消失，只会在沉默中积蓄力量。真正决定时代走向的，不是恐惧本身，而是恐惧之下仍然选择发声的人。

这不是终点，而是继续。因为沉默的代价，往往比发声更高。

Speaking Out Despite Fear

–Wei Xiaoming

Translated by Ge Bing

When expression becomes a risk, silence becomes the norm. Drawing from personal writing experiences, this essay explores the relationship between shrinking spaces for speech, the disappearance of public discourse, and the erosion of social trust. It argues that true confidence lies not in silencing differing voices, but in confronting them.

Expression was once a right, but in reality, it has become a risk. For when a society grows accustomed to silence, the price it pays far exceeds the pressure borne by individuals.

I continue to write not out of emotion, but because reality itself does not permit people to pretend they are blind. It is not an isolated case when an ordinary person is summoned for questioning, restricted, or warned simply for a few statements—it is a structural norm. When public discourse is deemed “sensitive” and criticism is readily labeled “hostile,” the issue transcends individual words—it becomes whether society can tolerate divergent voices at all.

The value of free speech lies not in praise, but in questioning. Praise requires no courage; questioning does. True tests of institutional confidence aren’t measured by composure amid applause, but by attitude toward criticism. A power that cannot tolerate even questioning exposes its own fragility.

In recent years, the emphasis on “ideological security” has grown increasingly frequent. Authorities repeatedly stress the need to safeguard the mainstream public opinion arena, emphasizing unified governance of cyberspace and public discourse. Under a series of regulatory frameworks, “security” has become a high-frequency term. Yet as the boundaries of security expand, the space for expression shrinks. The question remains: What truly constitutes a threat? Is rational criticism a threat? Are differing views on policy a threat? Do ordinary people’s questions count as threats?

If all dissent is categorized under risk management, public reason will be supplanted by administrative logic. Platforms will self-censor, media will adopt uniform narratives, and individuals will learn to keep silent. Over time, society will develop a peculiar consensus: everyone knows problems exist, yet no one discusses them openly. Silence does not signify agreement; it signifies fear.

Fear yields two consequences. First, the erosion of social vitality. Without free discussion, innovative ideas cannot flourish; without the clash of ideas, progress loses its fertile ground. Second, the erosion of trust. When people cannot resolve issues through open expression, they vent their frustrations privately, and trust gradually disintegrates.

Some may argue that stability trumps all. But stability is never forced; it is built upon transparency and trust. If critics are labeled as disruptors, society is left with only two types of people: the silent and the risk-takers. Such a structure is inherently unsustainable.

Continuing to write is not about opposing anyone, but about recording. When expression requires courage, writing becomes a form of testimony. Even a faint voice signifies that society has not yet fallen completely silent.

A truly strong society should permit people to raise questions, not merely repeat answers. True self-confidence lies not in silencing dissent, but in maintaining composure when confronted by it.

If there is no space for discussion, where does the future come from? Some may ask: Is writing like this truly effective? History answers that ideas never vanish through suppression; they merely gather strength in silence. What truly shapes an era is not fear itself, but those who choose to speak out despite it.

This is not the end, but a continuation. Because the cost of silence is often higher than that of speaking out.

作者：张超瑜

编辑：胡丽莉 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰

宗教信仰，本质上属于个人良知与内心领域。无论信或不信，选择何种方式敬拜，都应当是公民最基本的自由之一。然而，在现实治理结构下，宗教并非完全处于社会自发状态，而是被纳入严格的行政管理体系之中。这种管理逻辑，在基督教领域表现得尤为明显。

在中国大陆，官方认可的基督教组织主要是中国基督教三自爱国运动委员会（通常简称“三自教会”体系）。这一体系强调“自养、自传、自立”，并在组织、人员任命、讲道内容等方面接受统一管理。理论上，这被解释为宗教中国化与规范化治理的一部分。

问题在于，当制度只允许一种“被管理的信仰形态”存在，而对其他自发形成的宗教聚会——例如家庭教会——采取打压、取缔、罚款乃至刑事追责的方式时，信仰自由的边界就被实质性收缩。

家庭教会并非秘密组织，其成员大多只是希望在不受行政干预的情况下聚会、祷告、研读圣经。他们的核心诉求，并非政治参与，而是宗教自主。然而，在现实操作中，未经登记的宗教活动往往被视为“非法聚会”。在某些地区，甚至出现将部分宗教团体贴上“邪教”标签的做法。这种一刀切式的定性，将行政管理问题上升为意识形态问题，使得普通信徒承受极大的法律与心理压力。

在习近平提出“宗教中国化”方向后，宗教活动更加被要求与官方意识形态的协调一致。官方解释认为，这是为了防止境外势力渗透、维护社会稳定。但从权利角度看，当信仰内容与表达方式必须符合政治标准时，宗教本身的独立性就被削弱。

