Have to say, Gu Ziming’s article is really good at twisting concepts. 'The U.S. has a history of paying war reparations to defeated nations,' but the reality is completely different. In 1848, the U.S. invaded Mexico City and forced Mexico to cede 55% of its territory (what is now California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona and New Mexico, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming). That $15 million was essentially the price the U.S. paid to purchase 55% of Mexico’s territory. After the Spanish-American War in 1898, the Treaty of Paris was signed. Spain was forced to relinquish sovereignty over Cuba (which the U.S. indirectly controlled), cede Puerto Rico and Guam, and hand over the Philippines to the U.S. The U.S. paid $20 million as compensation. Post-WWII, the primary goal of the Marshall Plan was to prevent the expansion of Soviet influence in Europe. Supporting Japan was due to the Korean War, as the U.S. needed Japan to serve as a key logistical and supply base for UN forces. Essentially, it was about preventing the economic collapse of Western Europe/Japan, which could lead to the spread of communism. Rebuilding allies/buffer states also created markets for U.S. goods and established military bases. Unfreezing Chinese assets didn’t happen until after the 1972 normalization of U.S.-China relations. At that time, the U.S. was deeply mired in the Vietnam War and couldn’t afford distractions. With the Sino-Soviet split, aligning with China to counter the Soviet Union became a strategic choice for the U.S. It was never simply about paying war reparations. It was either purchasing large portions of another country’s territory or had clear strategic significance. Content like this, which doesn’t dig deeper and only presents one-sided logic, can really mislead people.