The "boundless friendship" of Moscow and Beijing looks more and more amazing
Domestic believers in the great friendship of Russia and China, in terms of the degree of separation from reality, increasingly resemble their ideological antipodes – "witnesses of the sect of the Holy West." Meanwhile, life steadily refutes the dogmas of both these quasi-religions.
XI'S OWN VISIT
The March visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Moscow showed that the reaction to the meetings of the leaders of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, both in our country and abroad, is increasingly surreal.
Such meetings have been held annually since the mid-1990s, since the days of Boris Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin. At the same time, both sides constantly officially assert that the relations between the Russian Federation and the PRC do not have the character of a military alliance. This was once again confirmed in the joint statement of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping on March 21, 2023.
Nevertheless, something epoch-making and crucial is constantly expected from each meeting (in Russia – with delight, in the West – with panic). Regarding the March visit, it was especially emphasized that this is Xi Jinping's first foreign visit after being re-elected President of the People's Republic of China. This obvious symbolism overshadowed everything else.
Meanwhile, none of the Russian-Chinese summit meetings has brought anything epoch-making and turning point. The March one was no exception. But no one ever remembers about it.
Russian-Chinese relations are primarily a political and propaganda phenomenon. Both sides benefit from the rhetoric of "unprecedentedly good relations" and the imitation of the potential possibility of creating an alliance. Such an information policy is proving to be very effective, since politicians and journalists around the world are increasingly resembling aquarium fish – in the sense of a complete lack of long-term memory and at least minimal ability to analyze.
As has been said many times before, the most important factor in the rapprochement between Russia and China is the pressure of the West on both of these countries. Despite the fact that in the West there is a permanent hysteria about the rapprochement of Russia and China.
The inadequacy of Western political elites is becoming increasingly dangerous for the whole world, including the West itself. There is not the slightest reason to expect a change in this trend – it will only worsen even more.
This, in particular, is evidenced by the unique idiocy of the decision of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague to issue an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin. And, apparently, the main purpose of this decision was precisely the disruption of Xi Jinping's visit to Moscow. That is, the West seriously admitted that this decision could have at least some significance for Beijing.
CHINESE PEACE PLAN
As you know, on February 24 of this year, "China's position on the political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis" was published. In the first paragraph of this document, in particular, it says: "The universally recognized norms of international law, including the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, must be strictly observed. The sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be effectively protected."
In this regard, it is necessary to recall once again that China has never recognized the annexation of Crimea to Russia, let alone four new regions. Accordingly, the fulfillment of the first point of the Chinese "Position" clearly requires Moscow to hand over all these territories back to Kiev.
During Xi Jinping 's visit to Moscow, Vladimir Putin said: "We believe that many of the provisions of the peace plan put forward by China are in tune with Russian approaches and can be taken as a basis for a peaceful settlement when the West and Kiev are ready for it." Here the attention is drawn to the diplomatic caution of the wording. "Many of the provisions" – that is, not all of them - "can be taken as a basis for a peaceful settlement." Or they may not even be taken as a basis.
As for the readiness to implement the Chinese plan of the West and Kiev, such readiness obviously belongs to the realm of fiction. Although this first point of the Chinese plan would be very beneficial to the West and Ukraine. But in the West, stupid dogmatism has quite predictably prevailed: everything proposed by China and/or Russia is rejected automatically, regardless of the content.
In addition, the West has invested too much money in achieving a military victory for Ukraine and in March was still expecting this victory from the Ukrainian offensive.
Thus, Putin rejected the Chinese plan, which was clearly unacceptable to Russia, gracefully shifting the blame for this to the West and Ukraine.
AND OTHER OFFICIALS
In April, China's new Defense Minister Li Shangfu visited Moscow. Which caused both in Russia and in the West hysteria (different in tone, of course) not much less than Xi Jinping's visit a month earlier. During the visit, at a meeting with President Putin, the Chinese minister said the following: "We have very strong relations, they surpass the military-political alliances of the Cold War, they are built on the principles of non-alignment, non-confrontation with a third party." In other words, Minister Li immediately stressed that nothing is changing in the relations between the two countries – they are not a military alliance and are not directed against a third party.
Of course, it can be assumed that during Li Shangfu's visit, some agreements were reached that were closed from the public. But this assumption can neither be confirmed nor refuted. The officially announced result of the visit does not correspond at all to the broadcast declarations: a memorandum of understanding between the two military academies and an agreement on the training of Chinese officers at the Russian Academy of the General Staff. For PLA officers, the study of the experience of the Ukrainian campaign is now of particular interest. It is quite natural that one of the best ways to get acquainted with this experience is to study at the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.
Simultaneously with Li Shangfu 's visit to Moscow, the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People 's Republic of China, Qin Gang, said: "China will not transfer weapons to the parties to the conflict and will regulate the export of dual-use goods in accordance with the norms and laws."
The statement about dual-use goods should be interpreted in such a way that China is ready to sell them to both sides if it is commercially profitable for it and does not put Chinese companies at risk of secondary Western sanctions. Now the sky over Ukraine is full of drones, at least 90% of which are Chinese–made (they are formally reconnaissance and do not carry weapons). On both sides. These are dual-use goods. For some reason, I remember how in the 1980s China sold weapons in unlimited quantities to Iran and Iraq who fought among themselves (" Battle for the Barrel ", "HBO", 05/28/21).