信仰自由的核心，不在于是否允许“信”，而在于是否允许“按照个人理解去信”。如果一个人只能在指定场所、指定话语框架下表达宗教情感，那么这种自由更像是一种被限定的许可，而不是天赋权利。

将家庭教会一概视为风险来源，本质上是对自发社会组织的不信任。这种逻辑背后，是对社会多元性的警惕。可是，一个真正稳定的社会，并不害怕多元存在。相反，压缩空间才可能制造紧张。

更重要的是，把行政登记问题与“邪教”概念混为一谈，会严重伤害法治的严肃性。“邪教”原本指向具有强制控制、精神操控或社会危害行为的极端组织。如果普通的家庭聚会也被贴上类似标签，不仅模糊法律边界，也使得真正需要防范的极端组织难以被清晰区分。

宗教问题之所以敏感，是因为它触及人的终极关怀。越是涉及内心领域，越需要谨慎。强制整合或压制，往往不会消除信仰，只会让其转入更隐蔽的空间。历史经验反复证明，信仰无法通过行政命令消失。

一个成熟的治理体系，应当区分“非法行为”与“非官方组织”之间的界限。若没有具体危害，仅因未纳入统一管理体系便被定性为问题，这种做法无异于对个人信仰选择的间接迫害。

真正的信仰自由，并不是国家替个人选择信仰路径，而是保障个人在法律框架内自主选择。允许三自教会存在，并不必然意味着必须排斥家庭教会。二者并非天然对立，除非制度将其设定为对立。

当一个人因为选择不同的敬拜方式而承担风险时，我们就需要反思：问题究竟出在信仰本身，还是出在管理逻辑？

宗教若必须服从单一组织形式，信仰便不再完全属于个人。信仰一旦被过度行政化，自由就会退居其次。对于任何社会而言，如何在治理与自由之间取得平衡，都是一道无法回避的课题。

When Faith Is “Unified Management”: Why Religious Space Outside the Three-Self System Is Being Compressed

Author: Zhang Chaoyu

Editor: Hu Lili Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing

Abstract: Against the backdrop of Xi Jinping’s call for “the Sinicization of religion,” religious activities in China have been incorporated into a unified management system, with the space for house churches outside the Three-Self system continuing to shrink. Unregistered religious gatherings are viewed as illegal or sources of risk, and expressions of faith are restricted.

Religious belief fundamentally resides within the realm of personal conscience and inner conviction. Whether one chooses to believe or not, and how one chooses to worship, should be among the most fundamental freedoms of citizenship. Yet within the current governance structure, religion does not operate entirely as a spontaneous social phenomenon but is instead integrated into a strict administrative management system. This management logic is particularly evident within the Christian sphere.

In mainland China, the officially recognized Christian organization is primarily the Chinese Christian Council (commonly referred to as the “Three-Self Patriotic Movement” system). This system emphasizes “self-support, self-propagation, and self-governance,” and is subject to unified management in areas such as organization, personnel appointments, and sermon content. Theoretically, this is interpreted as part of the Sinicization of religion and standardized governance.

The problem arises when the system permits only one “managed form of faith” to exist, while suppressing, banning, fining, or even criminally prosecuting other spontaneously formed religious gatherings—such as house churches. This substantially shrinks the boundaries of religious freedom.

House churches are not secret organizations; most members simply wish to gather, pray, and study the Bible without administrative interference. Their core demand is not political participation, but religious autonomy. Yet in practice, unregistered religious activities are often deemed “illegal gatherings.” In some regions, certain religious groups have even been labeled as “cult organizations.” This sweeping categorization elevates administrative management issues into ideological ones, subjecting ordinary believers to immense legal and psychological pressure.

Following Xi Jinping’s call for the “Sinicization of religion,” religious activities face heightened demands for alignment with official ideology. Authorities justify this as preventing foreign infiltration and maintaining social stability. Yet from a rights perspective, when the content and expression of faith must conform to political standards, the very independence of religion is undermined.

The core of religious freedom lies not in whether belief is permitted, but in whether individuals are allowed to practice according to their personal understanding. If religious sentiment can only be expressed in designated venues and within prescribed discursive frameworks, such “freedom” resembles a restricted license rather than an inherent right.

Treating house churches uniformly as sources of risk fundamentally reflects distrust toward spontaneous social organizations. This logic stems from wariness toward social pluralism. Yet a truly stable society does not fear diversity. On the contrary, compressing space only breeds tension.

More critically, conflating administrative registration requirements with the concept of “cult” severely undermines the integrity of the rule of law. The term “cult” originally refers to extreme organizations characterized by coercive control, mental manipulation, or socially harmful behavior. If ordinary family gatherings are similarly labeled, it not only blurs legal boundaries but also obscures the distinction needed to effectively guard against genuinely dangerous extremist groups.

