Note: Chinese version is put after the end of English version. Scroll down directly to the place where Chinese appears if you want to read Chinese version.
註: 中文版本放在英文版本結尾下方，如果你想閱讀中文版本，請直接往下滑到出現中文的地方。(2) Why does Taiwan have to help Ukraine when Taiwan needs more gas in the future? Isn’t it better to not offend Russia for Taiwan? Russia has gas.
According to this news, Taiwan’s source of purchase is very diverse and stable. So the war won’t affect Taiwan’s energy at least in the short term. This is just for people who don’t understand the current situation. The writer of this news never intends to convey the answer to the question that Taiwan may need more gas than Taiwan needs now, nor does the news answer this question. I only mention this news to tell you that if you think your question is answered after reading this news, or if someone uses the content of this news to answer your question, you or someone is incorrect, because the content of this news only mentions that the sources can meet current demand thus the Russia-Ukraine war won’t affect Taiwan, and does not mention the possible increase of demand in the future (Not that the reporter is wrong, the reporter originally did not want to answer your question when he wrote this news).
Anyway, so what if we need more gas?
Germany and many Europe countries have been struggling with cutting Russia’s oil as soon as possible, but they have plans to reduce their dependence on Russia’s oil. We are lucky that we don’t import Russia’s oil so don’t have that struggle. If we have the same problem, based on the above questions, I think many Taiwanese “except for government officials” will probably have a huge fight arguing we shouldn’t try to find an alternative plan to “gradually” reduce the dependence on Russia. Anyway, whether we need gas or oil since we are already in a good position, what we should do first is try to find a plan that can afford our increasing needs of gas without Russia’s import instead of kneeing to Russia right away without trying. Even European countries which aren’t in a good position are trying, don’t they?
(3) Withdrawing the business in Russia may make ASUS lose 50% of its market share in Russia.
Why Taiwan’s ASUS has to stop its business with Russia while Germany can continue its oil import from Russia [1]https://today.line.me/tw/v2/article/zNOpZj6?utm_source=copyshare ?
This argument is from a college professor. There is a comment which objects to this argument in this news by stating that “Compared to supplying products to the country that started the war, what does it matter with a 50% market share reduction?” This point is right(Sadly there are more Unlikes than Likes^^), but not completely right. Plus, it doesn’t answer the other part of the professor’s argument: Germany is still importing Russia’s oil. So how to oppose this argument?
First, market share is a wrong metric to consider; the share of the company revenue is the right one. For example (It’s just an example, I am not referring to ASUS), losing 80% of local market share in a region may make the company difficult to continue its operation in that region, but in the event that the company does not lose any market share, revenue in the region may only account for only 1% of the company’s total revenue, given that the company is a global company. Losing 50% market share in a certain region may only make it the company difficult to continue its operation in that region, while losing 70% of revenue may make your entire company shut down (not only a subsidiary of that region but the entire company, including other subsidiaries not in that region). Therefore, a 50% market share reduction in Russia only shouldn’t be the metric concerning the sanction. As I said earlier, what a corporation should be concerned about is whether or not losing the 50% market share reduction in Russia will make it difficult to run the entire company, not only the business in Russia. If that’s the case, prove it with evidence; you may be reasonable to continue your business in Russia given that the smartphone product is just a consumer product that isn’t related to the military, while the closure of your company will make tens of thousands of employee lose jobs and don’t have money to feed themselves. (However, if you are a small company with only a few employees, you should just accept the loss and shut down given that there is a war, and it’s not difficult for the market to accept these few employees who lose their jobs.) I am disappointed that such a misuse of data metrics is made by a professor of a top university. Although it’s certain and reasonable that not every professor is good at data analysis (for example, a law professor is not good at data analysis and he doesn’t have to be, either), a person as a professor should make sure he is using a right data metric when he speaks an argument with a data metric; otherwise, he should understand his own limits and don’t casually use data metrics to prove his argument.
Second, let me specifically answer the point of “Germany is still importing Russia’s oil”: Because making less money won’t make you dead while having no oil and gas can make you dead^^. The event the ASUS makes less money won’t have a “severe” impact on the average Taiwanese’s life; while the event of having no oil will have a “severe” impact on the average German’s life, especially since Germany‘s climate is colder than that of Taiwan so German has a big need for heaters^^. The two things (ASUS’s revenue and Germany’s oil import) can’t be put together for comparison but you are putting them together. In addition, the difference between the two things should be very obvious to normal people (though many people probably don’t know the difference before reading my article^^). I am disappointed that the wrong-comparison mistake is made by a professor of a top university in Taiwan^^.
