“Mediation” and “Military Assistance” — What is the purpose of China’s “intervention” in the Russian-Uzbekistan war?

Spread the love

Author: Yunshi (WeChat ID: yunshi911)

On the special occasion of the first anniversary of the outbreak of the Russian-Uzbekistan War, China released the “China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukrainian Crisis”, which proposed 12 items, including respecting the sovereignty of all countries, abandoning the Cold War mentality, cease-fire and ending the war, and launching peace talks. It has attracted the attention of the world and has been called the “China’s Peace Plan” by the foreign media to resolve the conflict, and this has also been the first time that some domestic public opinion has made China mediate international disputes as a world power. At the same time, rumors about China’s “military aid” to Russia are also rampant.


Why should China intervene with Russia and Ukraine at this time? What is the confidence of China to intervene? What purpose does China hope to achieve through mediation? What is the relationship between “mediation” and “military assistance”?

Let’s make a simple analysis:

First of all, the Russian-Uzbekistan war has entered a stalemate stage, and the objective basis for negotiations has gradually been established. Since the outbreak of the Russian-Uzbekistan war, both sides have been fighting and talking. However, the previous negotiations were basically empty talk. The reason is simple – the war situation at that time was not stable enough to support the space for peace talks.

At the beginning, Russia took the initiative in the war, so the price was very high. If Ukraine agreed, it would be basically an alliance under the city. Of course, it would be better if Russia had the ability to force Ukraine to sign the alliance under the city, but due to the wrong estimation of its own strength, Russia’s idea gradually went bankrupt; The dominant power of the war gradually transferred to the United States behind Ukraine, and the United States also used this dominant power to successfully cut off the relationship between Europe and Russia, and to serve its own interest rate increase and even harvest Europe by controlling the war process.

But a year later, the situation of the war has been clear and the pattern has been basically stable: Russia must be unable to eat Ukraine, and it seems that it just wants to defend the four states of Eastern Ukraine; On the other hand, NATO is unlikely to take advantage of this to defeat Russia – not to mention that Russia has no way out. If it is pressed, it will not hesitate to lose, even if it is to drag Putin to death through sanctions, blockades and war consumption, and promote the second disintegration of the Russian state – in view of the existence of China, this is basically impossible to achieve. Even the four states of Udong, in view of their completely bound political fate with the Putin Group, cannot give up as long as Putin does not fall.

On the other hand, participants outside the United States are also exhausted to the extreme. The war potential of Ukraine has been exhausted, and the old, weak, sick and disabled have started to be recruited into the army, and there is not much fighting power to be gathered later; Russia has also been taken out of its original shape. After the war, regardless of the outcome, its international status has plummeted. It has become a fact that the world’s first group has changed from the killing of the three countries of China, the United States and Russia to the merging of the two countries of China and the United States; Europe has been devastated by the war. Not only has industry and capital fled sharply, but energy prices have soared, and the United States has reaped the harvest; The complete breakdown of Russian-Europe relations and even the explosion of the North Stream pipeline also mean that Europe will completely lose its cheap energy supply – which will have a major impact on the future development of Europe.

This also means that the war has entered a stalemate, and the strength of both sides has reached a basic balance with the current war pattern. Just like the War of Resistance against the United States and Aid Korea, at the beginning, it was a large-scale conversion of attack and defense. Both sides wanted to work hard to eliminate the goal of the other side – both sides also thought that they might achieve the goal at one time; Only when the five campaigns are over and the strength of both sides and the battle line reach a balance, can we have an objective basis to sit down and talk about.

From the perspective of China, as an indirect interested party, it is willing to intervene, and naturally has its own national interests:

First of all, Russia’s general trend towards the east has taken shape.

We have discussed the possibility of China’s military assistance to Russia, and believe that Russia may exchange China’s military support for it through the transfer of interests in Central Asia and the Far East.

From the current situation, the situation is even better than originally estimated – before China’s military assistance to Russia, Russia has been forced to let go of Central Asia by the situation, and the cooperative development of the Far East has also been initially put on the agenda. After the Russian-Uzbekistan war, Russia and the West broke up completely, and then even if we don’t want to look to the east, we can’t do it.

This is the best result for China. In this case, if the Russian-Uzbekistan war is better, it will be almost over. In this way, China can still get what it wants from Russia without provoking the West.

This is for Russia. In terms of European interests, China also hopes that the Russian-Uzbekistan war will end as soon as possible – at least not seriously affect the international situation.

In terms of the absolute amount of interests, Europe is the biggest loser in the Russian-Uzbekistan war – its vitality is seriously damaged, it is also bound by the U.S. strategy, and its economic relations with Russia are also seriously retrogressed.

