China’s move affected the Cambrian war, and the United States hurriedly dug into the wall!

Spread the love

Author: Rong ping source: official account: Rong Ping (id:rongping898) has been authorized to reprint

On the 12th, at the Shangri La dialogue held in Singapore, a reporter asked defense minister Wei Fenghe a question. The first thing he said was “two years ago, the Chinese Army changed the status quo on the China India border, causing the situation to escalate…” It directly blamed the Chinese side for the conflict in the kalwan River Valley that year.

Weifenghe immediately replied: two years ago, we captured so many people and received so many weapons and equipment from the Indian side, all on the Chinese side. The right and wrong are very clear, and the responsibility is not on the Chinese side!

The answer was domineering and crisp.

But when the reporter mentioned the old story two years ago, it was obviously not on the spur of the moment.

Just the day before that, when criticizing China for being “increasingly intimidating and aggressive”, U.S. Defense Secretary Austin also specifically mentioned the Sino Indian border territorial dispute, accused China of continuously strengthening the “shared border” in the west, and said that India “can become a stabilizing force in the region”.

If the time goes back three days, when Charles Flynn, commander of the US Pacific army, was visiting New Delhi, he was also deliberately inciting the anxiety of Indians, saying that China was “taking a gradual and sinister path”, that the level of activities on the Sino Indian border was “eye opening” and that the progress of infrastructure construction was “worrying”.

At that time, general Flynn also announced that in October, India and the United States would hold a joint military exercise in the Himalayas to play a “deterrent role” in the region. The code name of the exercise was “preparing for war”.

According to the interpretation of the Indian media, “preparing for war” is to deal with the “common enemy”. As for who this “common enemy” is, everyone knows it!


The question then arises. It is clear that the current Sino Indian border is very calm. Why should the United States suddenly stir up the cold rice on the border issue?

I think this is because two new situations have emerged that will affect the overall strategy of the United States.

First, the peace talks on the Sino Indian border issue.

At the end of May and the beginning of June, China and India just completed a round of border affairs consultation and agreed to hold the 16th round of military commander level talks as soon as possible, “to solve the remaining problems in the western section of the border on the principle of mutual equal security.”

This is a very important signal.

Because the confrontation between China and India is mostly in cold regions, nothing can be done in winter, and the coming summer is the season when the two armies are most likely to wipe their guns and go off.

At this time, the two countries announced in advance that they would control differences and solve problems, which undoubtedly made it clear: this year, we should exercise mutual restraint and take a step back. There will be no fighting at the border, and the excitement will be scattered!

This makes the United States hard to think about.

Not long ago, Biden just came to India and waved the flag. The “Quartet security dialogue” between the United States, Japan, India and Australia has just said that it is necessary to step up checks and balances against China. The voice has not been dropped yet. You, India, are still standing still?

Originally, India’s performance in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine was not good. Biden said India was “unreliable”, but Russia and Ukraine have little to do with India after all. The symbolic significance of India’s statement is greater than the practical significance, so Biden turned a blind eye to criticism.

However, China is different. The United States, Japan, India and Australia have a realistic basis for common interests in encircling China. At this time, India’s instability is like a table with one foot askew, which will shake the overall situation of Biden’s “India Pacific strategy”.

Therefore, the United States must interrupt the rhythm of the gradual stabilization of the Sino Indian border situation, instigate the confrontation between China and India, and pull India back to the “right track” of balancing China.

This is the direct reason why the United States suddenly hyped the Sino Indian border issue.

However, in the context of the gradual stabilization of the Sino Indian border, the “hard speculation” of the United States is somewhat abrupt, and the mind to provoke matters is on the face. Our Ministry of foreign affairs has criticized it as “pointing fingers, fanning flames, and provoking discord” and “disreputable”.

Moreover, modi is a well-known master who does not scatter Eagles without seeing rabbits. If a few words can incite him, he will not be an old immortal.


In addition, there is a deeper reason enough to alert the United States and even the whole west——

At the BRICs foreign ministers’ meeting not long ago, Chinese Foreign Minister Wangyi put forward the initiative of “expanding the membership of BRICs countries”, which was unanimously supported by all parties, and issued a joint statement after the meeting.

What does this “enlargement” mean?

First of all, we should know that the BRICs organization is not a loose five country dialogue mechanism. Over the years, with the prevalence of Western unilateralism and bullying, the BRICs has increasingly evolved into the “spokesperson” of the vast number of Asian, African and Latin American countries.

