The European Union and the G7 have taken turns to attack China, and US Ambassador to China Burns has said good things while comparing China with the Soviet Union. In the face of the challenge of the 31 countries, China is not afraid to take this war letter, is the West really ready to turn the other cheek with China?
What happened? The G7 and the European Union turned their attention to China almost at the same time, and recently issued a statement naming China for "aiding Russia" and emphasizing that the G7 is concerned about "the transfer of materials and components from Chinese companies to Russia that can be used in military use". Almost at the same time, in the 13th round of sanctions against Russia initiated by the European Union, it sanctioned three Chinese companies on the grounds of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which is the first time since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict! Judging from the recent developments, it seems that China has suddenly become the focus of the West's troubles.
In fact, it is not difficult to guess the reason why the West suddenly attacked China, that is, on the second anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russia's success on the battlefield deeply stung the West. The Russian army recently took the Donetsk town of Avdeyevka, which is the biggest victory of the Russian army since the capture of **Mut in May last year, but this is not the most important thing. The important thing is that after two years of the war, Russia has not only not collapsed as the West imagined, but has gradually taken the initiative on the battlefield, and Western countries are becoming more and more unable to assist Ukraine. When Western countries look at it, this situation is really wrong, how can Russia become stronger and stronger? As a result, the West reremembered the "trump card" of sanctions, and tried in vain to put pressure on the Russian partners represented by China in order to further suppress, contain and weaken Russia, which was the main reason why the West was eyeing China during this period. It seems that the "main battlefield" of the West's attack on Russia has temporarily moved to China's side, concentrating on the economic and political level.
In the face of the G7 and the EU's 31 countries, China is under considerable pressure, but as China has repeatedly emphasized, China has maintained an objective and neutral position on the issue of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and has always adhered to the promotion of peace talks. The relationship between China and Russia is characterized by non-alignment, non-confrontation and non-targeting of third parties, so it is not the turn of third parties to intervene! No matter how much pressure the West exerts, we are confident that the normal cooperation between China and Russia will be unswervingly promoted. If the 31 Western countries still want to make a fuss about this issue, then let them let them go, and China is not afraid to take up their challenge. But the West has to think about it for itself, China is the world's largest industrial country and the largest manufacturing exporter, can the West really afford to "turn the other cheek" with China? It's a question worth pondering. On this issue, US Ambassador to China Burns made a very interesting speech.
In a recent interview with the US media, Burns said that China is a more powerful competitor than the Soviet Union, and that its relations with China are the "most important, most competitive, and most dangerous" relations between the United States and the United States in the world at present, and he believes that this will be the case in the next 10 years or so. Immediately after that, Burns changed his tune, emphasizing that China and the United States cannot "divorce" and that the two sides must coexist. Interestingly, the American media host also asked Burns whether the United States really can't afford the consequences of decoupling from China, and Burns's answer is that if the economic relationship between China and the United States is ended, 750,000 American families will not be able to solve the problem of eating, and he obviously denies the view that the United States can decouple from China. So, what should we think of this conversation between Burns and the American media host?
As a matter of fact, as ambassador to China, Burns's main task is to assist in communication between China and the United States and to make efforts to ease Sino-US relations. Although Burns's remarks comparing China with the Soviet Union show that he has a strong hostility towards China, from the tone of his interview with the US media, we can feel that his main idea is to avoid the complete decoupling of China and the United States, which may also be Biden's true thoughts at present. Although the United States was the victor of the Cold War, it is useless for the United States to try to replicate the past to deal with China. China has repeatedly released its goodwill for peaceful coexistence to the United States, and the United States should not always be obsessed with trying to contain China, after all, the Pacific Ocean is big enough to accommodate the two big countries of China and the United States, and there is no need for China and the United States to "divorce", let alone tear their faces.