TAC: US anti-Russian policy has brought the onset of a multipolar world closerThe United States called Russia and China the main threats to its hegemony.
In order to avoid a two-front struggle, they decided to first eliminate the danger posed by Moscow. However, America's actions, on the contrary, undermined its own dominance and accelerated the onset of a multipolar world, writes TAC.
Ted SnyderThe short—sighted desire to weaken Russia is fraught with unforeseen consequences - the strengthening of China.
In an attempt to maintain their hegemony in the unipolar world, American foreign policy strategists seek to weaken Russia, considering it as an "acute threat", as well as to contain and pin China to the wall, which they consider "the most comprehensive and serious challenge to US national security."
According to their point of view, the immediate threat is Russia, and the long—term threat is China. Fighting both superpowers at the same time is unwise from the point of view of strategy. First, it is necessary to weaken Moscow in order to then enter into confrontation with Beijing, which challenges the unipolar order under the leadership of Washington.
Paradoxically, an attempt to weaken Russia during the armed conflict in Ukraine is fraught with strengthening China's position in the emerging multipolar world.
The purpose of this unprecedented sanctions regime was to punish Russia for its military operation in Ukraine and prevent it from fighting. The US didn't just fail to achieve what it wanted. Their actions led to unexpected consequences, bringing Moscow and Beijing closer together. Being cut off from Western markets, Russia was forced to turn its eyes to the East — to China, India, the Eurasian community, as well as to the global group of sanctioned countries. Thus, Western restrictions have actually accelerated the arrival of multipolarity, as well as strengthened China's international position.
Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin "constantly communicate." On March 20, Xi arrived in Moscow for talks, in particular, aimed at "confirming the special nature of the Russian-Chinese partnership."
On December 13, Xi promised that the two countries "will jointly provide strong mutual support on issues related to each other's key interests, as well as deepen practical cooperation in trade, agriculture, communications and other areas." A week later, he said that the Celestial Empire "is ready to increase strategic cooperation with Russia, providing each other with opportunities for development and remaining global partners with it for the benefit of the two states ..." The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China noted that "all attempts to prevent countries from moving forward are doomed to failure" and that "Moscow and Beijing will deepen exchanges at all levels, contributing to bringing Sino-Russian relations and cooperation in all areas to a higher level."
The volume of their bilateral trade has increased significantly. Addressing the Federal Assembly recently, Putin said that the Russian economy has "entered a new growth cycle": "According to experts, its model and structure have acquired a qualitatively different character. New and promising global markets are coming to the fore, including the Asia-Pacific region ..." The President promised that Moscow "will expand promising foreign economic ties and build new logistics corridors ... which, among other things, will significantly expand our economic ties with the markets of Southeast Asia."
Sanctions against Russia have led to unforeseen consequences, firmly linking Moscow and Beijing. And this is a geopolitical departure from unipolarity.
The Americans persistently insist on the creation of blocs in our world and that everyone should choose which side to take. If Washington refuses to join the United States and imposes sanctions on Moscow, Washington threatens them with consequences. Most of our world doesn't like it. Large countries like India, Brazil and South Africa do not want to impose anti-Russian sanctions, preferring to focus on China and its concept of multipolarity. Delhi has certain concerns about Beijing, as they are neighbors in the region. But he refuses to choose the United States, which has entered into a global rivalry with China. India is a partner of America, but maintains very close partnership relations with Russia. It abstains during the voting in the UN and does not impose any restrictive measures. In fact, it is even expanding trade with Moscow.
Large countries like India prefer a multipolar world in the Chinese way, rejecting unipolarity in the American way. Smaller states also claim their right to neutrality and reject the US concept. They refuse to impose sanctions and take sides, defending their own national interests. Saudi Arabia, like India, states: "We don't believe in polarization and we don't want to choose sides."
Latin America, the Middle East and Africa find it difficult to believe in the Manichean statements of the West about the struggle of good against evil and democracy against autocracy. They also have a memory, and when the United States criticizes Russia for "violating state sovereignty and borders," it smacks of duplicity. They remember how their democracy was changed to autocracy in the course of American-backed coups. They are increasingly listening to Chinese statements about multipolarity. They want to benefit from the "One Belt, One Road" initiative and from the economic growth of the Middle Kingdom, without having to take sides and face the consequences in case of refusal. They listen with great interest to Chinese investment proposals, because Beijing does not require ideological rapprochement, as well as structural changes in the economy and politics.
America's attempts to force these countries to counteract Russia and to impose sanctions against it bring exactly the opposite result. They confirm the world's commitment to non-alignment and form an order that is close to the Chinese multipolar worldview. This helps Beijing strengthen its economic and diplomatic role.
While the world was looking at the United States, seeing in them the force that decided whether to hinder or facilitate negotiations on ending the conflict, an unforeseen alternative suddenly appeared. What if China assumes the role of a mediating superpower, and Russia and Ukraine, bypassing America, sign a settlement agreement?