Religious issues are sensitive precisely because they touch upon humanity’s ultimate concerns. The more deeply they involve the inner realm, the greater the need for caution. Forced integration or suppression rarely eradicates belief; it merely drives it into more hidden spaces. History repeatedly demonstrates that faith cannot be eliminated by administrative decree.

A mature governance system must distinguish between “illegal activities” and “unofficial organizations.” Labeling groups as problematic solely for not being incorporated into a unified management system—without concrete evidence of harm—amounts to indirect persecution of individual faith choices.

True religious freedom does not mean the state selects one’s path of belief, but rather safeguards the individual’s right to choose autonomously within legal boundaries. Permitting the existence of the Three-Self Church does not inherently necessitate the exclusion of house churches. The two are not inherently opposed unless institutionalized frameworks force them into conflict.

When individuals face risks for choosing different forms of worship, we must ask: Does the problem lie in the faith itself, or in the logic of governance?

If religion must conform to a single organizational form, faith ceases to belong wholly to the individual. When faith becomes overly bureaucratized, freedom inevitably takes a backseat. For any society, striking a balance between governance and liberty remains an inescapable challenge.

作者：胡德旺

编辑：程伟 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰

我是来自安徽芜湖一个普通农民家庭。在中国生活了四十多年后，最终于2023年5月逃离了中国大陆。离开后，我才敢把在中国真实的生活经历写下来，希望让更多海外的人了解：中共所宣传的“盛世繁荣”完全是一场谎言。

一、来自长辈的血泪记忆

我的外公在上世纪六十年代所谓“三年自然灾害”中饿死。我母亲说外公的尸体停放一夜后，第二天早上她看到外公的眼睛被老鼠吃掉了。难以想象，那是个怎样饥荒的年代，老鼠饿得都能啃食人类的尸体。直到今天，她谈起这一幕仍然内心恐惧。所谓的“自然灾害”，实则是中共荒唐政策制造的人祸。什么大跃进、人民公社、大炼钢铁…….都是违背人性和经济规律的一场场闹剧。然而承担后果的确是普普通通的中国民众。在那场饥荒中有多少人被饿死，多少家庭毁灭，酿成一幕幕的人间悲剧。

八十年代，噩梦再次降临。计划生育运动如同一场国家暴力。我舅母怀孕七个月时，被人举报。干部上门威胁：要么打掉孩子，要么拆掉房子。最后，在外公万般无奈下（后外婆改嫁），舅母被迫流掉了本该健康出生的孩子。这不仅仅是一次堕胎，而是中共政府强迫家庭亲手“杀死”自己的骨肉。这是怎样的一个反人类邪恶政权？！

二、一套只为压榨民众设计的制度

中共的统治，不仅给我的父辈带来了难以磨灭的伤害，也对我的人生带来各种摧残，他们更要继续的残害我的一下代。

（一）户籍制度：

在中国，我们从农村走出来的人，虽然在城市工作生活那么多年，但我们的户口仍然是在农村，所以，我们的孩子也就只能在农村接受教育，尤其到高考时，学生必须要回到原户籍地参加高考。这就造成我们这些千千万万的所谓农民工家庭无法让自己的孩子跟着父母一起在城市上学、生活，也就有了所谓的千千万万的留守儿童，这些孩子长期不能跟父母一起生活，得不到父母的关爱，心理上是很容易出问题的。我的女儿就是一个典型的例子，到了大学一年级的时候，患上了严重的抑郁症。这就是我痛恨中国的户籍制度的一根本原因，我们在城市工作、生活、纳税，也为城市的发展作贡献，为什么我们的孩子不能跟我们一起生活、学习？这就很简单，农民工为城市做贡献可以，但城市的福利就不给农民工。这就是制度的压榨和剥削！

（二）医疗制度：

医院本应该是一个救死扶伤的地方，但中国的医院却是世界上少数的商业机构，她是要以赢利为目的的，是一个牟利的机器。我的妻子因结石就医，医生直接给出两次手术的治疗方案，费用两万元。朋友介绍民间诊所，仅一千元便治愈。在中国的医院里，很多医生首先考虑的不是用怎样有效的方法来进行治疗，能减少病人的痛苦。而是哪套治疗方案能给医院带来最大的利益，或者给医生本人带来更大收益。这就造成，能粘上边的高端医疗设备都用上了，该化验的不该化验的也都化验了，有时或明或暗的要个红包。。。。病人是什么？只是医院收割的一个对象而已！所以，为什么在中国医院有那么多的所谓“医闹”就不足为怪了！就是专业的机构和专业的医生对病人进行坑、矇、骗，有少数患者发现了倪端，讨要说法，就说你是“医闹”！我不能说每个医生都是这样的，但制度在这里，人性在这里，能有几个好的？

