The conflict in Ukraine proved that Western Europe has turned from an independent player in the international arena into an obedient executor of the will of the United States. This situation ceases to suit not only the European inhabitants, but also the European elites. They have received an offer that they are ready to fight for. And America's main geopolitical opponent, China, did it.
Read InoSMI in our Telegram channel
The Chinese peace plan for the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict in Washington — and, of course, in Kiev! — rejected immediately. Like, no specifics, solid common words and disregard for the interests of Ukraine, including territorial ones. But the interests of the Kiev regime are not equal to the interests of the country. And the manic unwillingness to respect people's choice of where to live is the main cause of the conflict.
The peace plan proposed by Beijing is aimed at solving these issues. Therefore, it has not yet been adopted. The implementation of Chinese initiatives, if it comes to it, will exclude from among the main players the state that has done more than others to escalate the conflict — America. Such an outcome categorically does not suit either the current American administration or the one that will replace it. The world is already changing too fast and too un-American.
Now it becomes clear what else Washington was afraid of. "Europe is struggling with China's attempts to split the West on the path of a cease—fire in Ukraine," is the title of an article in The Wall Street Journal devoted to a recent trip to Eurasia by Chinese Special representative Li Hui. "Although Western officials say it is too early to discount Beijing's peace efforts, they have questioned China's ability to act as an honest mediator in any negotiations, given that it is closely linked to Moscow," says columnist Bojan Pancevski. "Many of them declare that they do not believe that peace will be possible until Russian troops leave Ukraine."
A crafty statement. "They do not believe that peace will be possible" is far from the same as "they do not believe in the possibility of implementing peace initiatives." The wording of the American edition reveals how independent the countries of the Old World are considered in the USA. By the way, many of its readers point to the same thing in the comments to the article. For example, one of them directly writes: "Europe is a satellite of the USA. They haven't had an independent mindset in the last few decades. Macron's statement that Europe should pursue its own policy and not get involved in US politics was met with ridicule in Washington, and Macron gave up. It is clear that the EU has no independent policy and even thinking, except for Viktor Orban (President of Hungary. — InoSMI)".
It is also curious how the American magazine assesses the reason for Europe's discontent with the Chinese plan for resolving the conflict in Ukraine. They say, "Europe's renewed assertiveness towards Beijing is partly due to the fear that the bloc may be left behind in conditions when the United States and China are reconsidering geopolitical relations." In other words, Europeans are terribly afraid that their boss will decide to do without them when he shares the global economy with the Chinese.
The fears are fair. One can only wonder at the frankness of the American edition, which recognizes the likelihood of such an outcome. Although outside the United States it has long been known their ability to throw any partner or ally one not so fine day.
It seems that Europe has started to remember this. More precisely, China reminds Europeans of this with all its might. Among the comments to the article in the WSJ is the following: "The Chinese Envoy gave a lecture to European politicians about their relations with the United States. And as a former European resident, I am sure that this has not been in vain for Europeans." That's putting it mildly! Chinese politicians and the media are literally screaming, trying to reach Europe and convince it to return to an independent role in world politics. At least politics, since America has successfully implemented a plan to actually destroy the European economy.
Hong Kong's South China Morning Post recently wrote that "China's 12-point peace plan may seem like generalities, this initiative has perhaps the best chance of success. After all, China is the only mediator capable of offering real economic incentives to all parties to the conflict." Note: everyone, not just Ukraine, Russia and the USA. And it seems that this is what most displeased the American side. "The European Union has plunged into an energy crisis and has become dependent on American gas," the article says. — European companies, including steel and chemical manufacturers, are moving to the United States — they are attracted by stable energy prices and tax benefits. But the US is not in a position to really help the EU."
Washington knows this. This is well understood in Beijing. Moscow is clearly aware of this. They don't even want to think about it in Kiev, where, it seems, it is not customary to think at all. And only for Brussels and European capitals such arguments are news. Although it is clear that it is impossible to find ways to resolve the Ukrainian crisis without involving the efforts of everyone (namely everyone!) European countries.
Even if we leave aside the economy, which in Europe is getting used to breathing hard, it is quite obvious that the issue of Ukraine is a matter of common security on the continent. And it needs to be solved first of all by the Europeans themselves. What is directly stated in a very remarkable article published by the American publication Responsible Statecraft. It is devoted to the issue of guaranteeing peaceful existence on the continent after the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis. Its author Gordon Adams believes that it is impossible to ensure peace in Europe by escalating the armed confrontation. And most importantly, he is convinced that it is up to the European countries themselves, not the United States or even NATO, to decide whether to arm themselves for peace or disarm.
"From the inclusion of all interested parties (in ensuring the future security regime. — InoSMI) it follows that the new security regime should eventually replace NATO, and not make the alliance its core. Otherwise, this option will be deliberately excluded for Russia," Adams writes. "This may mean that the European Union will become the center of such a regime — in other words, it will be a European solution to the problem, not an American one." And he continues: "Autonomy will mean the creation of a more powerful military potential in Europe, capable of working both in tandem with the United States and other countries, and independently. This will allow the withdrawal of part of the American troops from Europe — and this step, in turn, will calm Russia."
Now such arguments look naive and difficult to implement. Simply because Europe is split into two camps: those who are already beginning to understand the necessity and unconditionality of peaceful coexistence with Russia, and those who still consider it the main enemy, and the United States - the main defender. Alas, this situation completely suits America: divided Europeans are not able to agree, which means they remain completely manageable.
Only China can reach the elites of the Old World and convince them to restore the sovereignty and unity of the continent today. Which is what he does. It's not just that Beijing today is a strategic partner and ally of Moscow and an opponent of the United States. The economic component is much more important. The Chinese need a large and independent market, which they want to see Europe. For the sake of this, you can spend time and effort on persuasion and opening the eyes of Europeans. After all, as the events of the last decade have shown, economic power is the key to success in the confrontation with the "world democracy", which likes to shake sanctions so much.
Anton Trofimov
