On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 4:39:07 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
"An unprecedented sanctions regime was intended to punish Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and to prevent it from executing that invasion. It has not only failed to accomplish that goal; it also has had the unintended consequence of pushing Russia
closer to China. Sealing Russia off from western markets forced Russia to look east to China, India, the Eurasian community, and a global community of sanctioned nations. So the sanctions regime has in fact hastened the advent of multipolarity, as well
as strengthened China’s position abroad.
The American insistence on a world of blocs in which countries must choose sides—and face consequences if they do not align with the U.S. and sanction Russia—has not resonated well in most of the world. Large countries such as India, Brazil, and
South Africa have refused to sanction Russia, preferring to align with China and its multipolar vision. India has maintained its regional concerns against China but has refused to join the American global rivalry with China; it has been a U.S. partner
but has maintained its very close partnership with Russia. India has insisted on abstaining in U.N. votes and refused to sanction Russia; in fact, it has increased its trade with Russia.
While large countries like India maintain preferences for China’s multipolar world over America’s unipolar world, smaller countries have also reasserted their right to neutrality and rejected the U.S. unipolar vision. They have refused to join
sanctions or to take sides, asserting a right to choose their own national interests. Like India, Saudi Arabia has said that “we do not believe in polarization or in choosing between sides.”
It is hard for Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa to hear the Manichean message of good and evil and democracy versus autocracy. They have memories, and the U.S. criticism of Russia’s violation of state sovereignty and of territorial borders
smells of hypocrisy. They remember their democracies being replaced by autocracies in U.S.-backed coups. They too tend more toward China’s message of multipolarity. They want to benefit from the Belt and Road Initiative and from China’s economic
growth without having to pick a side or face consequences. They too listen with greater interest to China’s investment proposals that do not require ideological alignment or economic or political structural adjustments.
American attempts to coerce countries into opposing and sanctioning Russia have moved them instead into a position of reasserting nonalignment and shaping a world that resonates with China’s multipolar worldview and strengthens China’s economic and
diplomatic role in that multipolar world.
While the world has been focused on the U.S. as the power that will decide whether they will block or encourage negotiations to end the war, an unforeseen alternative has emerged. What if China played the role of superpower broker, and Ukraine and
Russia signed an agreement, bypassing U.S. involvement?
...
If China becomes more involved in the war in Ukraine, either by asserting itself as a diplomatic power or by aiding Russia with nonlethal aid or, for that matter, weapons, the U.S., which is already insisting on shrinking economic cooperation with
China, could demand more from its European partners.
The difficulty of persuading Germany to uncouple from China, especially when it has already been cut off from Russia, was illustrated by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s November trip to Beijing. Scholz defied the U.S. and NATO by becoming the first
G7 leader to go to Beijing to meet with President Xi Jinping, who has supported Putin throughout the war. Scholz was accompanied on his trip by top German business leaders, including the CEOs of Volkswagen, BMW, BASF, Bayer and Deutsche Bank.
China is Germany’s most important trading partner. Since the Russian invasion of China, Germany’s has increased its investments in and economic dependence on China. It will be more difficult to pressure Germany to cut its Chinese economic ties than
its Russian ones. It is asking a lot of Germany to tell it to cut ties with both.
A growing role for China in the current conflict could force a scenario in which the unipolar world is challenged by asking Germany and Europe to side with the U.S. and banish China. There is the hazardous potential of a decision that could divide the
U.S.-led unipolar world and strengthen a new multipolar reality."
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/racing-to-multipolarity/
Another article from www.theamericanconservative.com on the same theme. This one
is subtitled "Our posture on the international stage communicates domestic fragility"
taking aim at US internal weakness. American domestic fragility is obvious to outside
observers, now and in the future.
"Andriy Yermak, head of Zelensky’s office, additionally reaffirmed Ukraine’s desire to see
China—the country’s largest trading partner—play a role in international peace talks. “We
believe that China is one of the most potent global leaders,” stated Yermak at an event
hosted by the Brigham Chatham House think tank last Tuesday. “It should play a more
noticeable role in bringing this war to an end, and in building up a new global security
system.” Yermak also stated that Kiev expects Beijing to be “one of the guarantors within
the framework of the [international] security system.”
Yermak’s analysis is not wrong. The relative influence of China in that system will only
continue to expand due to the failure of transatlantic policy.
...
Even for those of us who prefer a return to a limited and measured foreign policy as
envisioned by the nation’s Founders, it is inevitable that U.S. security and economic
interests in the upcoming decades will be defined by U.S.-China competition. American
obstinacy ensures that given the choice, other countries will increasingly choose to cozy
up to the latter while questioning their relations with yesterday’s heavyweight champ."
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/weak-interventionism/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)