（三）教育制度：

我的儿子在幼儿园就被灌输仇恨教育，回家张口就是“日本坏”“美国欺负中国”。这不是教育，而是洗脑。

我们为了给孩子能上好一点的学校，每个月向政府缴2600多元的社保金，结果是，我们孩子只能上一般的小学，要上好一点的学校，必须要在当地买房产。一套房产就是一百多万，是普通人能买得起的吗？如果没有买社保金，就只能上农民工子弟学校。这就是教育资源被中共政府用来掠夺民众经济的一个见证。

（四）经济制度：

中国的法制基本就是人治，经济制度亦是如此。各种经济政策因领导一句口号或一篇讲话，就能产生根本转变。根本不以市场经济规律，或者法律法规来行事。我两次创业，先是因“环保运动”，所谓“金山银山不如绿水青山”，领导人一句口号，工厂被强拆，没有任何法律流程，更没有任何经济补偿。后因领导人一句“亲自部署，亲自指挥”疫情荒唐封控导致电商崩溃。政府随时可以改变政策，让普通人多年努力瞬间化为乌有，而他们无需承担任何责任。

所以，在这样的环境下，企业很难真正的作长远发展。有的只有投机取巧，官商勾结！

三、离开的必然选择

通过这些年来我亲身的经历，我得出一个结论：中共政权不是一个以民为本的政府，而是一个不断制造灾难、压榨民众的邪恶政权。从大饥荒、计划生育，到户籍、教育、医疗，再到“动态清零”，我们一代又一代人被迫在各种的苦难中轮回。

离开中国，对我而言不是轻易的决定。那里是生我养我的土地，也有我最亲的亲人。但一个地方若只能带来一次次的伤害和绝望，若制度本身就是为压榨民众，剥夺民众的生存权利。那么我有什么理由留下呢？逃离就是必然的选择！

Why I Fled China

Abstract: The Chinese Communist Party’s rule has not only inflicted indelible harm upon my parents’ generation but has also devastated my own life. They now seek to inflict further suffering upon my children.

Author: Hu Dewang

Editor: Cheng Wei Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing

I come from an ordinary peasant family in Wuhu, Anhui Province. After living in China for over forty years, I finally fled mainland China in May 2023. Only after leaving did I dare to write down my true experiences of life in China, hoping to let more people overseas understand: the “golden age of prosperity” touted by the CCP is nothing but a lie.

I. Blood-Stained Memories from Elders

My maternal grandfather starved to death during the so-called “Three Years of Natural Disasters” in the 1960s. My mother recounted that after his body lay undisturbed overnight, she saw rats had gnawed his eyes out the next morning. It’s unimaginable—a famine so severe that starving rodents would devour human corpses. To this day, the memory still fills her with dread. The so-called “natural disasters” were actually man-made catastrophes created by the CCP’s absurd policies. The Great Leap Forward, the People’s Communes, the Great Leap Forward in Steel Production… all were farces that defied human nature and economic laws. Yet it was ordinary Chinese people who bore the consequences. How many perished from starvation in that famine? How many families were destroyed? It unfolded as one tragic human drama after another.

In the 1980s, the nightmare returned. The family planning campaign functioned as state-sanctioned violence. When my aunt was seven months pregnant, she was reported. Officials came to her door with threats: abort the child or face demolition of her home. Ultimately, with my grandfather left with no choice (my grandmother later remarried), my aunt was forced to abort a child who should have been born healthy. This was not merely an abortion; it was the Chinese Communist government forcing families to personally “kill” their own flesh and blood. What kind of evil, anti-human regime is this?!

II. A System Designed Solely to Exploit the People

The CCP’s rule has not only inflicted indelible harm on my parents’ generation but has also brought various forms of devastation to my own life. They intend to continue harming my next generation.

(I) The Household Registration System:

In China, those of us who left the countryside—even after working and living in cities for years—still retain rural household registrations. Consequently, our children can only receive education in rural areas. Crucially, when it comes time for the college entrance exam, students must return to their original registered hometown to take it. This forces millions of so-called migrant worker families to separate their children from their parents, preventing them from attending school and living alongside them in the city. This creates millions of so-called left-behind children. These children, deprived of their parents’ care and affection for extended periods, are highly susceptible to psychological issues. My daughter is a prime example. By her freshman year of college, she developed severe depression. This is the root cause of my hatred for China’s household registration system. We work, live, and pay taxes in cities, contributing to their development. Why can’t our children live and study alongside us? The answer is simple: migrant workers can contribute to cities, but cities deny them access to their welfare systems. This is systemic oppression and exploitation!