This is also unfavorable for China. A considerable part of China’s Silk Road Economic Belt is connected to Europe through Russia. If the Euro-Russian relationship is destroyed, this line will be seriously damaged even if it is not abandoned. While the decline of Europe has also brought some dividends of industrial transfer to China, it has actually affected China’s future overseas markets. After all, there are only three major markets in the world: China, the United States and Europe. With the Sino-American rivalry, the dividends in the United States must be receding. If the European economy collapses and the market shrinks, the industry and capital flow to the United States substantially, which is very unfavorable for China’s foreign trade exports.

The most important thing is that the United States used the Russian-Uzbekistan war to re-kidnap Europe with ideology – this kind of kidnapping not only affects Russian-European relations, but also poses a great threat to China-EU relations – the United States can use this as a link to drag Europe onto the new cold war chariot against China.

This trend has been obvious in the past year. Of course, so far, Europe is still struggling, but if this binding is not resolved for a long time, or even deepened, Europe will only be bound deeper and deeper by the United States in its relations with China.

China must find ways to pull Europe off the American chariot. The key to this is the Russian-Uzbekistan war. As long as the Russian-Uzbekistan war subsides – or at least does not cause great waves – Europe will not be arbitrarily manipulated by the United States and can gradually restore its independence.

Moreover, the anti-American sentiment in Europe is also brewing. After all, Europeans are not fools. They know exactly what they have suffered in the past year. Although the Americans led the anger of Europe mainly to Russia through the manipulation of public opinion, it was the United States that reaped Europe. It is also the United States that blew up the North Stream pipeline, which Europe knows well. So we can see that while the United States is reaping Europe crazily and the upper class is clamping down on the political arena in Europe, the anti-American sentiment in European society is also rising, and the European right-wing forces have also become more and more rampant in the past year – all of which pose a growing threat to the United States and the European white-left forces controlled by the United States. It is just that the United States and the White Left are trying to suppress it with anti-Russian political correctness.

However, if the Russian-Uzbekistan war subsides – at least it will not cause great waves, then the anti-Russian politics will be correct and its influence will be greatly reduced. At that time, it will not be easy for the United States and the White Left to suppress anti-American sentiment and even right-wing populism.

So solving the Russian-Uzbekistan war is also the key to break up the United States and Europe and pull Europe out of the United States’ grip. As long as Europe can restore its relative independence and take its own interests as the main basis for political decision-making, it is not to say that it is quarrelling with the United States, but at least it can be expected to maintain a general neutrality on the anti-China issue, especially its refusal to join the new cold war.

This gives China room to play. At this time, a heavy chip will be added to the promotion of peace, which will help to change the direction of European public opinion to a certain extent.

The most important thing is China’s relationship with the United States.

In my opinion, the reason why China launched Russia and Ukraine at this time is, in the final analysis, the consideration of the United States strategy.

Previously, we had hoped that the United States would not be able to control East Asia because of the Russian-Uzbekistan war. But as far as the actual situation is concerned, the United States has not been dragged into the water. It has only spent a little assistance in exchange for harvesting and bundling the huge political and economic benefits of Europe. In East Asia, the strategic deployment of the United States’ containment of China is still advancing at various levels.

Of course, if China and the United States immediately showdown, then the Russian-Uzbekistan war is still valuable to hamper the United States – after all, if East Asia explodes, Putin will certainly not be so restrained as now.

However, the problem is that East Asia is not exploding now – both the United States and China, although they have taken frequent actions under the table and have accumulated their own strength, do not seem to be ready to go to the step of breaking up. In this case, a Russian-Uzbekistan war that the United States did not launch directly, not only did not play a role in restricting the United States’ East Asian layout, but rather was a sharp weapon for it to reinvigorate and bind European allies and create a new cold war trend. At the same time, in East Asia, the United States has gradually armed Japan, Taiwan and even South Korea by taking advantage of China’s unwillingness to fight now, trying to turn East Asia into a meat grinder for China in the future.

How can we break the US’s two-sided strategy?

The answer is to promote the Russian-Uzbekistan ceasefire and peace talks.

To promote the Russian-Uzbekistan peace talks is not simply to promote peace. Because although the Russian-Uzbekistan war entered an impasse, the three sides of Europe, Russia and Ukraine also suffered heavy losses – the objective situation has the basis for peace talks. However, subjectively, there are still great conflicts between people’s interests and demands. Russia may be willing to end the war on the basis of the current front, but Ukraine cannot accept it politically; In Europe, although social anti-American sentiment and right-wing forces are growing, at least for now, it is not enough to subvert the control of the United States and the White Left.