(4) Why does Taiwan have to help Ukraine when Ukraine sold many weapons to China to attack Taiwan?
Ok, finally comes to the important and reasonable part: Why does Taiwan have to help Ukraine when Ukraine sold many weapons to China to attack Taiwan[2]https://pttyes.com/Gossiping/M.1647223590.A.18C ? Unlike the previous question, this is a good question. Well, this is really a good point. I agree that maybe Taiwan should consider stopping helping Ukraine because Ukraine helped China’s plan of killing the Taiwanese. ( To many of you who don’t know why I agree with this argument but disagree with the first argument: One is helping a person who has no relationship with you – so she/he didn’t kill you, simply helping her/him doesn’t bring any interest to you, either; the other one is helping a people who killed you. Why should you help the people who killed you? By the way, the first case of people didn’t kill you. Why do you reject to help her/him simply because you get no interest? She/he is dying^^.)
Unfortunately, the answer is still No. Why? You have to consider that the decision of the business of weapons is mostly made by government officials, not ordinary Ukrainians. Should you watch ordinary Ukrainians who aren’t related to the decision of weapon business dying from the war? No. If you want to reject doing business with Ukraine because of its weapon business with China, that’s fine. But that someone is dying is a different case; under the premise that these ordinary Ukrainians aren’t the main decision-makers of weapon business with China, you shouldn’t reject any possibility that can save a life. Therefore, my answer is No, we still need to help Ukraine, given that there are many people dying.
( By the way, no Taiwan company stopped its business with Ukraine because of Ukraine’s weapon business with China, didn’t them^^? If you are really that patriotic, why don’t you ask those Taiwan company stop doing business with Ukraine? Oh, I forget you not only don’t want Taiwan firms to stop business with Ukraine but also want to do business with Russia, a country that recognizes Taiwan as part of China^^ You only think of your own interests while ignoring many people who are dying^^ [3]https://today.line.me/tw/v2/article/vXlMwGj?utm_source=copyshare [4]https://today.line.me/tw/v2/article/zNOpZj6?utm_source=copyshare [5]https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-recognises-taiwan-as-part-of-china-opposes-islands-independence-450437 [6]https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/cgct//eng/xwdt/t241750.htm . )
8. “The reason that Mediatek do sanction is because of the exchange rate”[7]https://www.wealth.com.tw/articles/1ed9ec5d-1528-4abc-bd11-de51d3193f7e
Ans:
Mediatek, a chip company in Taiwan that design its own chips, has sanctions on Russia.
An article in Wealth magazine in Taiwan, the article asks “Is Mediatek really able to forbid its clients to provide their product with Mediatek’s chips to Russia?” Answering this question, the article says many cell phones will still flow into Russia from China despite Mediatek’s prohibition. The article concludes by stating the depreciation of the Russian ruble against the Chinese yuan has become a concern for many companies thus the reason behind Mediatek and other Taiwan companies’ sanctions is the Russian ruble’s depreciation. This is a very low-quality article/opinion.
First, whether Mediatek is really able to prohibit its clients from providing their products to Russia or not is irrelevant to why Mediatek wants to do this sanction. The prohibition is just one of the results of the Mediatek’s willingness to do this sanction; a result and a reason are different things in many cases (not in all cases, but still in many case^^), so it’s irrelevant.
Second, the conclusion is completely wrong. One, you use the depreciation exchange of the Russian Ruble to the Chinese Yuan to indicate companies are hesitant in doing business with Russia. Is this China companies’ opinion or does this indeed include Taiwan companies’ opinion? Two and foremost, the reason why Mediatek does this sanction is the Taiwan government’s law of sanctions against Russia [8]https://ec.ltn.com.tw/article/breakingnews/3848152 [9]https://gazette2.nat.gov.tw/EG_FileManager/eguploadpub/eg028061/ch04/type1/gov31/num9/images/BB.pdf , but ridiculously, you want everything to be “finance” related simply because you are a finance expert and it’s a finance megazine^^.
Didn’t you read relevant news before you voice your opinion? I have never seen such a foolish perspective show up in Wall Street Journal or from any Finance experts in Western news. They always said something such as “Since Ukraine’s war, the U.S government’s sanction makes many firms have withdrawn from Russia; ruble is also depreciated”. They attributed to a right reason, or they simply state separately “technology firms such as Apple withdrew from Russia” without linking to the government since Apple’s sanction is out of its willingness based on Ukraine’s request. They never forcibly link the reason for the sanction to anything related to finance when it isn’t related to finance^^. As I said, this is a very low-quality article/opinion. Reading such an article will make the average Taiwanese have a wrong understanding.
