Historically, the weak have prevailed over the strong in diplomacy5

Returned to Zhao completely, because the Qin State was strong and the Zhao State was weak, but Lin Xiangru returned to Zhao with the strength of one person.

New China, *** Prime Minister's Diplomacy.

The Battle of Feishui, the Battle of Pengcheng, the Battle of Makino, the Battle of Yubi.

The Battle of Guandu, the Battle of Chibi, the Battle of Hefei, and the Battle of Julu.

Citing an unnamed diplomat, he said that there is no right or wrong in diplomacy, only strength and weakness.

They believe that if Russia decides that it is the stronger side, it will adopt a cooperative attitude and discuss the settlement of the territorial issue of the South Kuril Islands.

International relations have always been a contest of strength between red fruits, weak countries have no diplomacy, and truth is only within the range of cannons.

Look at this kind of ideological orientation, like Machiavelli's view. Machiavelli's idea of political power was later called Machiavellianism. His main points include:

The army and the law are the basis of power.

The monarch should have a monopoly on power, focus on strength, and be proficient in military affairs.

The monarch should not be bound by any moral code, but only consider whether the effect is beneficial, not whether the means are harmful, whether the means are benevolent or treacherous, or imitate the fox and the lion, and both deceit and cruelty.

The monarch can be an enemy of the nobility, but not the people.

The monarch should not try to be famous, but pay attention to reality. Cruelty and mercy, miserliness and generosity, all of them should be based on reality. The wise ruler would rather be ridiculed by miserliness than seek the reputation of generosity.

It feels like the consistent thinking of the iron-blooded Prime Minister Pismarck, why did it get to the devil?

This statement is also not true!

There is a difference between justice and injustice. Of course, there are many solutions to political disputes, and such wars can be avoided.

But there is a kind of war that can never be avoided, and the greed of the great powers for the territory of power, which is equivalent to cancer, is basically immortal. Some say that war is the politics of bloodshed, but there were wars before politics appeared. For example, the lions hunt the deer, the wolves hunt the sheep, and ......

The example you gave above can of course be regarded as a political contest, but the King of Qin did not attack Zhao in the end, not because of Lin Xiangru's mouth blooming lotus, but because the King of Qin was not ready to go to war with Zhao. Think about it, who destroyed the Zhao Kingdom in the end?

In fact, whether it is politics, diplomacy, or war, in the final analysis, we still have to pay attention to strength, and in the face of strength, everything is a floating cloud!

Not.

It is true that the success of political diplomacy can avoid war, but when the difference in power between the two sides is too large, diplomacy is ineffective.

The reason why Zhao was able to succeed was largely because the Qin State was not strong enough to single out the Six Kingdoms at that time.

The success of politics and diplomacy can only last for a while, and it cannot maintain peace for a long time.

It's a good idea, but it's just a story.

After all, what King Qin wanted was the real Zhao Kingdom, which was just one of the hundreds of interfaces that King Qin had found, and many excuses were found after the end of the day. And in history, wasn't the Zhao State still destroyed, diplomacy must be backed by military strength, otherwise, people won't talk to you.

China's national strength has been continuously strengthened, and it has established an image of a responsible major country in the world.