The most important thing is that the United States does not want to stop the war now. It also wants to continue to control the process of the Russian-Uzbekistan war, harvest and bind Europe, and serve its global bloodthirsty and new Cold War strategy – and as long as the United States does not want to stop, the war will not stop.

In that case, why should China attack at this time? In my view, this is China’s attempt to save the country from the enemy, to intervene in Russia and Ukraine, and to check and balance the military deployment of the United States in East Asia.

As we have said before, the United States is trying to arm Japan, Taiwan and even South Korea. This is certainly very unfavorable for China. However, China has no direct way to stop it – simply intimidating and luring Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, and now the effect is limited. Arming the Middle East is indeed effective in the long run, but it is not enough to reverse the situation in the short run – at least Saudi Arabia and Iran are not afraid to face the United States openly now. In this way, what can be played as a chip is the Russian-Uzbekistan war.

The United States’ strangulation and harvest of Europe was based on leading the process of the Russian-Uzbekistan war. In addition to Russia’s unexpected crotch pull, the biggest premise for the United States to lead the Russian-Uzbekistan war is that China has always maintained neutrality. Because China has no military aid to Russia, the United States can play as it likes and lead the war wherever it wants – Russia has no choice but to be led by the former. The United States also took advantage of this dominance to make the Russian-Uzbekistan war an excellent tool to harvest Europe and promote the new cold war.

But if China’s military assistance, that would be another matter. What Russia lacks is modern arms and military technology. As long as all these things are alive – that is the rhythm of the rebirth of the Soviet Red Army immediately. However, once the Russian army regains its momentum, the strength of the Soviet army is limited, and the potential of the war has been exhausted. The Ukrainian army is certainly not enough to fight, and the United States must come to an end in person.

Is the United States willing to fight Russia in person? Of course not – the United States will not end up in person without Chinese military assistance; What’s more, the Russian army with Chinese military assistance?

If the United States does not end, then the initiative of the Russian-Uzbekistan war will return to Russia on the surface. But in view of the fact that Russia’s initiative is completely based on China’s military assistance, China has indirectly led the Russian-Ukrainian war process – just as the United States has influenced Ukraine. China can control the process of the Russian-Uzbekistan war according to its own interests.

That said, it does not mean that China really needs to support Russia immediately. However, whether military aid is available can be used as a card to counter the US military deployment in East Asia. If the US military collusion in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan breaks the bottom line of China, China can completely destroy the US market in Europe by military aid to Russia!

Of course, many people will question that if the military assistance to Russia is really carried out, will it not irritate the United States and Europe and accelerate the formation of the new cold war?

On the surface, it does. But here, the United States and Europe have to talk separately. For the United States, if its military assistance to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan breaks through China’s bottom line, China will no longer care about its feelings – it is not that we want to engage in a new cold war, but that it forces us to respond. So it doesn’t matter if we get there.

In Europe, it is true that if China’s military assistance, it will greatly stimulate Europe in the short term. However, in the medium and long term, it is not necessarily in which direction this stimulus will eventually promote its development.

What’s the meaning of this?

The answer lies in the interests of Europe.

The biggest crisis in Europe is the Russian-Uzbekistan war. If China does provide military assistance, it means that the Russian-Uzbekistan war will either be prolonged and intensified, or the western camp will be defeated.

This must be unacceptable to Europe. Then, there are only two ways ahead of Europe – either to increase the investment in resources and prepare for a long-term drawdown, or even to leave in person (after all, Ukraine’s army is almost exhausted); Either make peace.

The first path is certainly a disaster for China-EU relations. But the problem is that this is even more a dead end for Europe – Russia and Ukraine have only been fighting for a year, and Europe has been seriously wounded. After the escalation of the intensity, they will fight for a long time, and even have to go to the field to compete with the modern armed Russian army – this is directly the rhythm of the destruction of Europe.

What about the second way – peace? In fact, this is very good for Europe. Because at this time, the conditions for making peace will be very relaxed, even more relaxed than before. Before that, we must talk with Russia. If Europe is unable to maintain the peace, Putin will certainly take advantage of the situation to increase the price. What is Ukraine’s permanent neutrality, NATO’s return to 1997, and so on? This is the price put forward by Putin when he started the war, and may come out again.