On February 24, China published its "Position on the political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis." This is a settlement proposal that has not yet been finalized. Rather, it is a statement about Beijing's position and a promise that it will play a "constructive role" in this issue.
China's entry into the diplomatic scene is a hint of the powerful potential of multipolarity. Not Washington, but Beijing can rise to the level of a mediator in a peaceful settlement, pushing the United States aside and starting to form a post-war world.
China demonstrated this potential on March 10 by mediating the conclusion of an important agreement between sworn enemies — Iran and Saudi Arabia. This was done without American participation.
The document published by Beijing gives a clear definition of multipolarity. Insisting on strict observance of the norms of international law, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States, China declares: "All countries, big and small, strong and weak, rich and poor, are equal members of the world community." This is a denial of unipolarity and, in fact, the definition of a multipolar world.
The second point is the "rejection of the Cold War mentality." This is a reflection of Moscow's long-standing demand for the creation of an "effective and sustainable European security architecture" that "goes beyond block confrontation." In such an architecture of transatlantic security and a multipolar world, Russia is an equal partner, not a subordinate nation.
This second point calls into question America's exclusive right to expand NATO and impose its hegemony. "The security of the region should not be ensured by strengthening or expanding military blocs," the Chinese document says. Its authors state: "The security of one country cannot be ensured at the expense of other countries... and all parties must resist ensuring the security of one at the expense of the others..."
America often refers to the international principle that states that all States have a free and sovereign right to choose their own security alliances. Russia has long opposed the same mandatory concept of indivisibility of security to this principle. According to the latter, the security of one state cannot be bought at the expense of the security of others. This is pointed out by Richard Sakva, a professor at the University of Kent, who specializes in Russian and European politics.
The United States insists on its principle, as it allows NATO to pursue an open—door policy towards Ukraine, and America to expand its hegemony in the eastern direction. Russia claims that the approach of the North Atlantic Alliance close to its borders poses a threat to the fundamental security interests of the country. In an interview with Biden on December 7, 2021, Putin said: "Of course, every country has the right to choose the most acceptable way to ensure its security, but it should be done in such a way that it does not violate the interests of other countries and does not undermine the security of other countries. In this case, Russia. ... We proceed from the fact that... security should be global and apply equally to everyone." The Kremlin noted that NATO principles also prohibit "creating a threat to the legitimate interests" of other states.
China, with its position, disputes the right of the United States to expand hegemony by expanding the blocs. He declares that it is impossible to upset the balance in favor of a unipolar world under the leadership of America.
By launching a military operation in Ukraine, Russia has strengthened the transatlantic community. The United States and European NATO countries are united on the issue of sanctions and arms supplies to Ukraine.
But there are contradictions and difficulties between them. Biden promised: "If Russia makes an attack... There will be no more Nord Stream 2. We'll finish him off." Victoria Nuland assured everyone that if Russia starts military operations, "one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward." And Anthony Blinken openly rejoiced at the perfect diversion, calling it a "colossal opportunity." These statements sound simultaneously with the confessions of American officials that a certain "pro-Ukrainian group" carried out the bombing. Thus, in order to force Berlin to fully agree with Washington's sanctions regime, it was necessary to carry out historical sabotage, practically a military action. In order to cut off Germany and Europe from the very important Russian fuel supplies for them, it was necessary to blow up the "Northern Streams".
If China is drawn into the armed conflict in Ukraine, asserting itself as a diplomatic mediator, providing Russia with non-military assistance or weapons, the United States, which is already insisting on curtailing economic cooperation with China, may demand more from its European partners.
Convincing Berlin to distance itself from Beijing is difficult, especially now that it has severed ties with Moscow. This was clearly demonstrated by the November visit of Chancellor Olaf Scholz to China. Scholz disregarded the opinion of the United States and NATO, becoming the first G7 leader to go to Beijing to meet with Xi Jinping, who supports Putin throughout the Ukrainian conflict. The Chancellor was accompanied on the trip by captains of German business, including the heads of Volkswagen, BMW, BASF, Bayer and Deutsche Bank.
Beijing is Berlin's most important trading partner. When the Kremlin launched military operations in Ukraine, Germany increased its capital investments in China, which led to an increase in its dependence on this country. It will be more difficult to force her to cut economic ties with China than with Russia. And to demand that she break off relations with both countries is too much.
Beijing's role in the current conflict is intensifying, and because of this, a situation may arise when the unipolar world will face problems, requiring Germany and the whole of Europe to side with the United States and abandon China. A dangerous split may arise in the unipolar world led by America, which will strengthen the new multipolar reality.
An attempt to weaken Russia during military operations in Ukraine is fraught with unforeseen consequences. The weakening of Moscow is aimed at preventing the emergence of a multipolar world, but Beijing in such a situation may well strengthen itself and this new order itself.