9. A comment on news about the Russians’ plan to assassinate Putin:
“Is it possible to publicly announce to the world that you want to assassinate someone? The news of a failure of assassination to Putin is fake.” [10]https://today.line.me/tw/v2/article/YajlkGB?utm_source=copyshare
Ans:
At the beginning of the news, it says “According to the General Department of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine”, so it means Ukraine, a country that has no good relationship with Russia, found that there may be some “Russians” wants to assassinate people, not the assassinator himself publicly announce he is going to assassinate Putin^^. Why is it so hard to understand for you, including those who believe this comment? Also, it’s true that Ukraine’s leak of secrets of the Russians who intended to assassinate Putin may result in a failure of the future assassination, thus making Ukraine continue to be in this war. However, if you have such a thought (Ukraine may get hurt by leaking this information), you should view that as Ukraine Intelligence Bureau is not as sophisticated as it should be, instead of viewing this as fake news. I do think sharing this information may make the assassination fail, reducing the possibility of ending this war early; however, I don’t know why Ukraine decides to share this information, maybe it has its concerns, who knows?
Still, I think many people didn’t notice this news come from Ukraine, not Russia, and thought the news is about some Russians publicly announcing an assassination plan toward Putin, doesn’t it?
10. The Economist: “Outside of Europe and the U.S, much of the rest of the world is not really on board. Two-thirds of people who live in the countries are either neutral in this conflict, or in fact, are supporting Russia…I think it will be the West to match its renewed sense of purpose and strength by convincing the rest of the world they too have a stake in this.” [11] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXcXVt3zaVw
*The chief editor of The Economist, one of the leading magazines in world events, has the above argument in one of the video reports.
Ans:
“Outside of Europe and the U.S” means Asia, Africa, Australia, and Oceania. However, you pointed out it’s “the West” has to convince the rest of the world. I will just take from the East versus the West angle.
The argument is wrong.
First, the use of population metrics is wrong in this case. If you evaluate on a population basis along with the U.N’s vote result of condemning Russia or not, yes, 57.62% of the world population stay neutral or support Russia(In the table is “No”), which is indeed close to “two-thirds of people”. However, the result could be possibly contributed to the reason that China and India, two countries that have a big population in the world, both stay neutral in the U.N’s vote. If analyzing is based on a country-as-a-unit basis, the result may be different, and it’s better to analyze on a country-as-a-unit basis first, too. Viewing from a population-as-a-unit basis is not the most important thing to do, since no matter that there are many people supporting Russia (and don’t support Ukraine), the vote of the government to which these people belong only counts as one vote in the U.N, and sanctions from the government are still executed, too. Besides, there could be many people in a country supporting Russia, while there are also many people in that country condemning Russia. The use of population metric isn’t accurate if it isn’t evaluated on an individual basis.
Second, let me provide the data which is on a country basis I suggest: Out of 193 U.N member countries, there are 141 countries voted for condemning Russia[12]https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3418281-un-general-assembly-adopts-resolution-calling-on-russia-to-immediately-withdraw-forces-from-ukraine.html ; it’s obvious that many of them may be in Asia or Africa, which is part of “the rest of the world” by your definition or the East. To prove your point is wrong, I summarize a table based on the U.N’s vote (as below). According to this table, in Asia, 55.6% of countries publicly condemn Russia; in Africa, 56.8 % of countries do the same. Combined with the data together, 54.2% of the East countries publicly condemn Russia. Even if we assume Palestine and Western Sahara, countries which are not the U.N member and in Asia, stay neutral in this conflict, the data doesn’t change a lot – there are still 53.7% of countries in the East condemning Russia – which means more than half of the East condemn Russia. To conclude, there aren’t two-thirds of “countries” of “the rest of the world” or of the East that stay neutral or support Russia.
Therefore, yes, there could be 57.62% of the world population which is close to two-thirds of the world population do NOT publicly condemn Russia, but the result of that is “indeed” due to the big population of China and India. In fact, the majority of “the countries” of “the rest of the world” do not stay neutral or support Russia; two-thirds of “countries” of “the rest of the world” or of the East do not stay neutral or support Russia, either.