But this time is different. At this time, we just need to talk to China – anyway, once China stops military aid, Russia will not have to fight if it wants to. But China is not so demanding. Basically, as long as peace is ok – because as long as the Russian-Uzbekistan truce, the biggest grip of the United States to clamp down on Europe is gone, and China’s goal has been achieved. As for Russia’s demands, they are Russia’s interests, not China’s interests, and China has no obligation to help it achieve it. At most, it is to help it establish a bottom line, and recognize the reality on the basis of the existing front – just like the Korean War of that year. Such conditions are not a problem for Europe at all.

If this is the case, then China’s move is actually helping Europe out of the trap – not only the trap of the Russian-Uzbekistan war, but also the trap of the United States. In this way, China-EU relations will not be affected, but there is room for improvement in the future.

From the perspective of subjective will, if China really offers military assistance while offering attractive conditions for peace, then Europe is certainly willing to take the second road.

But the United States will certainly force Europe to take the first path.

The only problem is that Europe’s economic and social endurance is limited. Over the past year, the European economy has been greatly weakened, and the social anti-war sentiment against the United States has also increased significantly. At present, the United States can still force Europe with political correctness, but if the future war will be more intense and protracted because of China’s military assistance, it is really hard to say whether the United States can hold it down – even if it can be said that with the continuation of the war, it will be sooner or later that Europe’s endurance will break the limit. Once the limit is broken, the pressure of white left and ideology is overturned by the right-wing populism and anti-war anti-Americanism, the situation will turn over and Europe will return to the first road. Once Europe turns against the tide and clears up the influence of the White Left and the United States, the series of strategies launched by the United States around Ukraine will turn out to be a complete loss. If the United States wants to avoid this outcome, there is only one way – to go out in person and confront Russia with modern military technology and equipment in Ukraine, and fall into a war quagmire ten times larger than the war in Afghanistan and Iraq!

Of course, in the same sentence, these analyses do not mean that China will really help Russia with military aid – after all, this is also a dangerous move. If it is played well, it will pull Europe out of the hands of the United States. If it is not played well, it will aggravate the ties between Europe and the United States and promote the formation of the new cold war. However, given the subjective will and objective difficulties of Europe, there is a real possibility that China’s military assistance may force Europe out of the hands of the United States – and this possibility will continue to increase with the deepening of European blood loss.

This is why China can use military aid as a card to counter the deployment of the United States in East Asia, and it should also be the reason why China intervened in the Russian-Uzbekistan war at this node – the reason why the United States dared to arm Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in East Asia, but not afraid of China’s military aid to Russia; One of the main reasons is that China is really worried that military aid will completely push Europe into the anti-China war vehicle of the United States – this fear directly limits China’s use of the military aid card.

However, with the blood loss in Europe and the anti-war sentiment of the people against the United States to a certain extent this year, from the perspective of the situation, the possibility of compromise in Europe after China’s military assistance has greatly increased, and the possibility of being deeply suppressed by the United States has greatly reduced. Although it is impossible to make an accurate judgment on the final direction of Europe (after all, China’s military aid has not really happened), at least this increase in uncertainty has not only made China fear the enemy, but also made the United States fear it. In this case, military aid can be put on the table as a card to curb the United States’ attempts to arm Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in East Asia.

Of course, the Russian-Uzbekistan truce is our intention, and we don’t really want to go to the stage of military assistance – so we won’t play the card of military assistance directly now, whether it is to promote peace or to give the first and the second. But one year after the outbreak of the war, China finally came forward to mediate. The meaning behind this must be known to all parties. If Russia and Ukraine can really stop the war, then China’s goal of pulling Europe ashore has been achieved, and military assistance is naturally impossible. In East Asia, we will find another way. But if Russia and Ukraine continue to fight (which mainly depends on the attitude of the United States), then we have done all the work we should do. If you don’t listen, then what I do next is beyond your control. If the United States wants to continue fighting (after all, the process of the Russian-Uzbekistan war is directly related to the US harvest) and does not want China to intervene, should you give an explanation about East Asia?

This should be the logic behind China’s mediation and the military aid debate. The stalemate of the Russian-Uzbekistan war situation and the deepening of the European dilemma have gradually matured the objective basis for China’s mediation. Originally, if there is no other way, since the subjective perception of the two sides is still far away, China’s mediation can continue to drag on – or even continue to hold aloof. However, the United States military deployment in East Asia has posed a major threat to China itself. In this case, the military aid deterrence accompanied by mediation is also used as a card, which is implicitly put on the table of the Sino-US game.

In the same sentence, we do not have military assistance, nor do we want military intervention in the Russian-Uzbekistan war. But if the Americans are not honest and want to mess up in East Asia, then I will not rule out to save the country and play a big game in Europe; But if I win, I’m afraid that everything the United States has won in Europe in the past year will have to be vomited back – even more!

Leave a Reply

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