For these suppressed and neglected Asian, African and Latin American countries, why should some countries enjoy privileges and some countries do not even have the basic right to speak? Why should a big country brazenly engage in bullying and decide on the affairs of other countries? Why are the multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, the WTO and the International Monetary Fund “domesticated” by the west? I’m so angry!

As representatives of emerging markets, the BRICs countries have naturally come to the front stage of confrontation with Western rules.

In the previous joint statement of the BRICs countries, it has been declared without hesitation that “the global governance structure formed based on the previous international power pattern has gradually lost its legitimacy and effectiveness” and “the BRICs countries are an important force for the gradual change of the current mechanism, contributing to the realization of more representative and fairer global governance”.

To put it simply, the traditional set of rules and orders controlled by Europe and the United States is neither legal nor effective. Therefore, the BRICs countries should replace them and become a new power center to build a new world without privileges and equal participation.


We have a goal, but there are only five BRICs countries. Whether we fight alone or in groups, we can’t do the old hooligans in the West. What should we do?

The answer, of course, is “expansion”.

Moreover, this kind of “expansion” is not based on the western traditional practice that whoever has strong economic strength will be brought into the partnership. It is to bring in all important countries that want to resist, dare to resist and have the same ideas.

According to the Russian think tank, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, Argentina and Mexico are all possible candidates.

Think about it. These countries, plus the BRICs, are not the natural enemies of the “old aristocrats” who monopolize international power in Europe and the United States?

Therefore, China’s leading role in the BRICs “expansion” actually means that China should formally pull up the ranks of emerging market countries and developing countries, unite the “proletariat” all over the world, create an international version of “encircling cities by rural areas”, and change the current international pattern!


What really disturbs the west is that the developing countries represented by the BRICs not only have the will for revolution and mature organizational systems, but also have the power to innovate the existing order.

For example, in order to reshape its hegemonic system, the United States tried to build a “small court and high wall” and a “parallel system” of supply chain. The final result must be that some countries will be isolated from the global trading system, and some countries will be forced to choose sides.

But these countries do not want to see the United States smash their jobs.

At this time, China’s status as a big maker of the global supply chain is highlighted.

At the BRICs industry ministers’ meeting in May, China’s Ministry of industry and information technology announced that it would strengthen industrial chain cooperation with BRICs countries to form a “community of interests in industrial chain supply chain”.

This is obviously a move against the United States. Under the mechanism of this community of interests, if Indonesia, Vietnam and other industrial chain countries are “expanded”, the world’s most important factories will be included. Is it possible for the United States to build an exclusive international supply chain system?


For another example, western countries may have technological and industrial advantages, but what do developing countries have? Resources!

At this BRICs industry ministers’ meeting, the Russian Minister of industry and Trade said that in recent months, the world has seen how dependent countries without their own raw material base are. Russia is willing to provide BRICs countries with the opportunity to jointly develop energy processing industry to meet their needs without the participation of “unreliable partners”.

Besides Russia, the United States has also offended Iran and Venezuela, one of the oil producing countries. Against the background that the United States pulls away from the Middle East, the Gulf countries and the United States also have constant discord. If these countries “expand” their membership, the BRICs countries will have an absolute say in the energy field.

Look at the oil crisis of that year and the energy crisis of this year. How fragile will the western economic system be if it loses control of energy?


Therefore, in the long run, the BRICs’ expansion may have a greater impact on the existing international order than the Russian Ukrainian war.

Of course, the United States would not allow such a challenging force to emerge, so it found a breakthrough in India.

After all, among the BRICs countries, China and Russia cannot be won over. South Africa, Brazil, and Biden are not united. India is the only one with the strongest grassroots attribute. It can also be regarded as a quasi ally of the United States. At the same time, if you want to divide China and India, you also have a lot of room to operate. In any way, you can win over them.

But the only question is, will modi be obedient?


In the past, modi had a “good intention” behind all kinds of seemingly unreasonable actions, whether he raised issues on the border issue or banned Chinese software, that is, to realize his dream of “made in India”.

The logic is also very simple: by turning sides with China on security issues and cooperating with the United States to suppress China, India can attract capital from the United States and other Western “China phobic” countries, undertake industrial transfer, and deeply participate in the global industrial chain. Over time, India will sooner or later replace China as a manufacturing center in the global supply chain.

