How to deal with NATO’s eastward expansion to China’s doorstep?

Spread the love

Source: jingsiyouwo666 (id:jingsiyouwo666)

Turkey is in the news again.

On June 28 local time, Turkey withdrew the resolution rejecting Sweden and Finland to join NATO.

This means that Turkey opposed Sweden and Finland to join NATO before, so it submitted a resolution to NATO to express this meaning. Now it has withdrawn this meaning, that is, it now agrees that Sweden and Finland join NATO.

Over the past month or so, Turkey has always been one of my key subjects, and I have written two special articles.

The first issue is “the biggest bad news in Russia”

? During this period, I focused on Turkey’s opposition to Sweden and Finland joining NATO. At that time, I analyzed the matter as follows:

“If Turkey really opposes to the end, it will be impossible because the NATO rules are unanimous. As long as one country does not agree, it will not be possible.

“But there is no doubt that in such a special period, it is a great thing for the United States for Sweden and Finland to join NATO. If Turkey has to carry it to the end, the United States will certainly kill Turkey, so Turkey can’t carry it under normal circumstances. What’s more, Turkey’s relationship with Russia is very delicate, and it is not an iron friend.

“Therefore, it is normal to expect that Turkey’s opposition is actually intended to rip off a piece of bamboo. Because Sweden and Finland shield and harbor suspects of the” Gulen movement “that assassinated Turkish President Recep Erdogan on July 15, 2016, and members of the Kurdistan Workers’ party, a terrorist that Turkey considers a secessionist.

“Since Turkey wants to take this opportunity to rip off NATO, Sweden and Finland, the matter will be solved by giving him some sweets.”

To put it simply, I don’t think Turkey will stick to it. When you get some benefit, you will turn.

After my article was published, a friend kindly reminded me backstage that Turkey was very tough at that time. The implication is that Turkey is likely to die hard in the end, and eventually spoil the fact that Sweden and Finland join NATO.

Although I don’t agree with these friends’ analysis, I also know that black swans always appear in international affairs, so I shouldn’t be too full of words.

So on June 19, I stopped making conclusions about the matter and said it was possible. As I said:

“On the optimistic side, if Turkey really messed up the affair, its effect would be equivalent to that of Russia. Because Russia fought this battle to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, and Turkey’s veto prevented Finland and Sweden from joining NATO. Whether Ukraine joins NATO or Finland and Sweden join NATO, it poses a major threat to Russia’s national security situation Threat.

“To be pessimistic, if Sweden, the United States and other countries agreed to Turkey’s request, Turkey would finally give in and not carry it to the end, and Finland and Sweden would finally join NATO. In this process, Turkey also gave Russia some breathing space.

“More importantly, this event has great symbolic significance. If Russia beats Ukraine because Ukraine wants to join NATO, but the war is not over, Finland and Sweden join NATO. This is a great irony to Russia.”

“At such a critical moment, Turkey has emerged. It may be yellow to let Finland and Sweden join NATO. At least, the United States and other NATO countries want to use Finland and Sweden to join NATO to humiliate Russia.”

According to the latest news on June 28, Turkey’s support for Russia this time is only temporary. In short, it has a high probability that it will not die hard. In terms of possibility, it is not ruled out that there will be repetition in the later stage. But in terms of probability, Turkey will probably give Sweden and Finland a leg up after it has achieved its goal to a certain extent.

The reason why I prefer Turkey not to die hard on May 17 is that when I look at international relations, I adhere to the view that the choice of any country in international struggle ultimately depends on its own national interests. On the surface, those principles are just tools to serve the national interests. Objectively speaking, the advantages and disadvantages of other countries are secondary. No country will burn its bridges for another country unless it involves its own fundamental interests. In the final analysis, it is for yourself.

From the perspective of national interests, since Sweden and Finland let out the wind to join NATO on May 12, Turkey has always expressed opposition. In the final analysis, it is not to oppose Sweden and Finland to join NATO, but to seize the opportunity to seek benefits for its own country. There are two benefits:

First, Sweden and Finland, especially Sweden, have always taken sides with Turkey’s national separatist Kurdistan Workers’ party. They provide shelter, funds and public opinion support for relevant personnel of the Kurdistan Workers’ party, and therefore impose an arms embargo on Turkey. In the past 10 years, Turkey has been making representations to these two countries on this matter, but without any effect.

Now, the two countries have something to do with Turkey. Naturally, Turkey should seize the opportunity to make an effort.

Second, on july15,2016, the United States secretly supported Turkish soldiers to launch a coup to kill Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Russian President Vladimir Putin promptly told Erdogan confidential information, so that Erdogan escaped, saved his life, and continued to be in power. Since then, Turkey’s relations with the United States have worsened and its relations with Russia have improved. Turkey also purchased S400 missile air defense system from Russia. Subsequently, the United States imposed sanctions on Turkey and cancelled Turkey’s cooperation intention to purchase F35 fighters from the United States. Moreover, Turkey asked the United States to hand over Gulen, the mastermind who hid in the United States and conducted remote command during the 2016 coup and almost killed Erdogan, but the United States ignored Turkey.

Now, Sweden and Finland want to join NATO. On the surface, it is the business of Sweden and Finland, but in essence it is the business of the United States, because this is an important step for the United States to promote the eastward expansion of NATO, expand the scope of American influence, squeeze Russia’s strategic space, and humiliate Russia at the moment. Well, Turkey naturally wants to take the opportunity to rip off the United States.

Of course, Turkey can get such an opportunity because, according to NATO rules, Sweden and Finland must always agree to join NATO. That is to say, if Turkey does not agree, this will not work, and the Swedish and Finnish affairs will become yellow, that is, the American affairs will become yellow.

From this perspective, I thought at that time that the final result of this matter depends on how much benefit Turkey can get from the United States, Sweden and Finland, and how much pressure it will bear if it falls out.

At the same time, we can reasonably infer that Russia will try its best to win over Turkey, so Russia will naturally give Turkey some benefits and pressure.

In this way, for Turkey, we must compare the benefits and pressures given by both sides, and make a good account. We can do whatever we get.

In this way, it is the United States, Sweden, Finland, and Russia who have the strength to give Turkey more benefits or pressure, and Turkey will go with who. This is exactly the same as when we shop around.

Therefore, the end result of the decision is that the United States, Sweden, Finland and Russia are more powerful.

We can infer that if Russia is stronger, Turkey is likely to die hard this time and completely spoil the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO.

However, we all know that the strength of Russia is certainly not as strong as that of the United States, Sweden and Finland. Therefore, from the very beginning, I thought that Turkey would probably not die hard.

The latest situation on June 28 confirmed my judgment.

Today, I especially want to make this assumption with my friends:

If Russia’s political, military and economic strength is strong enough, Turkey will go to the end this time and completely spoil the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO, that is, it has successfully prevented Sweden and Finland from joining NATO. What does it mean?

Back to the origin of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Russia has waged such a big battle against Ukraine this time, just to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.

Therefore, as long as Russia is strong enough to deal with a turkey, Sweden and Finland can be prevented from joining NATO.

In other words, the effect of using comprehensive strength to win a turkey is the same as that of Russia.

This shows how effective the country’s comprehensive strength is.

On the contrary, why does Russia have to fight this war? Nothing more than that, the matter had to be solved, but there was no other way, so we had to make such a bad decision and meet each other.

We can also assume that if Russia can finish any of the 30 NATO countries in advance (of course, this must be done completely, not as fast as Turkey). Then there is no need for Russia to fight Ukraine.

Therefore, I have always believed that Russia is a fighting nation, and I also appreciate Russia’s courage to take action. However, I never have to say much about Russia’s fighting spirit.

Since 2014, Russia has been forced to use military means to solve the Ukrainian issue. In essence, there is no retreat and no other way. The root lies in the lack of comprehensive strength of the country.

However, even if we win a war, we will still have a great legacy.

My basic understanding of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is as follows:

Militarily, Russia’s initial plan to use blitzkrieg to make Ukraine surrender failed to materialize, so Blitzkrieg became a protracted war.

Economically, the plan of the United States to use blitzkrieg to defeat Russia at the initial stage has not been realized. Biden’s statement of “turning the ruble into rubble” has gone up in smoke and become a joke. At present, the Russian currency ruble has become the strongest major currency in the world since this year. By June 20, the exchange rate of the ruble against the US dollar had reached a seven-year high since June 24, 2015.

