Reply to questions: Regarding Sino-US and Sino-Russian relations, the war in the Middle East, the "new order" and the "war of civilizations"

The Xiangshan Security Forum is about to open in Beijing. This is a large international event and will be attended by 90 guests. Of note is the Pentagon delegation. This means that China and the United States are likely to resume large-scale dialogue in the defense field.

This possibility makes many Russians unhappy.

Until then, virtually all connections in this area were frozen. The main reason is that Ri Sang-bok was sanctioned by the United States for military contacts with the Russian Federation.

China’s current Foreign Minister Wang Yi is visiting the United States. His main task is to prepare the itinerary for the Chinese leader's visit to San Francisco in November. The APEC summit will be held there, and a personal meeting between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping has not been ruled out.

China's "special military action" against Taiwan, which the Russians are particularly looking forward to, will not happen in the short term at least.

“What do Russians think of this multi-tiered new order ?”

VS Tokareva wrote a short story in which a senior art master who had lived abroad for many years told a young artist who was thinking of escaping from the Soviet Union to the West at all costs, "Just sweep the floor": " All the brooms here have been distributed!". That’s basically how Russians view this so-called “multi-level new order.”

They believe that the "civilized broomsticks" have also been distributed. So if Putin's approach continues, "Russian civilization" can only be a complete failure.

Russians view China as their rival—a powerful competitor from the East, a “global sub-hegemon” that replaces the Soviet Union in competition with the United States.

"What if Putin is pulled out and the opposition comes to power?"

Nationalism remains/must be the foundation. Both the liberal opposition and patriots believe that Putin has failed to achieve the "Great Again" he promised.

The evolution of Russian civilization over the centuries has been mainly achieved by highlighting the "geopolitical hernia". Russia is a model of extensive development. It is difficult for it to develop significantly westward and can only "squeeze" outward along the line of least resistance, that is, the east and southeast. To put it beautifully, it is "Growing with Siberia". Siberia and the Far East, then, rather than Ukraine, were the main stabilizers of Russian civilization. It was this giant "hernia sac" that gave Russia its unique stability, and still does. This is also why the Russians are unhappy with China’s activities in the polar regions.

In other words, all the real existential risks facing Russia today are concentrated within this region. The opposition believes that the risk to Russia has nothing to do with Western pressure, but with the formation of "new centers of world power" (China, Japan, South Korea).

As a result of Moscow's deterioration in relations with Europe, Siberia and the Far East themselves will slowly and steadily shift to a new "external center of gravity" in a completely natural way. Therefore, the very existence of a "strong China" today constitutes a threat to the normal functioning of Russian civilization. Liberals fear that Russia will naturally lose control (de facto control) of these territories within a few decades, which will inevitably lead to the loss of its civilizational character. By contrast, Putin’s geopolitical adventure in Ukraine is completely wrong, counterproductive and can only be based on a rare form of historical blindness.

"That's in the future. What about now?"

On the immediate side, the grain contract between Russia and China, for example, irritates many Russians.

The Chinese charge a fixed price from Russia - about $230 per ton. In the United States, they pay more than $300 for food. But here's an important nuance: US prices are calculated FOB/FOB, that is, to the port of departure, including loading and customs clearance. All other fees are paid by the buyer. But in Russia, the delivery terms are CIF/CIF, that is, the seller pays the cost of transportation to the buyer's port, including insurance and possible risks during transportation, which are borne by the insurance company or the seller.

It is well known that Russia’s transportation industry is not doing well. 90% of the maritime services market (insurance, transportation) is controlled by countries that impose sanctions on Russia . This means that Russia will only be able to transport goods (not just grains, but all goods) in a semi-smuggling manner and insure the shipment with dubious or even fake underwriters until the first insured incident occurs, of course. Fake insurance companies will not compensate. All of these are serious risks, and all of them are assumed by the seller if he agrees to the CIF terms in Incoterms. China is careful to avoid these risks, only accepting goods at its ports and not paying after receipt .