(II) Healthcare System:

Hospitals should be sanctuaries for healing the sick and saving lives. Yet China’s hospitals stand among the world’s few commercial institutions driven by profit—they are machines for generating revenue. When my wife sought treatment for kidney stones, doctors immediately proposed two surgeries costing 20,000 yuan. A friend recommended a private clinic that cured her for just 1,000 yuan. In Chinese hospitals, many doctors prioritize not effective treatments that alleviate patient suffering, but which treatment plan maximizes profits for the hospital or their own pockets. This leads to overuse of high-end medical equipment, unnecessary tests, and sometimes overt or covert demands for red envelopes… What are patients? Merely targets for hospitals to harvest profits! So it’s no wonder China has so many so-called “medical disturbances.” Professional institutions and doctors exploit, deceive, and swindle patients. When a few patients catch on and demand accountability, they’re labeled “troublemakers”! I won’t say every doctor is like this, but given the system and human nature, how many good ones can there be?

(III) Education System:

My son was indoctrinated with hateful propaganda as early as kindergarten. He came home spouting “Japan is evil” and “America bullies China.” This isn’t education—it’s brainwashing.

To secure a decent school for our child, we pay over 2,600 yuan monthly in social security contributions to the government. Yet our child can only attend an average elementary school. To get into a better one, we must purchase local property—costing over a million yuan. Is that affordable for ordinary people? Without these contributions, our child would be stuck in migrant worker schools. This is proof that the CCP government exploits educational resources to plunder the people’s wealth.

(IV) Economic System:

China’s legal system is fundamentally rule by man, and its economic system follows suit. Economic policies undergo radical shifts based on a leader’s slogan or speech, operating entirely outside market principles or legal frameworks. In my two entrepreneurial ventures:

First, during the “environmental campaign”—promoted by the slogan “Green mountains and clear waters are worth more than gold and silver mountains”—my factory was forcibly demolished without legal process or compensation. Later, a leader’s call for “personally deploying and commanding” pandemic control led to absurd lockdowns that crippled e-commerce. The government can alter policies at will, reducing years of ordinary people’s efforts to nothing—all without bearing any responsibility.

Thus, in such an environment, businesses struggle to pursue genuine long-term development. What remains is only opportunism and collusion between officials and businessmen!

III. The Inevitable Choice to Leave

Through my personal experiences over the years, I’ve reached this conclusion: The Chinese Communist regime is not a people-centered government, but an evil regime that constantly creates disasters and exploits its citizens. From the Great Famine and the One-Child Policy to household registration, education, healthcare, and now “dynamic zero-COVID,” generation after generation has been forced to endure endless cycles of suffering.

Leaving China was not an easy decision for me. It is the land where I was born and raised, home to my closest relatives. But if a place can only bring repeated harm and despair, if the system itself exists to oppress the people and strip them of their basic rights to survive—then what reason do I have to stay? Escape is the inevitable choice!

作者：唐奇
编辑：黄吉洲  校对：程筱筱 翻译：周敏

摘要：

俄乌战争进入第五年，造成大量平民与军人伤亡、基础设施毁坏和数百万难民。文章以数据谴责俄罗斯入侵，呼吁国际社会坚持规则与正义，支持乌克兰实现和平与重建。

       2026 年 2 月 24 日。对于世界而言，这或许只是漫长历史中的一个刻度；但对于乌克兰，这是这场由俄罗斯发动的全面入侵战争进入第五个年头的凛冬。一千四百六十个昼夜的炮火，不仅撕碎了主权国家的边界，更在人类现代文明的躯体上留下了一道至今仍在流血的伤痕。

       站在四周年的时间节点上，我们不仅要为受难者哀悼，更要以无可辩驳的事实和数据，对这场非正义的侵略行径发起最严厉的谴责。

一、 凋零的生命：数据背后的血泪

       战争最直观的残酷，莫过于对生命的漠视。根据联合国人权事务高级专员公署（OHCHR）截止 2026 年 2 月发布的最新核实数据，自 2022 年 2 月 24 日以来，乌克兰境内已证实的平民死亡人数超过 15,000 人，另有超过 41,000 人受伤。联合国同时强调，由于前线及俄占区（如马里乌波尔等地）的数据极难获取，实际伤亡数字可能远高于此。

       更令人痛心的是，根据联合国 2026 年 2 月的最新简报，这场战争已夺去了至少 766 名儿童 的生命。2025 年成为了战争爆发以来平民伤亡最为惨重的一年，平民伤亡人数较 2024 年增加了 31%，这直接源于俄罗斯对乌克兰民用基础设施、尤其是能源系统的系统性远程打击。而在军事层面，这场被称为“二战以来最大规模消耗战”的冲突，其代价更是惊人。美国战略与国际研究中心（CSIS）2026 年 1 月的报告估计，双方士兵伤亡（含阵亡、受伤及失踪）总数已逼近 180 万人。其中，俄罗斯方面的损失尤为惨烈，预计伤亡人数达 120 万，其中死亡人数约为 32.5 万。这是自第二次世界大战以来，任何大国在单一冲突中所承受的最高伤亡记录。