I wonder why you would have such a misunderstanding and a misuse of data metrics. If you don’t have data analysis skills, I suggest you, as a chief editor of a leading professional magazine, consult with your data analysis team before voicing such arguments which rely on data. If the use of population comes from your data analysis team, I suggest they improve their use of data and their mathematical sense.
If you simply view from the angle that it seems there are a lot of countries in Asia and Africa not condemning Russia, you probably won’t get an accurate result. In fact, Asia doesn’t only have China and India. Asia has Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan – these countries have been all on board with the West since the beginning of the war. There are also many Japanese companies that are well-known by the world and did sanctions. For instance, Panasonic and Sony. Be careful with your analysis.
11.
(1) “The reason that Russia invades Ukraine is that Ukraine didn’t abide by the Minsk agreement.”
(2) “Ukraine has been doing experiments with biological weapons.”
(3) “Putin wants to attack Ukraine because there are Nazis in Ukraine”
Ans:
As I said, I only write for some arguments which media don’t know how to explain or don’t explain.
These are already proven fake or not completely true with evidence by Western organizations. See some analysis from Western media.
(1) The Minsk agreement
(2) Bioweapons
(3) Nazis: Chinese | English
A message to Taiwan’s Chinese Nationalist Party
As I said in Part 1, I urge the Taiwan government to start an investigation of the Russia-Ukraine war propaganda spreading in Taiwan.
To Taiwan’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT): If the Taiwan government doesn’t do an investigation, you should do the investigation to find who orders this propaganda, and you shouldn’t allow such propaganda that violates the moral value and in addition, harms the quality of average Taiwanese.
To Mr. Zhu from KMT: In an interview with Western media, you mentioned that KMT is Pro-U.S, but it seems that many people in your party support the anti-U.S theory, for example, Yazhong Zhang and his supporters. He said, “The U.S treats Taiwan as a dog” (And many people believe him). You better check and examine the behaviors of your people in the party, or you know the propaganda matter and you watched these propaganda spreading in front of your eyes? I suggest you start an investigation in your party if the Taiwan government doesn’t do the investigation.
In addition, to all members and supporters of Taiwan’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT): The Russia-Ukraine war propaganda isn’t the right thing to do even if Taiwan’s Democratic People Party has a history of spreading propaganda. First, as one of the reasons I describe in Part 1, an international event that involves a humanitarian crisis and moral value shouldn’t be an exploited object by political struggles between parties. Furthermore, the attacked ones (Ukraine and its president) have no relationship with Taiwan’s politics, but the propaganda is exploiting them and making themselves look bad in the eyes of Taiwanese while they need Taiwanese support at this particular moment. It is wrong to use the Russian-Ukrainian war as propaganda.
Second, as I said in my Number 4 of the misconception (Anti-U.S theory), just because you saw someone kill a person, it doesn’t mean you can kill a person, too. In the same logic, just because someone is spreading bad rumors attacking you, it doesn’t mean you can spread bad rumors attacking him, too. An appropriate way is to use your brain to explain to the public why these rumors are fake, and do your job well – If you are a legislator, do your legislator good; if you are a city mayor, do your mayor’s job good. That’s the right way to do it instead of doing useless infighting. (By the way, of course, if these rumors are real, you need to recognize your mistake^^)
Support me with donations and by following me on social media.
Every article I wrote is gone through days of deep research and thinking by me before it is written. If you like my articles, kindly support me, so I can write more quality articles.
( *Note: The unit of donation on the page is U.S dollars. )
If you like this article, please share the article to your social media page, so my article can be accessed to more people.
Please also follow me on social media by clicking the links at below, so my latest articles can be reached out to you.