The United States has promised this. Modi has also boldly carried out a series of reform policies at home, waiting for the realization of “industrial substitution for China”.

However, over the past few years, the United States has been vigorously promoting the transfer of industrial chain, trying to rebuild a global supply chain isolated from China, but it has not been successful. First, the United States can not push it. Second, the transfer of industrial chain is impossible to bypass China.

For example, modi has always wanted Tesla to set up a factory in India, but Tesla is a global procurement model. Even if the factory is built in India, most of the parts have to be imported from China? Around China, what can you make in India?

Therefore, in the face of the absolute strength of China’s industrial chain, modi’s little nines are completely short-sighted. Looking at the world, it is true that only China can transfer what India needs. Apart from the distance, are these little brothers in Southeast Asia not enough for modi in recent years?

Especially in recent years, when the growth of many countries in the world is weak and China’s economy is relatively optimistic, China’s unshakable position in the global supply chain is more attractive.

Well, now that China has stated that it is willing to work with the BRICs countries to build a “community of supply chain interests” and promote information industrialization, isn’t this a new opportunity for modi?

Against this background, it is natural for the two countries to have more and more stable talks on the border issue, especially the recent breakthrough.


On the other hand, India and the west, especially the United States, are not necessarily United.

Modi’s positioning of India is “a great power with great influence”. The premise of a great power is not to be a vassal of other countries.

So unlike Japan and Australia, which are used to obedient allies, India is particularly sensitive to being dominated by the West.

For example, not long ago, Indian Foreign Minister sujiesheng was asked which side India would take if it had to choose between China and the United States. He said that India has 20% of the world’s population and is the world’s sixth largest economy, so India has the right to “sit in its own place” and “play with China, the United States and Russia”.

Then he taught the west a lesson, saying that the times have changed, new participants are coming, and the world cannot be as Europe centric as it used to be.

Is this attitude consistent with the BRICs’ anti hegemony philosophy?

But this attitude is different from the traditional Western allies, right?


And the attitude towards Russia.

When India abstained on the Russian issue and was criticized by European countries, the Indian representative to the United Nations immediately rejected it and said, “please don’t tell us what to do. We know how to do it!”

After that, India bought Russian oil, which was criticized by the West. India also responded decisively: “if India buys Russian oil to finance the war, doesn’t the EU buy Russian natural gas?”

Later, when the West said so much, modi simply came out and said: India needs to get the consent of others and be defined by others. India should base itself on dealing with the world.

What does that mean?

That is to say, I will make my own decisions, and none of you will try to climb on my head!

The Wall Street Journal commented very well on this, saying that India would “burn with anger” when it saw Americans and Europeans gather to formulate global rules.

Therefore, a San’s great power complex and strong national self-esteem also dominate India’s relations with the west to a large extent.


In this case, modi’s strategy is what he said, that is, to “play together” with China, Russia and the United States, which not only checks and balances each other, but also does not offend each other; They join the gang on several sides and don’t play chess for anyone.

When necessary, the United States can take advantage of its potential to send out a joint military exercise signal of “preparing for war” at the critical moment of negotiations with China to increase its own chips.

When it is not necessary, we can also refuse to cooperate with the strategic rhythm of the United States and promote border peace with China when Biden intensifies the “India Pacific” offensive.

Although this cunning, or smart strategy, is somewhat incompatible with the status of a “big country”, it can indeed benefit India on both sides and take a lot of advantages.

Therefore, it is not so easy for the United States to use India as a gun. It depends on whether India is secure!


At the end of the article, the author said:

Of course, the warming of the Sino Indian border issue is only a gradual easing, and does not represent a fundamental improvement in Sino Indian relations.

As a matter of fact, there are border issues, Pakistan issues, public hatred and other issues. It is difficult for China India relations to get better.

But what we want is not a “pro China” India, but an India that is “angry” with the West’s control of global power.

At the BRICs foreign ministers’ meeting, Chinese leaders pointed out that the BRICs countries should strengthen cooperation, oppose hegemonism and power politics, and resist cold war thinking and group confrontation.

Hegemonism and power politics, cold war thinking and group confrontation are clear targets. It can also be seen from here that China’s positioning of its “great power” identity is to lead the transformation of the global order, which is different from India’s still seeking recognition of its “great power” identity.

In this sense, China is a big conspirator. No matter whether India will jump around repeatedly or whether there will be any messy trend in its cooperation with India, it should win over or not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *