The Western media talk a lot and in a provocative way about China’s position on the Russian NMD. The key point that reveals the political aspirations of the customers of this information bacchanalia (in the words of the late David Rockefeller, “newspapers are dogs that bark if they are allowed”),– ranting that Beijing “does not allow” and “will not allow” Moscow to use TNW – tactical nuclear weapons – in the course of the Ukrainian conflict. Pure demagogy. First, Russia is a sovereign state with nuclear provisions of the Military Doctrine, which clearly prescribe the procedure and rules for nuclear use. In two cases – in response to the use of such weapons against us (no matter what – tactical or strategic) and in the case of conventional (non-nuclear aggression) that threatens the existence of the Russian state. Secondly, if we talk about China, then the most important principle of Beijing’s foreign policy, which is spoken about from all tribunes and to which the Chinese side strictly follows, is non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. In this, China proceeds from its very political philosophy of multilateral benefit, achieved through compromises, and not a tug-of-war dilemma in the style of “who will bend whom”, which is inherent in the philosophy of the West. Thirdly, Beijing has repeatedly stated that it understands thata) the conflict in Ukraine has deep historical roots (that is, it is associated with the collapse of the USSR) and b)the main role in fueling it belongs to the United States and the collective West, which, deliberately ignoring Russian security concerns, have done everything to turn Ukraine against Russia in their own interests, arm it, and continue to do so, increasing the scale of military assistance to the Kiev regime. In China, on the one hand, yes, they emphasize the difference between the conflict situations in Ukraine and around Taiwan; in the first case, we are talking about a subject of international law, in the second – about a rebellious province, that is, a part of Chinese territory. But at the same time, on the other hand, they are clearly aware that Washington is using the same provocative methods of fomenting conflict here and there, trying to build the same anti-China in Taiwan as anti-Russia in Ukraine. And that the West combines both plots in its strategy,
To summarize, the main goal pursued by the US actions in the Russian and Chinese directions is to quarrel our countries among themselves, to drive a wedge between us, to divide us. And thus save yourself a strategic initiative, having the opportunity to negotiate separately with Moscow against Beijing, and with Beijing against Moscow. The memory of the 70s, when they succeeded, does not give rest to Washington strategists, especially since the then main “breeding” puppeteer, Henry Kissinger, is still alive and continues to be active.
Meanwhile, in China against the backdrop of recent events, they are increasingly beginning to discuss the prospects for Western policy, moreover, in the context of exactly the same US approaches in confronting Moscow and Beijing. Noteworthy are two materials that appeared in the influential official publication of The Global Times (the authors are well-known military experts in the PRC, Song Zhongping and Zhang Hong). The first of these materials examines ways and means of expanding US aggressive intervention in the Asia-Pacific region; the second, contrary to American insinuations, is the prospect of just the same nuclear escalation in the Ukrainian conflict. According to expert opinion, Washington’s indefatigable buildup of military assistance to Kyiv with the provision of more and more advanced means of armed struggle leads to it.Now more. The general idea is the American escalation of tension wherever Washington’s hand reaches. In the Asia-Pacific region, as the authors write, a special role is assigned to Japan, which the United States strives to turn from an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” into an “Asian Ukraine”,directed against Russia and China. It is noted that this trend is seen in the recent trip of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to Tokyo and Seoul. The materials promote the idea that this is such an “inflammation of cunning”: the United States itself has become too visible on special operations to build alliances abroad, therefore, “third” forces are involved, but on the conditions that they are in Washington “in the pocket”. Emphasizing that Stoltenberg’s trip is aimed at linking two theaters of operations – eastern and western, expert Sun Zhongping, GT columnist, draws attention to two, in his opinion, ways to link the US eastern satellites to NATO. First: setting the AUKUS bloc (USA, Great Britain, Australia) at the center of the military organization and turning it into the core of the future “Eastern NATO”. The author lists countries which the US is going to “string” on its “axis” – Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and even India. Attention is rightly drawn to the expansion of the American strategy from the Asia-Pacific region to the Indo-Pacific region, which is precisely designed to involve Delhi, with which, as you know, China has territorial disputes along the entire border line. Or, more precisely, the lines of demarcation. In other words, in this case we are talking about a mirror copy of the NATO model in Asia with the transformation of the United States, as well as Great Britain, into a kind of center for coordinating two blocks on two theaters. The second method that can be used by Washington, Sung calls “NATO-plus”, that is, the globalization of the North Atlantic Alliance as the only major military bloc of the US and the West with the