Follow My Social Media: Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin
Reproduction of the article without permission is prohibited.中文版
(2) 台灣未來需要更多天然氣，為什麼還要幫助烏克蘭？不得罪俄羅斯不是更好嗎？俄羅斯有天然氣。
根據此新聞，台灣的採購來源非常多元化且穩定。所以這場戰爭至少在短期內不會影響台灣的能源供給。
這只是提供一些背景給於不了解當前情況的人。這篇新聞的作者從來沒有打算傳達台灣現在可能需要比台灣需要更多的天然氣這個問題的答案，新聞也沒有回答這個問題。我提這篇新聞只是想告訴你若你看完這篇新聞就以為你的問題解答了，或如果有人用這篇新聞的內容回答你的問題的話是不正確的，因為這篇新聞的內容只有提到目前供貨來源能夠滿足台灣目前的需求量來講，因此不會受俄烏戰爭影響，並沒有提到未來需求可能增加的事 (不是記者是錯的，記者當時寫這新聞時本來就沒有要回答你這個問題)。
無論如何，如果我們需要更多的氣體怎麼辦？
德國和許多歐洲國家一直在努力盡快削減俄羅斯的石油，但他們已經計劃減少對俄羅斯石油的依賴。我們很幸運，我們不進口俄羅斯的石油，所以沒有那種掙扎。如果我們有同樣的問題，基於以上問題，我想很多台灣“除了政府官員”可能會大吵大鬧，爭辯說我們不應該嘗試尋找替代方案來“逐步” 減少對俄羅斯的依賴。無論如何，無論我們需要天然氣還是石油，既然我們已經處於一個很好的狀態，我們首先應該做的是設法找到一個能夠在沒有俄羅斯進口的情況下滿足我們日益增長的天然氣需求的計劃，而不是什麼都不嘗試就直接向俄羅斯跪下。即使是處於不好狀態的歐洲國家也在努力[13]https://www.cna.com.tw/news/afe/202203090174.aspx ，不是嗎？
(3) 退出俄羅斯業務可能會使華碩在俄羅斯失去50%的市佔率。
為什麼台灣華碩必須停止與俄羅斯的業務，而德國卻可以繼續從俄羅斯進口石油？[14]https://today.line.me/tw/v2/article/zNOpZj6?utm_source=copyshare
這個論點來自一位政大教授。這新聞中有一件評論反對這種論點，稱“與向發動戰爭的國家提供產品相比，減少50％的市占率有什麼關係？” 這個評論是對的 (遺憾的是，按這個評論不喜歡的人比喜歡的人多^^)，但不完全對。另外，它並沒有回答教授的另一個論點: 德國仍在進口俄羅斯的石油。那麼如何反對這種說法呢？
第一，市佔率是一個錯誤的衡量標準；占公司總收入的比例才是正確的衡量標準。例如 (只是一個例子，我不是指華碩)，在某個地區失去80%的當地市占率可能會讓這家公司難以在該地區繼續經營，但在該公司沒有失去任何市占率的情況下，鑑於該公司是一家全球性公司，該地區營業的收入只佔公司總收入的1%。在某個地區失去 50% 的市場份額可能只會讓公司難以在該地區繼續經營，但失去 70% 的收入可能會讓你的整個公司倒閉 (不只是那個地區的子公司，而是整個公司，包括不在該地區的其他子公司)。因此，在俄羅斯當地失去了 50% 的市佔率不應成為是否制裁的衡量標準。如我之前所說，企業應該關心的是，失去俄羅斯 50% 的市占率是否會導致難以經營整間公司，而不僅僅是在俄羅斯的生意。如果是這樣，請用證據證明；鑑於智能手機產品只是與軍事無關的消費產品，而你的公司關閉會導致數萬名員工失業並且沒有錢養活自己，你在俄羅斯繼續營運業務可能是合理的 (不過，如果你是一家只有少量員工的小公司，市場要接受這幾個失去工作的員工並不難，你應該就直接接受損失並在戰爭中關閉。) 我很失望這種誤用數據指標的行為是政大的教授做出來的。雖然可以肯定且合理的是，並非每個教授都擅長數據分析( 例如，法學教授不擅長數據分析，他也不需要擅長數據分析)，但一個作為教授的人應該確保他在用數據指標發表意見時使用正確的數據指標； 否則，他應該了解自己的短處，不要隨便用數據指標來證明自己的論點。
第二，我來具體回答一下“德國還在進口俄羅斯的石油” 這一點: 因為賺少一點錢不會死，沒有石油和天然氣會死^^。華碩賺少一點的事情對普通台灣人的生活不會有 “嚴重” 影響；而沒有石油的事情會對德國人的生活造成 “嚴重” 影響，尤其是德國的氣候比台灣更冷，所以德國人對取暖器的需求很大^^。這兩件事（華碩的收益和德國的石油進口) 不能放在一起進行比較，但你把它們放在一起。另外，這兩者的區別對於普通人來說應該是非常明顯的(雖然很多人在閱讀我的文章之前可能還不知道區別^^)。我很失望這個錯誤比較的錯誤是台灣某頂尖大學的教授犯的^^。
(4) 烏克蘭向中國出售大量武器攻擊台灣，為什麼台灣要幫烏克蘭？
