Russia has chosen a side in the new "cold war" with the United States

12

China and Russia have made an appeal to all states on the topic of international relations, the essence of which is that it is necessary to resist hegemonism. For the first time, the US and its European allies are named as a minority:

Some forces, representing a minority on the world stage, continue to advocate unilateral approaches to solving international problems and resort to force policy, practice interference in the internal affairs of other states, causing damage to their legitimate rights and interests, provoke contradictions, disagreements and confrontation, hinder the development and progress of mankind, which causes rejection by the international community.

True, the text does not directly say anywhere who the document is aimed at and what its essence is. If you read the statement without knowing the international context, then there are only general words for everything good against everything bad. Although in fact it can be said that this statement completed the alignment of the main forces on the world stage.



International context


After the collapse of the USSR, the Americans felt like winners, the only superpower that has the right to impose its will on the whole world. Europe meekly followed in the wake of the United States, Russia struggled with devastation, China hid, accumulating strength. America's hegemony was undivided. In order to maintain its military-strategic dominance and reap the benefits of world domination, the United States not only deployed about a thousand military bases around the planet, but also began to unleash wars on far-fetched pretexts in order to overthrow objectionable governments and gain free access to the resources of weak countries. The United States has finally become a global empire.

However, the "golden age" of America could not last long. Europe began to kick, Turkey raised its head, Russia increasingly demanded respect, and China moved from the principle of “artfully keeping a low profile” (Deng Xiaoping) to the policy of “using important strategic chances for China” (Xi Jinping). America reacted extremely painfully to the growth of independence and competitiveness of other countries, inspiring color revolutions wherever it could, imposing sanctions, waging trade wars and getting into all regional conflicts. The Hegemon angrily pounded his fist on the table, but no one was impressed anymore.

In these conditions of the gradual loss of hegemony, the US military-political leadership has relied on the fight against China as the most dangerous rival and a country that preaches a socio-political difference from Western democracies.economic model. The United States decided to play the communist threat card for the second time in a row in order to rally the Western countries, this time against China. In the summer of 2020, US Secretary of State Pompeo delivered a pompous speech that essentially declared a new Cold War on China on behalf of the entire West. However, the most influential European allies were in no hurry to support their patron, the unity and cohesion of the pro-American NATO military alliance was under threat. The United States even had to hastily put together an additional military bloc from the Anglo-Saxon countries - AUKUS - against China, to NATO and QUAD.

The general idea of ​​the US anti-Chinese strategy is to encircle and isolate the enemy, and this is impossible without enticing or at least inclining Russia to neutrality. Russia is one of the key areas of attack on China. But instead of giving up old contradictions and looking for approaches to Russia, the US, as usual, overestimated its strength and slid into cowboy tactics of intimidation. They launched a campaign of maximum pressure on Russia in all spheres, from organizing a White Maidan in Belarus and provoking unrest within Russia (the “poisoning” of Navalny) to numerous sanctions and attempts to disrupt major projects (Nord Stream 2, foreign construction projects of Rosatom). The apotheosis of this policy was the military aggravation on the borders of the LDNR.

It is not entirely correct to say that the United States unleashed a cold war against Russia, the cold war still involves the struggle of various social systems and has a clear ideological color. Modern Russia and the United States have economic and political systems that are identical in nature, and both have democratic regimes, and liberal forces are in power. Putin himself always clearly and clearly declares that he is a liberal who sees no prospects for a return to socialism. Therefore, the cold war is going on between the United States and China, in which the communist regime. And Russia, as an independent state, has to reckon with this reality.

In response to the aggressive actions of Washington, the Kremlin, firstly, energetically stopped a number of threats, showing the strength of its influence (assistance to Lukashenka, the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh war, the CSTO mission in Kazakhstan), and secondly, it sharply increased pressure on the liberal “fifth column” inside the country (the ban on a number of NGOs, the recognition of Navalniks as extremists, the closure of Memorial) and, thirdly, made it clear that the strategic partnership with China is valued above the favor of the West.