二、 破碎的家园：系统性的文明摧毁

        这不仅仅是一场领土争夺战，更是一场针对乌克兰生存根基的破坏。

        世界银行在 2026 年 2 月 23 日发布的第五份《乌克兰迅速损害与需求评估》（RDNA5）报告中披露：

• 直接经济损失： 乌克兰遭受的直接物理损坏已达到 1950 亿美元。

• 重建成本： 未来十年乌克兰的恢复与重建需求总额估计高达 5880 亿美元，这几乎是乌克兰 2025 年名义 GDP 的三倍。

• 住房与基建： 乌克兰全国约 14% 的住房建筑在战火中受损或被毁，影响了超过 300 万户家庭。

更残酷的手段体现在对能源设施的“武器化”利用。2025 年入冬以来，俄罗斯加强了对发电厂和输电网的袭击。联合国数据显示，2026 年初，乌克兰仍有约 1100 万人 处于急需人道主义援助的状态，数百万人被迫在零下 20 摄氏度的严寒中忍受停电与断暖。

三、 颠沛流离：消失的人口红利

         战争引发了自二战以来欧洲最大的难民危机。根据联合国难民署（UNHCR）2026 年 2 月的数据：

• 目前全球记录在案的乌克兰难民约为 590 万人。

• 乌克兰境内仍有 370 万人 处于流离失所（IDP）状态。

• 乌克兰总人口已从战前的 4113 万骤降至 2025 年底的 3600 万 以下。

这种人口结构的剧烈变动，不仅是当下的苦难，更预示着乌克兰未来几代人将面临的社会与经济重创。

四、 结语：正义不应因习惯而麻木

        四年来，国际社会见证了乌克兰人民无与伦比的勇气。正如北约秘书长在 2026 年四周年纪念仪式上所言，这是一场“英雄民族对黑暗侵略的持久抵抗”。

我们谴责俄罗斯，不仅是因为它违反了《联合国宪章》和国际法，更是因为它试图用武力逻辑取代法治文明，用帝国野心践踏个体尊严。如果这种赤裸裸的侵略行为在 21 世纪依然能被容忍，那么世界上任何一个主权国家的安全都将无从谈起。

        支持乌克兰，就是支持我们自己对和平与规则的向往。四周年之际，世界不应习惯于战火的硝烟，更不应对苦难产生“审美疲劳”。停止侵略，撤回军队，归还领土——这是通往正义和平的唯一途径。愿明年的此时，我们书写的不再是伤亡数字，而是关于重建、回归与真正和平的篇章。

1,460 Days of Resilience and Evidence of Crimes: Written on the Fourth Anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine War

Author: Tang Qi

Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Zhou Min

Abstract: As the Russia-Ukraine war enters its fifth year, it has caused massive civilian and military casualties, infrastructure destruction, and millions of refugees. Using data, the article condemns the Russian invasion and calls on the international community to uphold rules and justice, supporting Ukraine in achieving peace and reconstruction.

February 24, 2026. For the world, this may just be a marking on the long scale of history; but for Ukraine, this is the bitter winter marking the entry into the fifth year of the full-scale invasion war launched by Russia. One thousand four hundred and sixty days and nights of gunfire have not only torn apart the borders of a sovereign state but have also left a bleeding wound on the body of modern human civilization that remains open to this day.

Standing at the four-year milestone, we must not only mourn the victims but also launch the severest condemnation against this unjust act of aggression with irrefutable facts and data.

I. Withered Lives: Blood and Tears Behind the Data

The most direct cruelty of war is nothing more than the disregard for life. According to the latest verified data released by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) as of February 2026, since February 24, 2022, the confirmed civilian death toll in Ukraine has exceeded 15,000, with more than 41,000 others injured. The United Nations simultaneously emphasized that because data from the front lines and Russian-occupied areas (such as Mariupol and other places) is extremely difficult to obtain, the actual casualty figures are likely far higher.

Even more heartbreaking is that, according to the latest UN briefing in February 2026, this war has claimed the lives of at least 766 children. The year 2025 became the deadliest year for civilians since the outbreak of the war, with civilian casualties increasing by 31% compared to 2024. This directly stems from Russia’s systematic long-range strikes on Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure, especially the energy system. On the military level, the cost of this conflict—referred to as the “largest war of attrition since World War II”—is even more staggering. A January 2026 report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimates that the total number of soldier casualties on both sides (including killed, wounded, and missing) has approached 1.8 million. Among them, Russia’s losses are particularly severe, with estimated casualties reaching 1.2 million, of which approximately 325,000 are fatalities. This is the highest casualty record sustained by any major power in a single conflict since World War II.

II. Broken Homes: Systematic Destruction of Civilization

This is not merely a war over territory, but a campaign of destruction targeting the very foundations of Ukraine’s survival.

The World Bank disclosed in its fifth “Ukraine Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment” (RDNA5) report, released on February 23, 2026:

• Direct Economic Losses: The direct physical damage suffered by Ukraine has reached $195 billion.

• Reconstruction Costs: The total recovery and reconstruction needs for Ukraine over the next decade are estimated at as high as $588 billion, which is nearly three times Ukraine’s nominal GDP in 2025.

• Housing and Infrastructure: Approximately 14% of housing buildings nationwide have been damaged or destroyed in the fires of war, affecting more than 3 million households.

• More cruel methods are reflected in the “weaponization” of energy facilities. Since the onset of winter in 2025, Russia has intensified attacks on power plants and power grids. UN data shows that in early 2026, approximately 11 million people in Ukraine remained in a state of urgent need for humanitarian assistance, with millions forced to endure power outages and heating cuts in the severe cold of minus 20 degrees Celsius.

III. Displacement: The Vanishing Demographic Dividend

The war triggered the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II. According to data from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in February 2026:

• Currently, approximately 5.9 million Ukrainian refugees are recorded globally.

• Within Ukraine, 3.7 million people remain in a state of internal displacement (IDP).

• Ukraine’s total population has plummeted from 41.13 million before the war to below 36 million by the end of 2025.

• Such drastic changes in demographic structure are not only a present suffering but also foreshadow the severe social and economic blows that future generations of Ukrainians will face.

IV. Conclusion: Justice Should Not Become Numb Due to Habit

Over the past four years, the international community has witnessed the unparalleled courage of the Ukrainian people. As the NATO Secretary-General stated during the fourth anniversary commemoration ceremony in 2026, this is a “prolonged resistance by a heroic nation against dark aggression.”

We condemn Russia, not only because it violated the UN Charter and international law, but also because it attempted to replace the civilization of the rule of law with the logic of force, and to trample on individual dignity with imperial ambition. If this kind of naked aggression can still be tolerated in the 21st century, then the security of any sovereign state in the world will be out of the question.

Supporting Ukraine is supporting our own longing for peace and rules. On the occasion of the fourth anniversary, the world should not become accustomed to the smoke of war, nor should it develop “aesthetic fatigue” toward suffering. Stop the aggression, withdraw the troops, and return the territory—this is the only path toward a just peace. May this time next year, what we write is no longer casualty figures, but chapters about reconstruction, return, and true peace.

作者：吕峰
编辑：李晶 校对：程筱筱 翻译：周敏

偶然间看到一位博主描述在河内街头的日常：游客可以使用Google地图、WhatsApp、Facebook，可以用Uber叫车，可以使用Visa或Mastercard付款。这些系统对接全球标准，无需额外学习一套“本地规则”。相比之下，外国人在中国旅行却无法访问Google、Meta，许多消费场景只支持微信或支付宝，想要注册两个系统必须绑定中国手机号，并且所有的功能需要本地银行账户，新时代的数字系统完全依赖实名认证。中国人所谓的“数字便利”，为什么面对海外游客便失效？

我想所有中国人都知道答案——中国的数字效率，完全建立在对社会的高度监控之上。在中国共产党的统治下，中国构建了一套极度整合的数字体系：全面实名制、行为轨迹可追溯、各大平台与行政系统深度互通、金融、通信、出行的数据被集中管理。这种结构极大提高了内部效率。扫码支付、数字政务、移动生活被共产党描述为“制度优势”的象征。但是，效率服务必然不是免费的。它依赖持续的数据收集，依赖个体身份的全面绑定，依赖行为的长期可追踪性。共产党将便利与监控被深度绑定。当一个普通人的日常生活被平台之间的数据叠加，意味着所有人的行踪高度可见与高度可控。

早晨买一份早餐，支付平台记录时间与地点；白天与同事沟通，社交系统留下信息轨迹；夜晚取件回家，电商平台标注住址与消费记录。若所有这些数据最终汇集于权力之手，个体便如同置身玻璃屋中，隐私与边界逐渐模糊。对体制而言，这是高效治理；对个人而言，这是持续暴露。而海外游客不在本地实名体系内，没有长期数据沉淀，不嵌入国内金融系统，无法被完整纳入平台数据网络。结果显而易见，对内高效的系统，对外部个体却充满摩擦。这不是偶然的技术落差，而是制度边界的体现。中国数字治理的核心目标是“可控性”，而非“全球兼容性”。这正是那篇越南游记所揭示的根本差异。

越南同样对数字信息监管，但并未建立系统性技术屏蔽。Google、Facebook、YouTube都可被正常访问，国际支付系统被广泛使用，各数字平台与全球体系连接。当数字空间形成高墙，长期影响的将不仅仅是旅游体验，而是技术标准、创新生态以及与国际连接互通的能力。

由此，我想到了明清时期的闭关锁国。国内看似获得了稳定的社会秩序，但当世界进入工业化与全球贸易阶段时，中国被边缘化。今天，中国在数字空间的高度隔离，就是在制造新的制度壁垒。

高度集中的体制可以在短期内动员资源，制造效率神话。但当效率依赖于监控，当便利依赖于数据集中，当稳定依赖于信息封锁，体制便陷入一个循环：为了维持秩序，需要更多控制；为了维持效率，需要更多整合；为了维持安全，需要更高的隔离。历史反复证明，专制政权为了维持内部稳定而强制与外界隔绝，都将在封闭的循环中耗尽自身的生机。

一篇越南游记看似平凡，却揭示了一个清晰的事实：中国的数字便利并非普世型便利，而是内部治理型便利，便利的代价是每一个人被监控。这个不断加固的数字高墙必将迎来轰然倒塌的一天，就像历史上看似坚固的柏林墙一样。

The Price of Convenience is Surveillance — Reflections on Reading a Vietnam Travelogue

Author: Lyu Feng
Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Zhou Min

I happened to come across a blogger describing daily life on the streets of Hanoi: tourists can use Google Maps, WhatsApp, and Facebook; they can hail rides via Uber and pay with Visa or Mastercard. These systems align with global standards, requiring no additional learning of “local rules.” In contrast, foreigners traveling in China cannot access Google or Meta. Many consumption scenarios only support WeChat Pay or Alipay. Registering for these two systems requires binding a Chinese phone number, and all functions necessitate a local bank account. The digital systems of the new era rely entirely on real-name authentication. Why does the so-called “digital convenience” of the Chinese fail when facing overseas tourists?

I believe every Chinese person knows the answer — China’s digital efficiency is built entirely upon high-intensity surveillance of society. Under the rule of the Communist Party of China (CPC), China has constructed an extremely integrated digital system: comprehensive real-name registration, traceable behavioral trajectories, and deep interconnection between major platforms and administrative systems. Finance, communication, and travel data are managed centrally. This structure greatly improves internal efficiency. QR code payments, digital government services, and mobile lifestyles are described by the CPC as symbols of “institutional advantages.” However, efficient services are certainly not free. They rely on continuous data collection, the comprehensive binding of individual identities, and the long-term traceability of behavior. The CPC has deeply tethered convenience to surveillance. When an ordinary person’s daily life is overlaid with data across platforms, it means everyone’s movements are highly visible and highly controllable.

Buying breakfast in the morning, the payment platform records the time and location; communicating with colleagues during the day, the social system leaves a trail of messages; picking up a package at night, the e-commerce platform marks the home address and consumption records. If all this data eventually converges in the hands of power, the individual is like being placed in a glass house, where privacy and boundaries gradually blur. For the system, this is efficient governance; for the individual, this is continuous exposure. Since overseas tourists are not within the local real-name system, have no long-term data accumulation, and are not embedded in the domestic financial system, they cannot be fully integrated into the platform data network. The result is obvious: a system that is efficient internally is full of friction for external individuals. This is not an accidental technical gap but a manifestation of institutional boundaries. The core goal of China’s digital governance is “controllability,” not “global compatibility.” This is precisely the fundamental difference revealed by that Vietnam travelogue.

Vietnam similarly regulates digital information, but it has not established systemic technical blocking. Google, Facebook, and YouTube can be accessed normally; international payment systems are widely used; and various digital platforms are connected to the global system. When digital space forms high walls, the long-term impact will not only be on the tourism experience but also on technical standards, the innovation ecosystem, and the ability to connect and interoperate internationally.

This reminds me of the “Closed Country Policy” (Haijin) during the Ming and Qing dynasties. Domestically, a stable social order seemed to be achieved, but when the world entered the era of industrialization and global trade, China was marginalized. Today, the high degree of isolation in China’s digital space is creating new institutional barriers.

A highly centralized system can mobilize resources in the short term to create myths of efficiency. But when efficiency depends on surveillance, when convenience depends on data centralization, and when stability depends on information censorship, the system falls into a cycle: to maintain order, it needs more control; to maintain efficiency, it needs more integration; to maintain security, it needs higher isolation. History has repeatedly proven that autocratic regimes that forcibly isolate themselves from the outside world to maintain internal stability will eventually exhaust their vitality within a closed loop.

A travelogue about Vietnam may seem ordinary, yet it reveals a clear fact: China’s digital convenience is not a universal convenience, but an internal governance-oriented convenience. The price of convenience is that everyone is monitored. This continuously reinforced digital high wall will inevitably face a day of collapse, just like the seemingly solid Berlin Wall in history.