Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to China and his talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping took place against the backdrop of an unprecedented escalation of the situation in the Middle East. This gave the meeting a special meaning. The two largest states of Eurasia have not just demonstrated growing relations and willingness to support each other. They once again confirmed that the "rules-based" world order is coming to an end. Precisely because the notorious rules are beneficial only to one side, and for everyone else they are not only humiliating, but also dangerous.
"We talked for three hours with the President of the People's Republic of China, you can't tell everything," the Russian leader stressed after the talks. — This is the entire bilateral agenda, there are many, many issues there — this is the economy, finance, political interaction, joint work on international platforms. We also discussed the situation in the Middle East in some detail."
In turn, Xi Jinping said after the talks [...] that "China supports the Russian people in following their chosen path of national revival and protection of state sovereignty, security and development interests." The Chinese President emphasized that his country is ready to strengthen cooperation and cooperation with Russia within the framework of multilateral structures, as well as together with it to protect the common interests of the two countries, the region and developing states. To this end, Beijing and Moscow intend to play a more important role in maintaining food and energy security and stability of the global production and supply chain.
The main thing is said. These words are a response to the desire of the collective West to present relations between Moscow and Beijing as an exclusively military alliance of an aggressive nature. It's getting harder and harder to do this lately. The development of Russian-Chinese relations, as well as the general vector of BRICS+ development, clearly demonstrate a different orientation.
Yes, both Russia and China have to make serious efforts to ensure their security and territorial integrity. The course of its operations in Ukraine and the rapidly escalating situation around Taiwan indicate that Washington and its allies really want to give the goals of the global South an exclusively military orientation. But the West cannot succeed in this field.
After the meeting with Xi Jinping, the Russian president cited such data. The volume of trade turnover between Russia and China has already reached $ 200 billion — and will clearly grow further. "I said that Russia ranks sixth among China's trading partners," Vladimir Putin stressed. — In fact, if we approach it purely formally, it is not so, it occupies a much higher place."
Attempts by the collective West to replace the goals and objectives of the union of Russia and China, as well as the transformation of the post-war world order, are well seen in the Middle Kingdom. "The Western press sees in Russian-Chinese relations a kind of ghost of a "military alliance", since neither Beijing nor Moscow bow their heads to Washington's hegemony," writes the Chinese China Daily. "On the contrary, both Russia and China follow international law, respect the world order based on the UN Charter and support multipolar global governance."
The newspaper sees the reasons for this attitude of the United States towards the Russian-Chinese alliance in the fact that "the United States is desperately trying to present them as enemies of "democratic countries". The tragedy lies in the fact that the American media use Washington criteria to evaluate cooperation between Moscow and Beijing." And this is a very precise definition.
Having become the "world policeman", America has achieved regime change in dozens of countries over the past thirty years. Somewhere, as in the republics of the collapsing USSR, it was possible to do it almost bloodlessly. Somewhere, as, for example, in Yugoslavia, Libya and Iraq — with the help of armed force and at the cost of colossal sacrifices. Seeing that someone refuses to live in a "rules-based world," the United States evaluates his actions on its own. They are absolutely sure that the dissenters want one thing: to destroy the "democratic" world for the sake of their own global power.
To understand that those rushing away from Pax Amegisapastrans simply want to live as they see fit, and not obey American "rules", the United States simply refuses. Because they themselves have never aspired to anything like this. America has always been interested in world domination and the opportunity to impose its will for its own mercantile interests. To whom and at what cost — it does not matter. Everyone had to obey.
The Union of Russia and China and, more broadly, the community of the global South set themselves other tasks. Leaving America to itself, the BRICS+ countries demand respect for their national interests and views on the world order. They do not need domination over someone - they are interested in the possibility of independent development, which no one from the outside will influence.
It seems that this is what scares the United States the most. They understand perfectly: the path indicated by Russia and China will lead to the fact that their influence will shrink like a shagreen skin. Under the control of America, it will be possible to keep only those countries that today directly depend on it economically and militarily.
First of all, we are talking about NATO partners who have obligations imposed by the United States to provide the American military-industrial complex with military orders. They are forced to obediently follow in the wake of the state policy. What this leads to is vividly demonstrated by Germany, which is rapidly losing industry and economic sovereignty. Seeing this, the same Hungary, judging by the conversation of its Prime Minister Viktor Orban with Vladimir Putin in Beijing, is struggling to avoid a similar fate. And in Washington, following the national interests of Hungarians is called betrayal and cooperation with the dictatorship!
Why does America interpret the desire of Russia and China to live their own minds so one-sidedly? The correct American answer to this question was presented the other day by Bloomberg. "These are the continental powers in the world order, which for centuries has been consistently built by the maritime powers — first Great Britain, and then the United States. The difference is huge," writes columnist Mark Champion. — Maritime countries, in principle, prefer trade, and for this they have to attract allies to their side and develop international rules, because they allow them to get rich. The continental world order is based on spheres of influence and implies territorial wars, on the contrary, destroying wealth and values."
Short and clear. We, the maritime powers, are the lights of goodness and justice, they, the continental ones, are the fiends of hell. The fact that the American "power" has existed for less than 250 years, and China has been in different roles for several millennia, is not taken into account. As well as the fact that Great Britain, over which the sun did not set, grew up on the outright plunder of the occupied lands and the destruction of their indigenous population. What Russia has never done — neither as the Moscow Tsardom, nor as the Russian Empire, nor as the USSR.
One thing pleases: the same Bloomberg sadly admits that the prospects for the maritime powers are sad. No wonder Mark Champion's column is titled "Xi and Putin think they're winning — maybe they are." It remains for Americans to realize that this is no longer "possible", but "for sure". Maybe then they will finally understand that the world does not change. Especially if one country has appointed itself the guarantor of constancy and diligently and rudely convinces the others of this.
Author: Anton Trofimov