Moreover, the US leadership, realizing the futility of an immediate regime change in Russia, has been in the negotiation process with the Kremlin all this time, apparently offering some options like lifting sanctions for neutrality against China.

The Russian leadership decided to act in accordance with the logic of American policy and, on an equal footing, put forward a proposal to sign an agreement with the US and NATO on security guarantees. The essence of this proposal was that Eastern Europe should leave the sphere of influence of the United States, and NATO would roll back to the "borders" of 1997. Russia did not openly and directly talk about what it offers in return, so the draft agreement looked like an ultimatum to the outside world. However, in general, there were no grounds for ultimatum demands to leave Eastern Europe, so it is reasonable to assume that in the part of the negotiations hidden from the public, some options for the role and place of Russia in the balance of power during the Cold War were still voiced.

The United States, as is known, was not satisfied with Russia's proposal on security guarantees, and negotiations quickly reached a deadlock. The bullet point in this attempt to reach an agreement was the joint statement by Xi Jinping and Putin in Beijing. Russia has made it clear to the whole world and the United States that it is joining the camp of China in the Cold War.

Pros and Cons of a Pro-Chinese Position


In the joint statement of Russia and China, one can formally observe a clear bias towards the Chinese side. Russia supported China on six points:

1) The Russian side welcomes the joint work of China and WHO to identify the source of the new coronavirus infection and supports the joint report prepared by China-WHO on this issue.

2) The Russian side supports the successful hosting by the Chinese side of the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games in Beijing in 2022.

3) The Russian side reaffirms its adherence to the "one China" principle, confirms that Taiwan is an integral part of China, and opposes the independence of Taiwan in any form.

4) The Russian Side notes the positive significance of the Chinese Side's concept of building a "community with a common destiny for mankind" to strengthen the solidarity of the world community and unite efforts in responding to common challenges.

5) The Russian side will provide full support to the Chinese side as the chairman of the association in 2022, will provide assistance in the fruitful holding of the XIV BRICS summit.

6) The Russian Party confirms its readiness to continue work on the Global Development Initiative put forward by the Chinese Party.

China supported Russia only on two points:

1) The Chinese side treats with understanding and supports the proposals put forward by the Russian Federation on the formation of long-term legally binding security guarantees in Europe.

2) The Chinese Side notes the positive significance of the efforts of the Russian Side to form a fair multipolar system of international relations.

In addition, the text shows that it was prepared by the Chinese, using ideological expressions characteristic of the CCP. Of course, there are no concessions in content, just symbolism.

The question of whether China is striving for world hegemony and, therefore, whether Russia should be afraid of falling under the influence of the Celestial Empire remains debatable in modern literature.

There are three forces in the world that, in terms of their military and economic potential, are capable of global dominance. These are, in fact, the USA, Europe and China. But to be able does not mean to achieve it and does not mean to strive for it. Europe, for example, has no problems with desire, but in order to claim global leadership, it is necessary to get rid of US influence, form its own European military-political bloc and transform the EU. And this is not so easy in the current conditions.

The official position of the CCP on the issue of global leadership, hegemony and domination has not changed since the era of Mao Zedong, who argued that China would never dictate to other countries how to live, and did not intend to participate in military blocs. Xi Jinping expressed his foreign policy doctrine with the whole theory of "the common destiny of mankind", which is actively promoted in China not only at the level of party studies, but also in the mass media. Its brief content can be expressed in three principles: equality, mutually beneficial cooperation and rejection of any hegemony. The Chinese media constantly emphasizes that "unlike Western countries, which often use force through military intervention and supposedly protect foreign interests, China has long adhered to the principle of non-interference in the internal politics of a foreign country and peaceful diplomacy."

In general, China's behavior on the world stage is consistent with the position of its ruling party. Therefore, the “main disadvantage” of friendship with China can still be considered not so dangerous.

The advantage of the pro-Chinese position can, of course, be considered the huge potential for the growth of economic cooperation between our countries in literally all areas, which is able to fully compensate for Western sanctions and threatening financial and other embargoes. However, it is important to understand here that Chinese capital (private and state) will not work at a loss, China provides assistance only to poor countries.

