China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi reportedly told the EU's top diplomat Kaja Kallas on July 3 that the country cannot afford for Russia to lose the war in Ukraine amid fears the U.S. would shift focus towards Beijing, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported, citing sources familiar with the conversation.
It’s actually interesting! It means that there is a way out: If europe accepts to help keep the US out of Beijings business. I don’t actually know how that could be done. And the EU doesn’t have that kind of coesion.
The US wants to stay the hegemon but China is advancing technology faster than the US. The conflict is about the multipolar world. Unfortunately the US, and the EU, haven’t explained why they don’t want to be part of a multipolar world.
This sentence makes no sense:
Is a multipolar world what russia is doing in Ukraine? If you’re going to have a world of trade blocks: NAmerica, SAmerica, EU, Africa, ME, russia?, China, India, Pacific. Europe is perfectly prepared to enter a multilateral or multipolar world order…but not the way russia announced it.
You can’t simply invade one of the members whenever they try to leave your block. Otherwise you’ll have constant wars in the borders between the blocks. I can tell you already why I would not want to regress to the kind of chaos and constant wars of multipolar unstable alliances of the 17th century, now with nukes and proliferation. Fun! Who wouldn’t want that?
A multipolar world can work, but you need stronger international institutions and law, not the mockery that russia, the US and israel turned the UN into.
a multipolar world means the west (namely the us) can’t unilaterally call all the shots, and other countries can say no.
It also means that russia can’t unilaterally claim all of Ukraine, other countries can say no…it works for everyone. Welcome to the multipolar world too, russia.
And let me repeat: if the only thing other countries can do to stop anyone’s actions is war and countries just ignore borders, then it will be an extremely unstable system, like in the 17th century. Bipolar is more stable, like in the cold war. Unipolar is relatively stable, but there is no accountability, like in a 1-party system.
thats literally what the us has been doing for a century or more now, plus economic coercion. there was never stability in the first place for anyone but the west.
welcome to the multipolar world where russia can say no to western institutions and put up a fight. unlike when the west claimed the middle east. or africa. or latin america.
citation needed. you are literally calling the constant threat of nuclear war “stability” lol
you are calling unbridled imperialism stable, man, wtf.
stability for whom.
Ukraine seems to be more of a unipolar project than a multipolar project. The important part is the last part of the last sentence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
Of course there can also be wars in the multipolar world. But there are enough started by the US that peace seems to be secondary.
Ukraine is as multipolar as it gets: they don’t want to be russia’s bitch, so they asked everyone else for help, some helped.
Sure. Unfortunately that’s not what counts. Also history is more complicated and doesn’t start in 2014.
What counts is what is convenient to you, apparently. That is why multipolarity is a royal mess without strict rules, everyone thinks they can do whatever they want. Read some history.
Unipolary didn’t have strict rules either.
Neither is convenient for me because there will be a very inconvenient war. It’s just that people only count when there is an election, and then they only count as a manipulatable resource. Otherwise nobody in power cares about what people want.
You are right about your expectations about future wars. It’s time to come up with something to make a better future.