However, we must not deny the long-term negative impact of the war on Russia, because the comprehensive Western sanctions will seriously affect the long-term development of the Russian economy. Although Russia has food, oil and natural gas, it has no problem eating and the basic livelihood of its people. But we still need a lot of things if we want the people to live a good life. Take science and technology for example. The West has imposed a comprehensive science and technology blockade on the United States, while Russia, unlike China, already has a relatively good science and technology foundation, so this negative impact will be long-term and comprehensive. Of course, Russia has a relatively better choice, that is, to cooperate with China in an all-round, thorough and unreserved manner.

In short, I believe that Russia has no good way to fight this war. But after all, there is no way. In the final analysis, war is the worst policy.

Just as I quoted the sentence in Sun Tzu’s art of war in my article on June 17: “when the upper forces attack the enemy, the second is to attack the enemy. When the lower forces attack the enemy, the last is to attack the city.”

To attack Ukraine is to “attack the city”. In the eyes of the ancient Chinese, it is the “worst” policy.

Another expression of this view in Sun Tzu’s art of war is: “winning every battle is not a good thing; subduing the soldiers without fighting is also a good thing.” In other words, every time we fight, we can win. We are not the most powerful. The most powerful person wins without fighting.

If you don’t fight, you will win. It’s not wishful thinking, fantasy, or spiritual victory.

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is essentially a conflict between the United States and Russia, as the United States squeezes Russia’s security space. However, up to now, the United States has not sent a single soldier. Russia fought twice in 2014 and this year. From the perspective of the United States, the United States “won if it did not fight”. The fundamental reason is that the comprehensive strength of the United States is strong.

The direct reason why Russia sent troops to Crimea in Ukraine in 2014 was that the United States used the method of color revolution to overthrow the pro Russian President Yanukovych. In 2015, then President Barack Obama admitted to CNN that the United States actively participated in the whole process of the 2014 coup in Ukraine. At that time, Victoria Newland, the assistant secretary of state for European affairs of the United States, said that the United States spent 5billion dollars on Ukraine.

Let’s make an account. The United States spent $5billion to reverse the political situation in Ukraine, leading Russia to go to war.

Which is more cost-effective?

After 2014, the situation in Ukraine has become even worse. In 2019, under the impetus of current president Zelensky, Ukraine amended its constitution and incorporated its membership in NATO into its constitution. Finally, Russia fought this war again this year.

In the process of fighting for Ukraine, due to the lack of comprehensive strength, Russia failed to let Ukraine, a country of the same origin and race as Russia, follow it. In the end, it had to fight at all costs.

So my biggest emotion today is my long-standing view that enhancing the country’s comprehensive strength is the best way to solve all problems.

Just these two days, the NATO summit was held in Madrid, Spain. In the new version of the “strategic concept” document, China was listed as a “challenge” for the first time. Japan, South Korea, Australia and other countries in the Asia Pacific region were also invited to attend the meeting.

This move of NATO has been commented by some public opinion as the biggest change since the establishment of NATO in 1949. For more than 70 years since its establishment, NATO has been focusing on Europe. Today, it has to cross the Mediterranean Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Malacca Strait and the South China Sea to manage China’s affairs. Therefore, our foreign ministry spokesperson strongly warned the United States and NATO, and also reminded the world that “NATO has messed up Europe. Don’t mess up the Asia Pacific and the world any more.”

NATO’s full name is the “North Atlantic Treaty Organization”. Geographically speaking, China cannot compete with the North Atlantic. But now, the trend of NATO’s eastward expansion to China’s doorstep is becoming more and more obvious. Every Chinese is thinking about this question: what about China?

A realistic reference is that when NATO expanded eastward to Russia’s doorstep, Russia could not retreat and would not hesitate to fight. What about China?

The simplest answer, of course, is: when there is no retreat, do not hesitate to fight.

This is an answer without even thinking about it.

But we should also be soberly aware that it is not the best policy to go to war. The best policy is to subdue the soldiers without fighting.

So, how can we subdue our troops without fighting?