好，終於到了重要且合理的部分了: 當烏克蘭向中國出售大量武器攻擊台灣時，為什麼台灣必須幫助烏克蘭？[15]https://pttyes.com/Gossiping/M.1647223590.A.18C ？ 與上一個問題不同，這是一個很好的問題。嗯，這確實是一個好論點。我同意也許台灣應該考慮停止幫助烏克蘭，因為烏克蘭幫助了中國殺害台灣人的計劃。 (給許多不知道為什麼我同意這個論點合理但不同意第一個論點的人: 一個是幫助一個與你沒有關係的人 – 所以她/他沒有殺你，只是幫助她/他也沒辦法給你帶來任何利益；另一個是幫助一個殺了你的人。你為什麼要幫助一個人殺了你？順帶一提，第一個案例並沒有殺死你。你單純因為沒有利益而拒絕幫她/他？她/他快死了耶^^。）
很遺憾的，答案仍然是否定的。為什麼呢？ 你必須考慮到武器業務的決定主要是政府官員做的，而不是普通的烏克蘭人。 你應該坐看與武器生意上的決定無關的普通烏克蘭人死於戰爭嗎？ 不。如果你想因為烏克蘭與中國有武器業務往來，拒絕與烏克蘭做生意，那很好 (業務=生意，有些人國文不好所以順帶一提^^)。但有人快死了是另一回事。 在這些烏克蘭平民不是與中國武器交易的主要決策者的前提下，你不應該拒絕任何可以挽救生命的可能性。 因此，我的回答是否定的，我們仍然需要幫助烏克蘭，因為有很多人正在死去。
( 順便說一句，沒有任何一間台灣公司因為烏克蘭與中國的武器交易而停止與烏克蘭的業務，不是嗎^^？如果你真的那麼愛國，為什麼不要求那些台灣公司停止與烏克蘭做生意呢？噢！我忘了你不僅不想台商停止跟烏克蘭的生意，還想跟承認台灣是中國一部分的俄羅斯做生意^^ 你只想到你自己的利益而忽略了一堆人快死了^^。 [16]https://today.line.me/tw/v2/article/vXlMwGj?utm_source=copyshare [17]https://today.line.me/tw/v2/article/zNOpZj6?utm_source=copyshare [18]https://www.wionnews.com/world/russia-recognises-taiwan-as-part-of-china-opposes-islands-independence-450437 [19]https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/cgct//eng/xwdt/t241750.htm )
8. “聯發科制裁的原因是匯率” [20]https://www.wealth.com.tw/articles/1ed9ec5d-1528-4abc-bd11-de51d3193f7e
答：
台灣一家自主設計晶片的晶片公司聯發科已經對俄羅斯實施了制裁。
台灣《財訊》雜誌的一篇文章中問道：“聯發科真的可以禁止客戶向俄羅斯提供使用聯發科晶片的產品嗎？” 在回答這個問題時，文章稱，儘管聯發科禁止，許多手機仍會從中國流入俄羅斯。文章最後指出，俄羅斯盧布兌人民幣匯率貶值已成為許多公司關注的問題，因此聯發科和其他台灣公司制裁的原因是俄羅斯盧布貶值。這是一篇質量非常低的文章/意見。
第一，聯發科是否真的能夠禁止其客戶向俄羅斯提供產品，與聯發科為什麼要進行製裁無關。禁令只是聯發科願意這樣做的結果之一；結果和原因在很多情況下是不同的東西（不是在所有情況下，但仍然在很多情況下^^），所以它是無關緊要的。
第二，結論是完全錯誤的。第一點，你用俄羅斯盧布對人民幣的貶值來表示公司對與俄羅斯做生意猶豫不決。這是中國公司的意見還是真的包括台灣公司的意見？第二點也是最重要的，聯發科之所以做出這樣的制裁，是因為台灣政府制裁俄羅斯的法律 [21]https://ec.ltn.com.tw/article/breakingnews/3848152 [22]https://gazette2.nat.gov.tw/EG_FileManager/eguploadpub/eg028061/ch04/type1/gov31/num9/images/BB.pdf ，但可笑的是，因為你是金融專家，這是一本財經雜誌，所以你就想讓每件事都變得跟“金融” 有關^^。
你發表意見之前不看相關新聞的嗎？我從來沒看過華爾街日報或西方新聞中的任何金融專家發表如此愚蠢的觀點。他們總是說 “烏克蘭戰爭開始以來，美國政府的制裁使許多公司撤離俄羅斯，盧布也在貶值”。他們會歸因到正確的理由，或者他們只是單獨聲明“蘋果等科技公司退出俄羅斯”，而不會聯繫到政府身上，因為蘋果的制裁是出於烏克蘭要求的意願。當制裁與金融無關時，他們從不強迫性的將制裁原因與金融相關的任何事情聯繫起來^^。正如我所說，這是一篇質量非常低的文章/意見。閱讀這樣的文章，會讓一般台灣人產生錯誤的理解。
9. 針對一篇俄羅斯人計畫暗殺普丁的新聞的評論:
