China's dish, the United States is determined? As soon as Wang Yi stepped down from the negotiating table, Blinken made a public showdown with China: If you don't sit at the table, you'll be on the menu. The much-anticipated Munich Security Conference has recently ended, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi has also started a visit to other countries in Europe, but Blinken's words at the meeting have long echoed in people's hearts: "If you don't sit at the table, you will be on the menu."
In what context did Blinken say this, and what does it mean? Let's look at the Munich Security Conference again, and in a panel discussion, the moderator opened with a bombshell question: What kind of challenges does the United States face in the context of the fact that China and the United States are now "vying" for allies in the international community?
Coming up to talk about the competition between China and the United States, the host's question can be said to be very bold, but I didn't expect Blinken's response to be even more naked, Blinken responded that if you don't sit at the table, you will appear at the table, so it is very important for the United States to participate in the multilateral international arena. What do you mean? It seems to me that there are two explanations.
First, it stresses the rationality and importance of the United States in "making things everywhere." If the United States does not "win" its teammates in the international community and create a small circle to counterbalance its opponents, then it will be itself on the menu. For the purpose of safeguarding US interests, he must do so, and this remark can be regarded as a sufficient "reason" for the United States to continue to stir up the international situation in the future.
Second, this is also a warning issued by the United States to some countries that are still hesitant. As mentioned by the previous host, now China and the United States are striving for allies around the world, and now Blinken's move is to warn those countries that are still vacillating that they can either join the US camp and "eat at the table" with the United States, if they want to stand on the opposite side of the United States and be with China, then they will only be "eaten".
In fact, this is not the first time Blinken has made similar remarks, as early as two years ago, when he hyped up the new crown epidemic, he had already published this "table theory". Now at the Muan-An, Blinken mentioned again that it is enough to see that the United States' promises in the past year to "promote the consensus of the two heads of state" and "four noes and one intention" are not sincere. Only by consolidating hegemony and removing obstacles is the real goal of US politicians.
However, the current world pattern is no longer something that the United States alone can say, whether it is political and economic, science and technology, or military, it is impossible to succeed in encircling and suppressing China in these aspects. For a long time, China has achieved tremendous success and progress in these fields, while the United States, on the other hand, has been deeply disgusted by other countries for relying on its hegemony to run rampant around the world and wantonly provoke regional situations during this period.
If the United States has been suffering for a long time today, the ugly face of the United States has been deeply rooted in the hearts of the people, and now there is only one opportunity left, once someone breaks through the "hegemonic blockade" of the United States, there will be one imitator after another, and the pattern of multipolarization of the world will eventually open, and the fate of each country should be decided by themselves, not by the United States.
That's it for a brief introduction and overview of the event. Next, we will dive into the event from the following aspects.
First, let's take a look at the repercussions of the event on the web. The phrase "if you're not sitting at the table, you're going to be on the menu" immediately attracted a lot of attention and discussion. Many netizens believe that Blinken's speech was full of domineering and arrogance, bullying and threats to other countries. Some support Blinken's position, arguing that the United States must defend its interests and position. Others, on the other hand, are dissatisfied with the hegemonic behavior of the United States and believe that the world needs to be multipolar. Various points of view are fiercely debated with each other on the Internet, forming a strong ** pressure.
Second, we can deepen our understanding of this event by looking back at similar events in history. For example, the United States has often acted hegemonically over the past few decades, interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and imposing its own will. These acts have aroused widespread controversy and opposition in the international community. In addition, it is also possible to recall some similar statements or events, such as the statements and actions of the United States** against China over the past year, and the response of other countries to the hegemonic behavior of the United States.
Next, let's take a look at the impact of the incident on society. Blinken's remarks not only attracted attention and discussion at home and abroad, but also had a certain impact on the dynamics on the international stage. On the one hand, the incident has further exposed the hegemonic behavior of the United States and its hostile attitude towards China, and has exacerbated the tension between China and the United States. On the other hand, the incident has also prompted other countries to be more vigilant and vigilant about the intentions of the United States, which may strengthen cooperation with China and other countries. In addition, the incident has sparked some opposition at home, with some arguing that China should take resolute steps to respond to the U.S. threat.
With the advent of this event, we can see that the impact of this event on the entire international community is significant and complex. On the one hand, this incident exposed the hegemonic tendencies of the United States and aroused opposition and controversy at home and abroad. On the other hand, the incident has also made other countries more vigilant and alert to U.S. intentions by provoking domestic resistance and triggering international tensions. At the same time, the incident has also prompted people to think more deeply and complex about the world pattern and the future of international relations.
Finally, by adding elements, we can spark reader engagement and discussion. For example, we can ask questions that will allow the reader to think and express their opinions. For example, do you think Blinken's statement was too arrogant and domineering? Will the incident have a material impact on U.S.-China relations? Or how do you think China should respond to the U.S. threat? These questions can help the reader better understand and think about the event and engage in the discussion.
Through the above analysis of the incident, we can better understand the ins and outs of the incident, understand the repercussions of the incident on the Internet, refer to the hot spots and cited cases of similar incidents in the past, deeply understand the incident, and re-write a relevant original, explain all aspects of the incident in no less than 3500 words, and make an objective impact on the entire incident. At the same time, by adding elements that allow readers to participate in the discussion, it further increases and engages.