The world we live in is very complex, it has many dimensions, many appearances, but only a few essences.
When talking about the current economic situation, especially the new Cold War and financial war, it is easy to spark and lightning everywhere, full of panic, and confidence will be blown by the strong wind, and it will be difficult to build up.
But in fact, that is just a very small aspect of the body feeling caught in it, the great power game, what is fundamental, what is the advantage, what is the disadvantage, what is the kinetic energy, we must not only study and judge some details, but also always remind ourselves to return to the trunk.
Because we ourselves are in a first-class war and a comprehensive war, if we don't raise our heads, it will be easy to get lost in the smoke of gunpowder on the battlefield and the gains and losses of one city and one pool.
So, what should we use to set the direction, position, stage, and confidence?
Look more at what your opponent says and what third parties say.
The reason why I don't define the United States as our "enemy" is because the United States is not our "enemy" in the first place, and when you regard a country as an enemy, it is a completely different strategy than an adversary.
If it was an enemy, it would not be the current state.
The enemy is also not in line with our highest concept of a community with a shared future for mankind.
China is the country that is most adapted to competition, and there is no need to make enemies, as long as there are rules, it is not afraid of competition.
Of course, there will be no fear of war.
In the past two days, two heavyweights in the United States have made speeches separately, which is worth paying attention to.
One is CIA Director Burns.
Recently, William Burns, director of the US intelligence department, pointed out in an article in Foreign Affairs magazine that the rise of China and Russia has caused the United States to lose its "absolute leading edge" in the world, which makes the United States feel that the existential threat is increasing. Burns is extremely concerned about this trend, not just about the change in rankings, but about the fact that they have no effective way to contain the rise of China and Russia. In addition to this, Burns also mentioned that advances in technology are making U.S. intelligence work more and more difficult, because adversaries also have more advanced technology.
Burns is not simple, readers who have read my series of articles on the Russian-Ukrainian war will know better, and it has been mentioned several times that Burns played an important role in it, he not only met with Putin twice, accurately judged Russia's strategic decisions, and played an important role in coordinating sanctions against Russia with the allies.
At present, although Burns is under the light of Sullivan and Blinken, he has ideas and strength.
His remarks are more objective than his previous aggressive stance on China's strategy.
He mentioned the role of China and Russia in the political landscape, as well as chips, quantum computing, artificial intelligence and other fields, China is not lagging behind, and the absolute advantage of the United States does not exist.
Moreover, not long ago, he also said that the spy network in China is being restructured, and in recent years, the CIA in Myanmar has been continuously advancing in recruiting spies who understand Chinese, and in the process of advancement, it has also encountered many problems.
In particular, with so many cameras in China and the analysis of big data, if you really want counter-espionage, there is no problem in terms of technical means, and the United States may suffer more serious losses, but now China has not fully used all its strength, and it does not want to make the relationship too bad.
Second, Burns's statement is not only a drama of "increasing the budget", but also a reminder to the United States that the "competition" with China must not stop at anger, but also invest more in many fields.
The more desolate and hysterical the anti-China posture in the United States is, the more insane and hysterical it is, it actually means that all the methods that can be used have been used, and it seems that it is not very easy to use.
According to the scene described by the American "Business Insider" and the "Capitol Hill", Republican Senator Tom Cotton repeatedly questioned Zhou Shouzi's nationality and whether Zhou Shouzi was a member of the Chinese ** and other outrageous questions, to which TikTok CEO answered questions about nationality 8 times, saying that he was Singaporean. "Senator, I'm Singaporean," Chow replied at the time. "Have you ever been associated with or affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party? Cotton clenched his grip and continued to ask. "No, Senator, again, I'm Singaporean. Zhou Shouzi repeated.The other is heavyweight Jake Sullivan.
On January 30, local time, Sullivan, the assistant for U.S. affairs who had just finished his trip to Bangkok, shared how Biden has implemented his China strategy behind the scenes in the past three years and his expectations for U.S.-China relations in 2024 when attending an event in Washington, D.C., an important U.S. think tank.
In his speech, Sullivan said frankly, "The United States realizes that decades of efforts to shape or change China, whether overtly or covertly, have not been successful." In the foreseeable future, China will become an important player on the world stage. Therefore, the United States and China must find a way to coexist in competition. ”
According to the transcript of the speech released on the official website of the White House, Sullivan said at the beginning that before Biden took office, he, like many people in his current China strategy team, was in a think tank similar to the Council on Foreign Relations, studying and re-examining the long-term US China policy. After entering, they began to focus on the professional analysis of the latest intelligence.
The team now agrees that China is the only country that has both the will to reshape the international order and the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological strength to do so.
Sullivan said they see China seeking to catch up with and surpass the United States in high-tech areas, bolster its military, and become a more dependent ......presence of the world while reducing its own dependence on the worldWhat is even more prominent is that, in the eyes of many people in China, "the East is rising, and the West is declining".
With regard to the above speech, we must look at it dialectically.
This is because the establishment of the Democratic Party has a very important characteristic, that is, it "does not speak people's words" and "double-facedness."
For example, this question:
In the question-and-answer session that followed, Sullivan was asked whether the United States, while it made clear that its goal was not to contain or weaken China's economy, whether it had been honest enough with China to admit that what it was doing to protect its interests was actually adversely affecting China.
One of the things that we're really trying to do is be more direct and transparent about the nature of the steps that we're taking and are going to take, and that's where we're going in terms of outbound investment or updating export controls on semiconductors. In Bangkok, we had the opportunity to discuss how the U.S. and China view the boundaries between the economy and the world. Obviously, we don't quite agree on this issue. Sullivan said.
In fact, people just want to ask, what you say is different from the recent financial war against China, but you don't expect to hear the truth from these people.
However, it is precisely because of their flickering words that reflect the above sentence marked in red.
Our own evaluation of ourselves may not necessarily be objective, because the horizontal view is like a peak on the side of the ridge, but the evaluation of the opponent is worth reference and is conducive to our understanding of our current situation.
The United States is a country that must establish an enemy, and it will constantly analyze the enemy's strengths and weaknesses and constantly adjust its strategy, while ours is a country that is not very willing to take the initiative and likes to turn attacks into invisible, which is a completely different characteristic.
Why doesn't the United States worry about Russia and Turkey, because, in this world, multipolarity is not really "multipolarity", and behind multipolarity, in fact, "bipolarization".
At present, no other country has put forward a program like China and implemented it.
Therefore, the difficulties that China has to encounter are even greater than those of the Soviet Union.
Most importantly, the biggest problem between China and the United States now lies internally, not with each other, and whoever can understand this problem more deeply and truly adjust and improve it will be a winner-takes-all.
The way the United States passed on the contradictions in the past, but here in China, there is a high probability that it will not work.
I have analyzed that the competition between China and the United States may include some military conflicts, but as long as everything passes, there is every chance to shake hands and make peace, but this kind of outcome is impossible without experiencing the flames of war.
Only by approaching all the problems of the current world from a strategic and political perspective can we find a relatively close to the real answer, otherwise any technology, model, experience, or pure domain analysis will be proven outrageously wrong.
In the next ten years, opportunities are all hidden in torment.