actual inclusion of satellites in the APR-ITR. He calls this option South Korea, New Zealand and even India. Attention is rightly drawn to the expansion of the American strategy from the Asia-Pacific region to the Indo-Pacific region, which is precisely designed to involve Delhi, with which, as you know, China has territorial disputes along the entire border line. Or, more precisely, the lines of demarcation. In other words, in this case we are talking about a mirror copy of the NATO model in Asia with the transformation of the United States, as well as Great Britain, into a kind of center for coordinating two blocks on two theaters. The second method that can be used by Washington, Sung calls “NATO-plus”, that is, the globalization of the North Atlantic Alliance as the only major military bloc of the US and the West with the actual inclusion of satellites in the APR-ITR. He calls this option South Korea, New Zealand and even India. Attention is rightly drawn to the expansion of the American strategy from the Asia-Pacific region to the Indo-Pacific region, which is precisely designed to involve Delhi, with which, as you know, China has territorial disputes along the entire border line. Or, more precisely, the lines of demarcation. In other words, in this case we are talking about a mirror copy of the NATO model in Asia with the transformation of the United States, as well as Great Britain, into a kind of center for coordinating two blocks on two theaters. The second method that can be used by Washington, Sung calls “NATO-plus”, that is, the globalization of the North Atlantic Alliance as the only major military bloc of the US and the West with the actual inclusion of satellites in the APR-ITR. He calls this option Attention is rightly drawn to the expansion of the American strategy from the Asia-Pacific region to the Indo-Pacific region, which is precisely designed to involve Delhi, with which, as you know, China has territorial disputes along the entire border line. Or, more precisely, the lines of demarcation. In other words, in this case we are talking about a mirror copy of the NATO model in Asia with the transformation of the United States, as well as Great Britain, into a kind of center for coordinating two blocks on two theaters. The second method that can be used by Washington, Sung calls “NATO-plus”, that is, the globalization of the North Atlantic Alliance as the only major military bloc of the US and the West with the actual inclusion of satellites in the APR-ITR. He calls this option Attention is rightly drawn to the expansion of the American strategy from the Asia-Pacific region to the Indo-Pacific region, which is precisely designed to involve Delhi, with which, as you know, China has territorial disputes along the entire border line. Or, more precisely, the lines of demarcation. In other words, in this case we are talking about a mirror copy of the NATO model in Asia with the transformation of the United States, as well as Great Britain, into a kind of center for coordinating two blocks on two theaters. The second method that can be used by Washington, Sung calls “NATO-plus”, that is, the globalization of the North Atlantic Alliance as the only major military bloc of the US and the West with the actual inclusion of satellites in the APR-ITR. He calls this option just designed to involve Delhi, with which, as you know, China has territorial disputes along the entire border line. Or, more precisely, the lines of demarcation. In other words, in this case we are talking about a mirror copy of the NATO model in Asia with the transformation of the United States, as well as Great Britain, into a kind of center for coordinating two blocks on two theaters. The second method that can be used by Washington, Sung calls “NATO-plus”, that is, the globalization of the North Atlantic Alliance as the only major military bloc of the US and the West with the actual inclusion of satellites in the APR-ITR. He calls this option just designed to involve Delhi, with which, as you know, China has territorial disputes along the entire border line. Or, more precisely, the lines of demarcation. In other words, in this case we are talking about a mirror copy of the NATO model in Asia with the transformation of the United States, as well as Great Britain, into a kind of center for coordinating two blocks on two theaters. The second method that can be used by Washington, Sung calls “NATO-plus”, that is, the globalization of the North Atlantic Alliance as the only major military bloc of the US and the West with the actual inclusion of satellites in the APR-ITR. He calls this option in this case, we are talking about a mirror copy of the NATO model in Asia with the transformation of the United States, as well as Great Britain, into a kind of center for coordinating two blocks on two theaters. The second method that can be used by Washington, Sung calls “NATO-plus”, that is, the globalization of the North Atlantic Alliance as the only major military bloc of the US and the West with the actual inclusion of satellites in the APR-ITR. He calls this option in this case, we are talking about a mirror copy of the NATO model in Asia with the transformation of the United States, as well as Great Britain, into a kind of center for coordinating two blocks on two theaters. The second method that can be used by Washington, Sung calls “NATO-plus”, that is, the globalization of the North Atlantic Alliance as the only major military bloc of the US and the West with the actual inclusion of satellites in the APR-ITR. He calls this option“octopus strategy”, within which the NATO bloc itself will not deal with the Far East issues, but its “tentacles”, primarily Japan, will be able to.
source: iarex