Nor is rail an appropriate substitute. Grain is not coal, it must be transported in special vehicles. It cannot be transported in bulk on an open platform. The throughput capacity of the weak line of the First Eurasian Continental Bridge simply cannot bear all the transportation volume. Nor has the current administration built any other facilities.

In other words, even without considering the risks incurred during transportation, the cost of a ton of grain is approximately US$90-120 depending on different transportation methods. Subtracting the shipping costs from the price of $230 means that Russia makes no money at all on the price.

The news of 70 million tons of grain exports sounds beautiful, but the second half is missing: it’s a waste of time and no money. So the patriots thought it was shameful for the Putin regime to sign such a contract.

This is not an isolated case. In short, in their words, "We are now a colony of China."

"How does the opposition understand the Cold War between China and the United States ?"

From the standpoint of the Cold War between China and the United States, at least at this stage, many of them believe that Russia's friendship with China may be a good deal. But not Putin’s way of interacting.

They believe that it is advantageous for Russia to serve as China's strategic rear - so that Russia will "stand with China and stand on China's shoulders". The key is to enter the new world order "at the expense of the Chinese ." They support China to occupy positions in the Pacific region, given that the center of world development is shifting there; and then let the Chinese confront the Americans head-on there - imperial hegemony is China's task, not Russia's.

Ukraine serves as a proxy war between China and the United States, and Russia is a victim. In other words, no matter who wins between China and the United States, a new world order is being established "against Russia, on the ruins of Russia, and at the expense of Russia." This is naturally opposed by both patriots and liberals.

The relationship between Russia and China is now called "strategic interaction", and the relationship between China and the United States is called "strategic cooperation."

A Putin-style Sino-Russian relationship simply means a downgrade in consumption for many middle-class Russian liberals. As Rossiyskaya Gazeta recently recorded, "Now you can't even find serious cars on the second-hand market." It wrote: There are almost no ordinary foreign cars from "unfriendly countries" on the market (those cars obtained through parallel imports are 2.5 to 3 times more expensive), and people now prefer to keep their old cars instead of selling them on the second-hand market For Sale… Times have changed. Nowadays, Russians have no choice but Chinese garbage. This is a serious blow to the quality of life of Russians.

"Do Russian liberals and patriots no longer have imperial ambitions?"

It is a relatively common consensus that empires are disastrous. The most important emotion at the moment is the sense of crisis of being lost in the so-called civilizational competition.

Regarding the task of "saving Russian civilization", the opposition believes that there is no way to reverse the situation after being completely ruined by Putin, although it is very difficult. In a situation where two (if not three) powerful civilizations are in opposition, each side has many times more resources than Russia. Therefore, Russia can only survive as a brand-new civilization, making itself a necessary link for interaction among global civilizations. - If it is impossible to impose one's own game on others, then it is necessary to "competently" integrate into the game of others under respectable conditions.

To achieve the transformation from a bastion civilization to an intermediary civilization, the most important prerequisite is to maintain effective and balanced interactions with all competing civilization platforms. For this reason, conflict with the West and self-isolation are absolutely suicidal for the future of the " Russian world ".

Lowering your profile and hiding behind China is the best strategy. Henry St. John has a popular saying: If a big country intends to conquer a small country, then the small country is doomed to fail; but if two big countries intend to conquer a small country, then the small country still has a chance. This is how it works.

"What do you think of Trump's statement that he wants to disband NATO?"

Trump’s goal is just to stay on the information agenda, just like laundry detergent ads, which require people to think of a laundry logo the moment they see dirty laundry. The essence of electoral politics is advertising. If you leave the news, you will be forgotten tomorrow.

Whether he actually delivers on his promise is another question entirely. Generally speaking, it can be said that the views and propositions he expressed are difficult to realize. Because the role of the president cannot fulfill these claims. Even if he wins the election because of these ideas, he will not be able to fulfill them because those are not things that an "American president" can do. Rhetoric is not the final word in American politics.

"How does the IYP view the Clash of Civilizations and the Israeli War? Don't use anarchist views."

No one among progressives agrees with this concept. Huntington's "clash of civilizations" is extremely detrimental even to Western countries. The West is building its own civilization within the logic of interdependence, and the Islamic/Arab pole, with the tacit approval of the Han pole (China), is likely to turn against the West.

The dominance strategy of the West, especially the United States, is based on interdependence, which is why Arab sheikhs are strongly encouraged to buy British football clubs and invest in European economies. This policy has had some effect: the globalized UAE has remained largely neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, the Crescent Civilization received a strong impetus for consolidation on the basis of events in the Gaza Strip: as evidenced by the million-strong demonstrations in Istanbul and the tens of thousands of demonstrations in many European cities .

For Western countries, the conflict between Israel and Palestine is much more important than the so-called "New World Order": because there are more than 500 million Arabs in the world, many of whom live in Western countries. In the US, the EU and the UK, immigration shapes not only public opinion but also social unrest: this would cause significant damage to the ruling parties in these countries and is a clear political risk for the ruling classes.

Therefore, ending the conflict as soon as possible is beneficial to the United States and even the entire West. However, Israel cannot simply be told what to do: Israel has its own logic. In this regard, Washington and Jerusalem appear to have reached some kind of compromise.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine has the potential to escalate into a large-scale regional war, and the United States needs to do its best to prevent this from happening. That said, the stakes are likely to be short-term but very intense military action, and the willingness of Arab states and Iran to undertake it. The confrontational potential of the world system is increasing.

"Why are powerful world groups suddenly boycotting Israel's actions in Gaza?"

This is an interesting observation. Israel is actually trying to forcefully "solve" a problem that has long been festering. Like the Karabakh conflict, this conflict has elicited a much lukewarm response from the world, despite the large Armenian diaspora in most Western countries. Their protests elicited almost no sympathy or understanding.

The Karabakh conflict was "resolved" in the most insane way possible - by committing genocide against the Armenians. Genocide is often understood as physical extermination, but in fact it is a much broader concept - deportation or the creation of intolerable living conditions that force people to flee is also genocide . It's just in a milder form. But even so, it has not touched the international community at all.

So why are there such different reactions to Karabakh and to Gaza, even though the international community doesn’t care at all about the Armenians in Karabakh and the Palestinians in Gaza?

The answer lies on the surface. Karabakh is a marginal region. Azerbaijan is a powerful but third world country, so this incident will not have any special consequences. Transcaucasian interests will be rebalanced, mostly at the expense of Russia - how "good" is this?

And Israel is a Western country. If not in the first world, it's very close to it. It could seriously change not only the regional situation, but also the global situation - the US route from India to Europe passes through a fragile Israel, and Israel's strengthening through the settlement of the Gaza issue has given the green light to this project. As a result, Israel's position in the global space is very different.

Therefore, attempts by Israeli politicians to change the current impasse are certainly going against the interests of quite important forces. It’s not necessarily an issue with the Tripartite Economic Corridor project; it’s probably more complicated than that.

Biden recently said, “The world needs a new world order, and the United States will lead the way in establishing that new order.” No one objects to the first part. Everyone realized that the old order could no longer be maintained. But there are disagreements about what the new order will be and who will lead the movement to bring it about.

America won World War II. But it was won not from Germany, but from Britain . Britain's strength was greatly reduced after World War II, and it gave up world leadership and was no longer a world superpower.

It would be surprising if the English didn't want to replay the game again. But such problems cannot be solved head on. Such problems are solved not by one's own victory, but by defeating one's enemy. In fact, the reason the United States won World War II was that it left all the major combatants exhausted and debilitated, and no one dared to challenge America's hegemony.

The task of those who do not want the United States to create a "New World Order" is to set the United States up to fail on this path. Failure always means failure to achieve stated or implicit goals. If you achieve your goal, you win; if you don't, you lose, no matter what the reality is. For the superpowers, every game is a zero-sum game. It cannot fail to win, for this would mean inevitable losses for it. This is true for all superpowers.

So superpowers are actually fragile. In the above-mentioned Henry St. John's logic, one of the "great powers" is definitely the United States, and China and Russia both want the other to be "another great power" to a certain extent.

🏴