But the most important thing is that having a huge, powerful friend at your side is much better than an enemy, and it is not possible to maintain neutrality in our position and in the conditions of the inevitable aggravation of the Cold War.
12 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    8 February 2022 09: 12
    Russia has chosen a side for a long time.
    But China did not recognize Crimea. And the rest is good support
  2. +3
    8 February 2022 10: 17
    Russia has not a pro-Chinese position, but a pro-Russian one. Since China is our neighbor and, unlike the United States, we have a huge land border with China, and the fact that the United States puts pressure on both Russia and China determines the direction of our natural relations with China. I think in the current circumstances related to the behavior of the owners of the United States in the last century in relation to the USSR and Russia, our choice is natural. You have to be a moron to take sides. Especially the US side.
    1. -4
      8 February 2022 15: 34
      Quote: Rinat
      I think in the current circumstances related to the behavior of the owners of the United States in the last century in relation to the USSR and Russia, our choice is natural.

      What behavior are you talking about? Alliance in two world wars? Help for the starving in Russia? Industrialization?
      Or are you talking about the Cold War?
      1. -2
        8 February 2022 16: 20
        Quote: Oleg Rambover
        What behavior are you talking about?

        Oleg, it is quite clear that we are talking about today's aggressive behavior of the United States. And they blame not those who once ruled the United States, but today's actual owners of this country.
      2. +1
        9 February 2022 20: 55
        Quote: Oleg Rambover
        What behavior are you talking about?

        I mean the intervention during the years of the civil war, the spokes in the wheels of our development from the 20s of the 20th century to the present day. Their alliance with the USSR in World War II was situational for them, where they solved their problems. After the 2th year of the cold war until the 45st. After the 91st, a temporary relaxation of pressure, expressed in the form of handouts. This was due to our catastrophic weakening. After the 91s, with our gradual strengthening by the United States, there is a gradual increase in pressure. After 2000, the multiple strengthening of sanctions to the present day.
        For our industrialization, we must thank not the United States as a state, but its individual citizens, whom we paid in full.
        Therefore, I believe that the United States, in the historical period under consideration, is our enemy.
  3. dpu
    +2
    8 February 2022 10: 40
    the cold war still involves the struggle of various social systems, has a clear ideological coloring ...

    - this is complete nonsense. The United States, like frostbitten impudent Saxons, has always waged war against Russia. Only earlier it was served under the SAUCE of the struggle of the "civilized democratic world against the bloody Bolshevik Mordor of orcs from the east." We must not forget that the basis of any "democratic world" at all times is slavery in one form or another. For the United States, now everyone who eats their green candy wrappers is a slave. And they defame everyone who is against this system. Russia for them is just an undeveloped territory, which the main bandit of the planet, Elizabeth the First, has also laid eyes on. The impudent Saxons are very disappointed that Russia has to pay for the resources, but they really want freebies.
  4. -3
    8 February 2022 10: 52
    The official position of the CCP on the issue of global leadership, hegemony and dominance has not changed since the era of Mao Zedong, who argued that China would never dictate to other countries how to live, and did not intend to participate in military blocs.

    times are changing very quickly and not at all in favor of the CCP. Previously, there were two poles and there was a balance, but remembering what troubles the hegemon has done in 30 years after the collapse of one of the poles makes your hair stand on end.

    There are three forces in the world that, in terms of their military and economic potential, are capable of global dominance. These are, in fact, the USA, Europe and China.

    Europe? What kind of military potential does Europe have? Which is only possible, and then if they break with NATO, which means theoretically. Yes, and with the economy now, not everything is going smoothly in this Europe and the pandemic has only shaken it along with Russophobia and an attempt to switch to greenery, trying jump off Russian gas.
  5. -2
    8 February 2022 11: 02
    Russia did not openly and directly talk about what it offers in return, so the draft agreement looked like an ultimatum to the outside world.

