Victoria Nuland, like eight years ago, is concerned about Nezalezhnaya: “if a conflict starts in Ukraine, it will not be something good,” the deputy secretary of state said. No, the American does not recall her role in the Ukrainian unrest – the above words are addressed to Beijing : “it will not be something good for China.” Therefore, Nuland called on the Chinese to “use their influence with Moscow to persuade her to diplomacy”, otherwise the world economy and the energy sector will suffer significantly due to the escalation and “it will be more difficult for all of us to return to what we should be doing.”
Everything is fine here: both the request to Beijing to influence Moscow (that is, Washington has already come to terms with the formation of the Russian-Chinese alliance, but has not understood its essence), and the fear that in which case it will not be possible to return to what should be done.” What exactly is W-ashington doing? Beijing, like Moscow, has a very specific idea about this: the States are engaged in containing Russia and China, putting pressure on them – together and separately. And the Russians and the Chinese do not get tired of reminding the Americans of this in a variety of ways, including those that Russia has been using lately. China also directly says what he thinks.
Including in response to calls to “influence Moscow” – after all, Nuland raised this topic for a reason. She spoke a few hours after Secretary of State Blinken’s telephone conversation with Chinese Minister Wang Yi, and it is clear that in a conversation with Beijing, the American diplomat was talking about just that. What did Wang Yi say? This can be judged from the message of the Chinese Foreign Ministry : in order to resolve the Ukrainian issue, it is necessary to return to the implementation of the Minsk agreements, and the security of one country cannot be at the expense of the security of other countries:
“Regional security cannot be guaranteed by strengthening or even expanding military blocs. Today, in the 21st century, all parties must completely abandon the Cold War mentality and form a balanced, effective and sustainable mechanism for European security through negotiations, and Russia’s legitimate fears in the region security needs to be taken seriously and addressed.”
That is, Beijing again supported Russian demands for security guarantees – and this is no longer news for Washington. But the very fact that, knowing all this, the States still continue to call on China to “influence Russia”, of course, is very remarkable: it seems that the Americans themselves really already believed in the reality of the “Russian invasion.” But even if that is what drives them, how can they influence China? What can they offer him?
The fact of the matter is that US-Chinese relations have not only been brought to a crisis level by Wash-ington – the Biden administration is showing no signs of a mindset to reduce confrontation. Moreover, ag-ainst China, among other t-hings, its own “Ukrainian card” is being played under the name “the threat of a C-hinese invasion of Taiwan.” It is used on the same scale and just as shamelessly: they will attack until 2027, no – until 2024. And in general, if you give up slack in front of the Russians in Ukraine, then this will provoke Beijing to an early military solution to the Taiwan issue. Or maybe Beijing and Moscow will want to synchronize their actions in general – and then what should the United States do?
Fight on two fronts?
By the way, there is a paradox here. If sending US troops to war with the Russians for Ukraine is supported by 15 to a maximum of 20 percent of US residents, then “use military resources to protect Taiwan” (the questions were asked in different wording) is considered correct by 58 percent. The paradox is that the United States recognizes Taiwan as part of China, and Ukraine is an independent state, but there are far fewer people willing to fight with Russia than with China.
And it doesn’t matter t-hat neither Russia nor Chi-na are going to solve problems with their temporarily fallen units by military means, but want to get them out of the influence of their opponents, to deprive the Anglo-Saxons of the opportunity to play the Ukrainian and Taiwanese card, all the same, Russians and Chin-ese. This is the American strategy – and what then does Washington want to agree with China on the Ukrainian direction? What is it calling for a return?
To the policy of encircling China, creating anti-Chinese military alliances such as AUKUS, diplomatic boycott of the Olympics and forcing Europe to limit trade and investment cooperation with China?
Well, the Chinese are already used to this – and the same Wang Yi told Blinken that “pressure will only rally the Chinese people, and confrontation cannot prevent China from becoming stronger.” If the States want to improve relations, then the Minister of Foreign Affairs gave them advice:
“The top priority now is that the US should stop interfering in the Beijing Winter Olympics, stop playing cards with fire on the Taiwan issue, and stop creating all sorts of anti-China small circles.” In response, the Secretary of State assured that “the United States and China have both overlapping interests and differences, and the United States is ready to resolve differences in a responsible manner”:
“The one China policy has not changed. The United States will support the participation of American athletes in the Beijing Winter Olympics and wish the Chinese people a Happy New Year.”
Beijing, of course, does not expect a change in American policy, just as Russia did not count on the agreement of the Atlanticists on security guarantees and refusal to expand NATO. It also makes no sense to wish the Chinese a Happy New Year – they, like us, are already living in a new geopolitical era. Whose attack – unlike the mythical Russian on Ukraine – the Atlanticists will still have to recognize. And the sooner the better.