I said such a point, as I said:

“If you want to subdue people without fighting, you must make yourself strong. Generally speaking, if you can beat others, you are qualified to talk about subduing people without fighting. If you can’t beat others, you can’t even think about subduing people without fighting.”

In that article, I shared Professor Jin Yinan’s experience of studying at the Royal Academy of Military Sciences in 2000. Professor Jin’s teacher told him that before he studied, British officers and soldiers finally understood that the fundamental reason why Britain gave up Hong Kong was that they could not fight the people’s Liberation Army.

However, when we can beat others, do we have to use our fists to solve the problem?

The answer is: not necessarily.

If you don’t agree with me, I would like you to review the performance of Turkey analyzed at the beginning of today. By default, Russia can win the United States, but why does Russia have to fight this war?

The reason is that although Russia has reached the standard of “winning the war” militarily, its comprehensive strength is not enough to achieve “subduing the enemy without fighting”.

For example, if it can completely deal with Turkey this time, Sweden and Finland will not be able to join NATO.

We can even start to think that if Russia can handle any of the 30 NATO member states in the past 10 years, Ukraine’s accession to NATO will be out of the question, so Russia has no need to fight this war.

Therefore, “winning the war” is a necessary condition. Without this, nothing can be said.

However, “winning the war” is not the only condition. It also requires comprehensive strength in politics, economy, science and technology, public opinion and other aspects outside the military. Only in this way can we achieve “subduing the troops without war”.

There have been such cases in China in such similar events.

Let’s talk about ASEAN around us. At present, ASEAN has been closely linked with China, and it is unlikely to follow the United States as a whole. However, this was not the case in ASEAN ten years ago.

In 2012, China and the Philippines quarreled over the issue of Huangyan Island, which coincided with the ASEAN meeting. The Philippines insisted on writing the dispute between China and the Philippines over Huangyan Island into the joint communique and was ready to support the Philippines. Of the 10 ASEAN countries, 9 agreed. However, Cambodia was firmly opposed, and finally the ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting failed to issue a joint communiqu é for the first time since its establishment.

By 2016, the Philippines, with the support of the United States, had conducted a so-called “international arbitration” on the South China Sea issue, which was very detrimental to China. On july21,2016, the foreign ministers of ASEAN countries met again. Another nine countries advocated issuing a statement to express their support for the Philippines. However, Cambodia disagreed. Finally, the statement against China was not issued.

Although before the ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting, China and the United States just had a military confrontation in the South China Sea, China won and achieved “win in war”. However, if there is no other means to respond, and if the ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting still insists on adopting a conference statement that is not conducive to China, it will still be extremely detrimental to China.

Just like this conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Russia is sure to win Ukraine and the United States (in fact, the United States does not dare to move at all, saying that it will not directly fight with Russia, for fear that Russia does not know). In short, Russia has realized the premise of “winning”.

However, western countries are like a tide of crazy sanctions against Russia, and countries such as Sweden and Finland are seizing the opportunity to stab Russia in the back. Although Turkey gave some support to Russia, it failed to stick to it.

All these injuries beyond “winning” are the biggest dilemma for Russia at present. In short, the main difficulties for Russia at present and in the future are not on the battlefield, not on “whether to win”, but beyond “win”.

So I want to say that “winning the war” is the “first premise”, but not the “entire premise”. “All prerequisites” are comprehensive national strength.

Only when the “all prerequisites” of comprehensive national strength are in place can we take the best policy and achieve “subduing the troops without fighting”.

Therefore, in addition to “winning the war”, we still have a lot to do. When something happens, there should be many means available besides “winning the war”. In this way, with the strong backing of “winning the war” as the guarantee, “subduing the enemy without fighting” is the most beneficial to us. Even if the war is fought, the negative effects are only limited to “fighting”, rather than spreading and endless like Russia at present.

After all, our pursuit is “win”, not “fight”. “Fight” is only a means to “win”, not an end.

We can’t do anything like the Song Dynasty, but we can’t win. As a result, the only great humiliation in the history of the Han nation – the humiliation of Jingkang. However, we should not go to the other extreme. We should only think of “fighting” and expect “fighting” to solve everything.

Both extremes are wrong.

Leave a Reply

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