    I do not think. It would be ridiculous to make our lives dependent on the papers signed with the Americans (Putin spoke about this more than once), and to lose a potential friend "for life."
    The "Community of a Common Destiny", as an implied goal, is inherent in our Russian approach to life, is the unspoken ideological basis of our politics at all times. Its essence is faith in the strength and fundamental nature of truth and justice - equal for all.
  6. +1
    8 February 2022 11: 14
    As Secretary of State Clinton said, the zone of interests of the USA is the whole world.
    The growth of independence means a decrease in dependence, prevents plunder and reduces the income of transnational monopolies, primarily those of the United States and the British affiliated with them.
    At the forefront of the struggle for independence were the largest state formations in the world - China and the Russian Federation, and therefore became the main target of the attack for the USA, controlled by the EU and NATO.

    The Cold War presupposes a state of “armed peace” across the entire spectrum of relations and is associated with the interests of the ruling class – the protection of one’s own and the seizure of foreign productive forces (territories and resources, manpower and tools, goods and technologies), the instrument for achieving which is the state.

    As V.I. Lenin said, the type of social formation is determined not by the political regime and ideology, but by its foundation - the economy, the central element of which is property relations.
    This is the fundamental difference between the Russian Federation of the era of V.V. Putin and the imperialist "West" and similarity with the PRC, which is based on the fundamental principles of the Leninist New Economic Policy - the subordination of big capital to the interests of the State and the Population through a system of state regulation, taxation, lending, pricing , social and cultural life, etc., and the difference from the PRC in the absence of a political party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, which makes the position of the Russian Federation precarious due to the natural desire of big capital to get out of state control and become Above it, as in the whole “civilized” world and the whole The “civilized” world helps him in this.

    The slogan put forward by the People's Republic of China to build a society with a common destiny for mankind contradicts the theory of Marxism and the law of uneven development, and therefore is an ideological profanation.

    Understanding and Real support are two big differences.
    All support for the Russian Federation comes down to the political and economic interests of the PRC in matters of Taiwan, the need for raw materials, a multipolar world and a reduction in US dictates - That's it!
    There is no question of recognizing the independence of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea, let alone some legally formalized military-political union with the Russian Federation.
    Any union of some state formations leaves out others and thereby draws a dividing line between “us” and “them”, limits trade and economic ties, and this is contrary to the interests of the PRC.
    Therefore, the PRC cooperates with everyone, regardless of the form of government and political regime, which not only does not threaten the position of the ruling classes of state formations, but also enriches them, bringing them economic dividends from cooperation with the PRC.
    Economic relations predetermine competition, and competition, in one form or another, inevitably interferes in the internal politics of other state entities.
    1. -2
      8 February 2022 13: 50
      The slogan put forward by the People's Republic of China to build a society with a common destiny for mankind contradicts the theory of Marxism and the law of uneven development, and therefore is an ideological profanation.

      Life is more complicated than any scientific theories of a person about it, therefore it is dangerous to limit oneself to the "blinders" of classical logical constructions, especially at the turn of a change of eras.
      The Chinese comrades are not fools, do not be ignorant. They just consciously go ahead of theory where necessary. Do not shake over the academic theoretical purity of solutions.
      If on the fingers - the fate of man and society are connected with the world not through the Marxist-Leninist theory
  7. +3
    8 February 2022 11: 24
    recognition of Crimea by China is impossible without big consequences for China. And the United States did not give us a choice, never, not once since 1945. The fact that Russia has chosen the US opposition is essentially a non-alternative position. But Europe is not yet lost. Russia-Europe rapprochement seems to be the most desirable option. And with China and the US just good relations.
  8. 0
    10 February 2022 20: 15
    And what is wrong with the support of Chinese initiatives then? Russia will support the PRC in a report for the WHO about the beginning of the pandemic? So it seems that the States have not withdrawn their accusations against China against the PRC even under Trump. Russia supports the idea of ​​one China? So there is nothing wrong with that, the PRC did not recognize Crimea as Russian territory, we are neither cold nor hot from this. Support for the Beijing Olympics? So the US boycott is not official. So if you figure it out, there is no tilt towards China