“暗殺還能全世界公佈？假新聞。” [23]https://today.line.me/tw/v2/article/YajlkGB?utm_source=copyshare
答：
這篇新聞開頭寫著 “根據烏克蘭國防部情報總局的說法”，所以這代表烏克蘭這個與俄羅斯關係不好的國家發現可能有一些“俄羅斯人”想刺殺人，不是刺客自己公開宣布要刺殺普京^^。為什麼這新聞對你和那些相信這個評論的人來說這麼難以理解？另外，烏克蘭洩露了打算暗殺普京的俄羅斯人的秘密，這確實可能導致未來的暗殺失敗，從而使烏克蘭繼續陷入這場戰爭。但如果你有這樣的想法 (烏克蘭可能會因洩露此信息而受到傷害)，你應該認為烏克蘭情報局沒有應有的複雜，而不是將此視為假新聞。我確實認為分享這些信息可能會使暗殺失敗，從而降低提前結束這場戰爭的可能性；但是，我不知道為什麼烏克蘭決定分享這些信息，也許它有它的顧慮，誰知道？
不過，我想很多人沒有注意到這個消息來自烏克蘭，而不是俄羅斯，並且認為這個新聞是關於一些俄羅斯人公開宣布暗殺普丁的計劃，不是嗎？
10. 《經濟學人》雜誌：“在歐洲和美國之外，世界其他大部分地區並沒有真正參與進來。生活在這些國家的三分之二的人不是在這場衝突中保持中立，就是實際上支持俄羅斯….我認為西方需要將藉由說服世界其他地區他們也參與其中來配合其新的目標感和力量。” [24]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXcXVt3zaVw
*世界領先的雜誌之一《經濟學人》的主編在其中一個視頻報導中提出了上述論點。
答：
“歐洲和美國以外”是指亞洲、非洲、澳大利亞和大洋洲。但是，你指出它的“西方”必須說服世界其他地區。我會乾脆從東方與西方的角度來看。
論據是錯誤的。
第一，在這種情況下使用人口指標是錯誤的。如果從人口基礎上結合聯合國的譴責俄羅斯與否之投票結果來評估，是的，57.62% 的世界人口保持中立或支持俄羅斯 (下表中代表為“否”)，此數據確實接近 “三分之二的人”。然而，這個數據結果很可能是由於中國和印度這兩個世界上的人口大國，在聯合國投票中都保持中立的原因。如果以國家為單位分析，結果可能會不一樣，最好還是先以國家為單位進行分析。從人口為單位的基礎來分析並不是最重要的事情，因為不管有多少人支持俄羅斯 (不支持烏克蘭)，這些人所屬政府的票在聯合國只算一票，來自政府的制裁依然在執行。此外，一個國家裡可能有很多人支持俄羅斯，而同時那個國家也有很多人譴責俄羅斯。如果不在個體基礎上進行評估，則人口指標的使用是不準確的。
第二，讓我提供我建議的以國家為單位的數據: 在193個聯合國成員國中，有141個國家投票譴責俄羅斯[25]https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3418281-un-general-assembly-adopts-resolution-calling-on-russia-to-immediately-withdraw-forces-from-ukraine.html ；很明顯，這141個國家中的許多人可能在亞洲或非洲 – 根據你的定義，亞洲或非洲是“世界其他地區”或東方的一部分。為了證明妳的觀點是錯誤的，我根據聯合國的投票結果總結成了一張表格 (如下)。根據這張表，在亞洲，55.6%的國家公開譴責俄羅斯；在非洲，56.8% 的國家公開譴責俄羅斯。綜合這些數據，54.2%的東方國家公開譴責俄羅斯。即使我們加入非聯合國成員國和亞洲的巴勒斯坦和西撒哈拉並假設他們在這場衝突中保持中立，數據也沒有太大變化 – 仍然有 53.7% 的東方國家譴責俄羅斯，這代表一半以上的東方人譴責俄羅斯。總結，“世界其他地區” 或 三分之二的東方“國家” 沒有保持中立或者支持俄羅斯。
因此，是的，有可能有57.62% – 接近世界人口的三分之二的世界人口，沒有公開譴責俄羅斯，但這結果確實是由於中國和印度人口眾多的因素。事實上，“世界其他地區”的大多數“國家” 並沒有保持中立或支持俄羅斯；“世界其他地區” 或 三分之二的東方“國家” 也沒有保持中立或者支持俄羅斯。
我納悶你為什麼會有這樣的誤解和誤用數據指標的行為。如果你沒有數據分析能力，我建議妳做為領導世界的專業雜誌的主編，在發表這種依賴數據的論點之前，先諮詢一下你的數據分析團隊。如果人口的使用來自妳的數據分析團隊，我建議他們改進對數據的使用和數學意識。
如果僅僅從亞洲和非洲似乎有很多國家不譴責俄羅斯的角度來看，你可能不會得到準確的結果。事實上，亞洲不是只有中國和印度而已。亞洲有日本、韓國和台灣 – 自戰爭開始以來，這些國家都與西方國家一起制裁。也有很多日本企業是世界知名的，做過制裁。例如 Panasonic 和 Sony。分析時要小心。
11.
（1）“俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭的原因是烏克蘭沒有遵守明斯克協議。”
（2）“Ukaine一直在做生物武器的實驗。”
（3）“普京想進攻烏克蘭，因為烏克蘭有納粹”
答：
正如我所說，我只寫一些媒體不知道該怎麼解釋或沒有解釋的論點。
這些已經被西方組織證明是假的或不完全是事實。看看西方媒體的一些分析和解釋。
(1) 明斯克協議
(2) 生化武器
(3) 納粹：中文 | 英文
致國民黨的訊息
正如我在第一部分所說，我敦促台灣政府對在台灣傳播的俄烏戰爭政治宣傳展開調查。
國民黨，如果台灣政府不調查，你們就應該調查，找出是誰下令進行這種宣傳的，你們不應該允許這種有違道德價值、損害台灣人民素質的宣傳。
給國民黨的朱立倫先生，在接受西方媒體採訪時，你提到國民黨是親美的，但你們黨內似乎有很多人支持反美理論，比如張亞中和他的支持者。他說，“美國把台灣當狗”（而且很多人都相信他）。你最好了解和檢討一下黨內人的行為，還是你知道宣傳的事情，然後你看著這些宣傳在你眼前蔓延？如果台灣政府不調查，我建議你在你的黨內調查。
此外，給國民黨的所有成員和支持者，即使民進黨有政治宣傳的歷史，利用俄烏戰爭宣傳也不是正確的事情。首先，如同我在第 1 部分中描述的原因之一所說，涉及人道主義危機和道德價值的國際事件不應該成為政黨之間政治鬥爭的利用對象。此外，被攻擊者(烏克蘭及其總統) 與台灣政治無關，但這些政治宣傳卻在剝削他們，使他們在台灣人眼中看起來很糟糕，而他們在這個特殊時刻需要台灣人的支持。利用俄烏戰爭宣傳這是錯誤的。
第二，正如我在第四個誤解 (反美理論) 中所說，僅僅因為你看到別人殺人，並不代表你也可以殺人。同樣的道理，只是因為有人在散佈攻擊你的壞消息，並代表你也可以散佈攻擊他的壞消息。一個適當的方式是用你的大腦和證據向公眾解釋為什麼這些謠言是假的，並做好你的工作 – 如果你是立委，就做好你的立委工作；如果你是市長，就做好你的市長工作。這才是正確的做法，而不是做無用的內鬥。(順便說一句，當然如果這些謠言是真的，你就要認清你的錯誤^^ )
透過捐款和在社群媒體上關注我來幫助我
我撰寫的每篇文章在撰寫前都經過我數天的研究和思考。如果你喜歡我的文章，請不吝捐款支持我，這樣我可以撰寫更多有品質的文章。
注意: 捐款的單位是美元 – 美元兌新台幣約為 1:30 (1美元=30元台幣)
如果你喜歡我的文章，請分享此篇文章到你的社群媒體頁面，這樣我的文章就可以被更多人看見。
同時也請透過點擊下方連結來關注我的社群媒體(包含Facebook)，這樣你就可以收到我最新的文章。
關注我的社群媒體: 臉書Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin
文章禁止轉載References
Chrissy Slora
The articles published in this website are all written by Chrissy Slora. Chrissy Slora aims to make people learn about how the world can be better and provide her intelligent and wise insight by writing about various topics from technology to issues happening in the world. Follow her on social media: Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin