After the collapse of the 4th Flying Point, the Republic officially declared a comprehensive ceasefire. Although after that, due to some extreme acts of Japan's wartime caretaker government, the Republic lifted the state of comprehensive ceasefire several times and resumed military strikes against Japan, but under the comprehensive intervention of the United States and Europe. In the end, it all ended with concessions and compromises from Japan's wartime caretaker government, and the war was not ignited again.

This was the end of the "War of Japan".

Judging from the entire course of the war, the "Japanese War" can basically be divided into three stages. The first was the initial stage of large-scale engagement from the beginning of the war to the "Battle of Shikoku Kaipu". At this stage, Japan had a certain ability to resist, and tried to turn the tide of the war many times, and the scale of the war also reached its peak, laying the foundation for the subsequent combat operations, and the second was the stage of promoting peace by war in the middle of the "strategic blockade" to the "Five Plus Nine Conference", at this stage, Japan completely lost its ability to resist, and the main opponent of the republic was not Japan, but the Western countries represented by the United States, and the main purpose of the war was not to defeat Japan, but to force Western countries to intervene through large-scale strategic strikes, thus creating the foundation for the final armistice. Third, from the time when the Republic put forward the "timetable" and the United States and Europe put forward the "Humanitarian Aid Plan" to the end of the period when the Republic announced a conditional comprehensive ceasefire, at this stage, the main focus of the war was the issue of Japan's post-war reconstruction, and the military significance of the war was greatly reduced, and its political significance suddenly emerged, and it became the main means of the game between the Republic and the Western countries.

From this, it follows that the strategic steps of the republic are very clear.

Although even Wang Yuanqing admitted that there was a serious deviation between the actual situation of the war and the strategic plan formulated by the Republic before the outbreak of the war, it can be seen in Wang Yuanqing's memoirs, according to the original calculation of the Republic. The war should have ended with the signing of an unequal armistice treaty between the Republic and Japan, not with the full involvement of Western countries. But I have to admit that Wang Yuanqing took advantage of the situation. The timely adjustment of the strategic plan ultimately allowed the republic to achieve most of its strategic objectives. Regardless of whether or not Japan signed an armistice treaty with the Republic, and regardless of whether Japan could quickly recover with the full assistance of the Western bloc, at least for a short period of time, Japan could not pose a strategic threat to the Republic, and the Republic achieved its goal of advancing into the Yubei Ocean by occupying the Ryukyu Islands and other Japanese outer islands.

Strictly speaking, the republic's harvest has even exceeded its original purpose.

After the "Five Plus Nine Conference," the international status of the Republic was recognized, and no one denied that the Republic was a great power on an equal footing with the United States. The "Technology-for-Product Framework Agreement" fundamentally determined the republic's sphere of influence and laid the foundation for the republic's comprehensive strategic expansion. The "negotiations on the complete elimination of nuclear weapons" have won the Republic a higher international prestige and brought the relationship between the Republic and the EU into a "honeymoon period".

Overall, the "War of Japan" was very different from the other wars that the Republic experienced in the induction century.

From the Fourth Indo-Pakistani War until the Peninsular War, the republics often entered the war in a "passive" situation, without setting clear strategic goals before the war, and even making preparations for entering the war. The end result was that the republic paid a high price for the war, winning "applause" but not winning enough benefits. Taking the Fourth Pakba War as an example, if the Republic had been well prepared, the southern Tibet issue would have been resolved long ago, and it would not have dragged on for many years. The war on the peninsula would have been about the same, if the republic had been prepared a long time ago. I am afraid that Japan would have been defeated at a much smaller cost.

The "War of Japan" was the first regional war to be actively carried out by the Republic of China on its own initiative.

From the beginning of the strategic planning stage, the leadership of the republic headed by Wang Yuanqing clearly defined the ultimate goal of the war and also made clear the various stages of combat operations to achieve its own goals, and spent several years to make good preparations, thus winning the maximum victory at the lowest cost. Many days after the start of the war. The fact that the Republic was able to defeat Japan, which was not weak and even stronger than any previous opponent, without any suspense, was inseparable from the fact that the Republic took the initiative to respond to the war, prepared in advance, and actively mobilized.

If all the wars before that were a testament to the "strategic defense capability" of the republic. Then what the "Japanese War" proved was the "strategic offensive capability" of the Republic.

The difference between "defense" and "offense". It just reflects the fundamental transformation of the national strategy of the Republic

Although in the course of "defense" and "defense and counterattack," the Republic seized every opportunity to expand its sphere of influence, established a strategic defense circle with itself as the core, and greatly expanded the living space of the Chinese nation, only a proactive "offensive" could fundamentally change the situation of the Republic, win a brighter future for the Chinese people, and lay a solid foundation for the establishment of a new world order.

The strategic shift of the Republic is the exact opposite of that of the United States.

The Fourth Indo-Pakistani War, the Sino-Japanese Naval War, the Southeast Asian War, and the Korean Peninsula War all had factors that the United States "troubled." It can even be said that the actions of the United States determined the basic features of these wars to a great extent. The "Japanese War" was a war in which the Republic took the initiative to create "trouble" for the United States and forced the United States to participate in the war that was doomed to defeat.

Perhaps many people do not understand, what price did the United States pay?

It can be seen from the international situation after the "Japanese War" that the United States paid a price far greater than the war of the Republic. In addition to giving the republic the status of a great power, the United States also lost peace and hegemony in the Indian Ocean. I watched the Republic extend its "tentacles" to the areas that were previously dominated by the United States. Forced to respond to the challenges of the republic in the most reluctant way. Importantly, dragged down by Japan's post-war reconstruction, the United States had no choice but to move to the stage of comprehensive strategic defense and make compromises and concessions on many major issues that would determine the future. Not to mention anything else, after the "Japanese War", France, Germany, and Italy took advantage of the United States' "outstanding fall" to comprehensively squeeze out Britain, which had defected to the United States, and accelerated the process of political integration of the sub-alliance in order to establish a pound. "Unity is strong. of Europe laid the foundations. In less than three years, not only France, Germany and Italy have announced their withdrawal from the Covenant Group, the formation of the "European Common Security Alliance", and the establishment of the "European Alliance". A number of old EU member states, including the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Dogalije, Greece, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, have also announced their withdrawal from the "NATO bloc" and joined the "European Common Security Alliance" established by France, Germany, and Italy. "Sending troops to join the "European coalition" will eventually bring the "European Common Security Alliance" with the "European coalition forces." Concubinage became a political and military organization under the direct jurisdiction of the European Union. It laid the foundation for the EU to fully realize military and political integration and form a "European state".

Although these are invisible "losses." But in the long run, the United States must "pay for it." ”

As the saying goes, if you come out to mix, you will have to pay it back sooner or later.

The transformation of the Republic and the United States largely determined the nature of the "War of Japan."

Judging from the major changes in the world pattern, the "Japanese War" was definitely not a regional war, but a "war of the whole sisters." Although only two countries participated, all countries were affected.

From the perspective of the world pattern, the greatest significance of the "war in Japan" is nothing more than the opening of the curtain of the "era of great powers."

The most striking sign of the "era of great powers" is "regionalization".

After the Republic proposed the "Framework Agreement on Technology for Products," the United States and the European Union successively proposed similar international agreements, striving to occupy a position in the competition among the new countries and maintain their traditional spheres of influence. It's just that the Republic's "technology-for-product framework agreement" is more influential.

Prior to the conditional comprehensive ceasefire, the Republic signed a "technology-for-product bilateral agreement" with six countries, including Mauritan, North Korea, Argentina, Iran, Syria and Vietnam. In the following three years, after the Republic took the initiative to expand the scope of application of the Agreement, Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Nepal, Sri 10, Malaysia, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, Sudan, Tanzania, Nigeria, Kenya, Libya, Chile, Bolivia, Venezuela and other "non-nuclear countries" signed "Bilateral Agreement on Technology for Goods" with the Republic. Relax! At the beginning of the year, with the consent of Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Argentina and other countries, the Republic began to transform the "border agreement" into a "multilateral agreement". And on the basis of "multilateral agreements", a political-military alliance with the republic as the core was formed.

The republic is actively expanding the scope of the Union. The United States, however, has suffered an "alliance crisis."

Although the United States is also trying to establish a new military-political alliance, first wooing Canada, Mexico, Herdalia, New Zealand, and the Caribbean and Central American states, under the impact of the member states of the alliance, the "NATO bloc" led by the United States. It already exists in name only.

The EU itself is an alliance between states, and political-military integration has fundamentally strengthened the EU's alliance relationship.

In addition to this, Russia is expanding its sphere of influence on the basis of the "Commonwealth of Independent States". Ukraine and Georgia, which had previously separated from the "CIS", were brought back, and then the three Baltic countries and the five Central Asian countries were recruited to actively build a political and military alliance with Russia as the core.

"Regionalization" with the big powers at its core is inevitable.

Although Russia and the European Union have made significant contributions in international affairs, they have significant international influence, but in the new world landscape. The all-out confrontation between the Republic and the United States, the so-called "Sino-American Cold War", is undoubtedly the most representative feature.

The exhibition of history can never be changed.

A few years ago, the "Sino-US Cold War", which was still in doubt, finally turned from an argument into a fact.

"Regionalization" cannot make the world more stable, nor can it be a favorable factor for maintaining peace. It can only make the world more volatile and the conflicts between States more frequent.

The transfer of the center of power in the world is bound to be a "painful" process.

Britain replaced Spain, and the world was in turmoil for hundreds of years; The United States took Britain and broke out two world wars; The Republic replaces Mei County. Definitely not bait!