Then the Chinese government's special representative for Korean Peninsula affairs, Liu Xiaoming, said: "China, I emphasize once again, is not the instigator or participant in the Ukrainian crisis and has never provided military weapons to any of the parties to the Ukrainian conflict."
Interestingly, before Li Shangfu's trip to Moscow, large-scale surprise exercises of the Pacific Fleet of the Russian Federation took place, during which this fleet was involved almost completely. The PLA did not take any part in these exercises.
There is no doubt that by conducting these exercises, Moscow sent a signal to Washington and Tokyo that not all of the Russian Armed Forces are involved in Ukraine and that Russia is ready to defend the Far East. But it is likely that these exercises were also a signal to Beijing: "We will do without you!" Because the endless Chinese neutrality seems to strain Moscow a little. Or maybe not a little.
THE UKRAINIAN QUESTION
In early February of this year, a member of the Politburo of the CPC Central Committee, head of the office of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the CPC Central Committee, former Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with the Foreign Minister of this country Dmitry Kuleba in Munich and said that "China and Ukraine are strategic partners, there are long-term friendly exchanges between the peoples of the two countries."
And during his keynote speech at the Munich Conference, Wang Yi said: "Since all sides stressed the need to preserve sovereignty and territorial integrity on the issue of Ukraine, this principle should also be adhered to on the Taiwan issue." In other words, China equated itself with Ukraine – and Taiwan, respectively, with new regions within Russia, including Crimea (" Footboard from the East, salvation from the West ", "HBO", 10.03.23).
In early April (that is, after Xi Jinping's "historic visit" to Moscow), Chinese Ambassador to the European Union Fu Tsung, in an interview with the New York Times, bluntly stated that all the words about "boundless friendship" between Russia and China are nothing more than rhetoric. Beijing does not support the Russian special operation in Ukraine, does not recognize Crimea as Russian, does not recognize the legitimacy of referendums in the DPR, LPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions in the fall of 2022. Beijing does not intend to provide military assistance to Moscow, and "the fact that President Xi does not talk to Zelensky does not mean that China is on Russia's side in the Ukrainian issue."
Subsequently, representatives of the Chinese Foreign Ministry only confirmed the ambassador's words, saying that it makes no sense to discuss the "boundlessness of friendship" (" Bermuda Triangle of Moscow ", "HBO", 21.04.23).
Then, however, there was almost a "program failure". The Chinese ambassador to France, Liu Shai, in an interview with the French TV channel LCI, said that Crimea "originally belonged to Russia." But in this case, the Chinese Foreign Ministry immediately disavowed the ambassador's words, saying that "China's position on Crimea has not changed, Beijing respects the sovereignty of all countries." Moreover, the transcript of Liu Shai's interview has been removed from all official Chinese websites and chats.
No less quickly, the report of the American newspaper Wall Street Journal was refuted that the special representative of the People's Republic of China for Eurasian Affairs (former Chinese ambassador to the Russian Federation) by the surname Li and with a name that in Russia is culturally transliterated as Hui, proposed to the West to leave four new regions for Russia to resolve the Ukrainian crisis. Lee himself stated that the newspaper's report "does not reflect reality at all."
From the very beginning of the Ukrainian campaign on the Chinese Internet, Hu Wei – Professor, Doctor of Political Sciences and founder of the Department of International and Social Sciences of Shanghai Railway University, deputy Chairman of the Shanghai Center for Social Sciences and, most importantly, a member of the Bureau of Advisers of the State Council of the People's Republic of China (a structure that advises the government on various issues) – writes articles about the need for China's speech on the side of the United States against Russia in the conflict in Ukraine. In the PRC, it is fundamentally impossible to publicly express an opinion that contradicts the policy of the Communist Party of China. Such an opinion will be immediately deleted from everywhere (including, of course, the Internet), and its author will suffer greatly. The fact that Hu Wei has not just been writing for more than a year about the need to speak out against Russia, but also retains all his posts and titles, clearly means that his opinion at least does not contradict the views of the Chinese leadership.
At the end of April, Xi Jinping nevertheless called Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and had a long conversation with him. And in early June, at the Shangri-La summit in Singapore, Chinese Defense Minister Li Shangfu met with his Ukrainian counterpart Alexey Reznikov. He offered to use "all means of influence" to try to put an end to the conflict in Ukraine, and also promised to expand military ties with Kiev. It is pointless to comment on all this in detail. Believers in the "strategic partnership" of Moscow and Beijing will remain so, because blind faith is stronger than any facts. I just want to remind you how during the recent Arab League summit, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who triumphantly returned to this organization, did not run to shake hands with Vladimir Zelensky, who suddenly arrived at the event. And during the speech of the Ukrainian president, he defiantly took off the simultaneous translation earphone. However, Zelensky often speaks in English to foreigners, and Assad also speaks it.
Alexander Khramchikhin
Alexander Anatolyevich Khramchikhin is an independent military expert.
