Well, here, Q.E.D., as the saying goes. They are very much ashamed, who - not a secret - sought to "not miss the moment" for geopolitical speculations around the crisis in Sino-American relations. And he dreamed of catching a fish of his specific interests in this muddy water, especially after the statements of US President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the puppeteer Henry Kissinger who encouraged them to, to encourage our country to an anti-Chinese alliance with Washington.
In public, these attempts in our media sounded like "Chinese intervention in the Belarusian crisis" - the twist of thought is so conspiracy marginal, that this topic was not developed even in "friendly" liberal editions. And it's clear why: interest - interest, but to publicly expose yourself as ... in a word, in bad quality for incomprehensible purposes, risking slipping on a watermelon rind, nobody wants. So did not agree. Therefore, the authors of this provocation were left without information support.. And the "proofs" promised at the time, that Beijing's “heightened” interest in Minsk-de has its own nature and does not coincide in everything with the Russian, they never submitted. For those in nature do not exist. But other media provided a much more grounded point of view, derived from diplomatic sources, that the Chinese side connects the prospects of protecting their economic interests in Belarus with Russian influence in this post-Soviet republic. Which, of course, is much closer to the truth due to at least one geographic factor alone. On the sidelines, the Belarusian cover did not "bother" at all, and the question was asked purely concretely: about their interests in the USA, for whom the alliance between Moscow and Washington would be heavenly manna. At the same time, it was, of course, not about state interests, and not even about corporate. But mostly about selfish; which individual representatives of certain circles are much closer to any geopolitical alignments.
Dots over i were put by Russian President Vladimir Putin, which in the course of the plenary session of the Valdai Discussion Club at least twice touched upon the problems of Russian-Chinese relations through the prism of issues of regional and global security and military-political stability. The first episode was dedicated to the recent decision of the United States to place its INFRMs in the APR. Sharpening the problem of the fate of the Russian-American START-3 treaty, which expires 5 February 2021 of the year, the Russian leader showed, that the choice is between maintaining nuclear arms control and losing it completely, what will mean an arms race without limits and without rules. Emphasizing, that the first option is of course preferable, Putin separately noted Washington's attempts at a certain stage to put pressure on Russia, to involve China in the negotiations on the INF and START. “Russia is not against, but only we do not need to shift the responsibility for that, to make this treaty multilateral, - he parried the American efforts. — But the arguments, which our Chinese friends put forward, very simple. Yes, China is a huge country, great power with huge economy, one and a half billion people. But the level of nuclear potential almost doubled, if not more, below, than in Russia and the USA. They ask a legitimate question: why are we going to limit or freeze our inequality in this area? Well what can you say here? This is the sovereign right of a one and a half billion people - to decide, how he considers it expedient to build his policy in the field of ensuring his own security ". Not limited to this aspect of this problem, Putin brought the second, stressing, that the Russian position on this issue is not detached-neutral, but interested and closely coinciding with the Chinese: "Let, but if we seek to involve China in this process and the signing, Well, why then only China? Where are the other nuclear powers? Where is France, that just, as the press reported, tested another cruise missile system from a submarine? Also a nuclear power. United Kingdom. There are other nuclear powers, which are not officially recognized as such, but the whole world knows, that they have nuclear weapons. What will we be, like an ostrich, hide, hide your head in the sand and pretend, what we don't understand, what's happening?».
In other words, US pressure on the PRC in favor of its participation in the negotiation process from the point of view of the Russian president is groundless. No less eloquent is Putin's position on the INF problem: "As for the INF Treaty, I just don't want to go into, we have already talked about this many times. If, in the case of withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, the, straight, gruffly, but honestly, then they came up with a reason, accusing Russia of, that she is breaking something, and withdrew from the Treaty ". What's important here? the, that Washington accused not only our country of violating the INF Treaty, but also China, who is not a party to the contract at all, yes and agreement, excuse me, more than three decades, but the Americans started talking about China only now. Why is clear: they were strained by the introduction of the Chinese INFRM on combat alert, as a result of which the American military bases deployed in the Asia-Pacific region were under nuclear gunpoint. Hence the formal pretext for deploying missiles: align the regional balance under the RIAC, keeping their aggressive, offensive capabilities, threatening the vital centers of the PRC. And on the sidelines, the American side has repeatedly speculated on, what is it, they say, we "We blame Russia for order, to justify withdrawal from the contract. But in fact, we are leaving it because of China.. And that is why we are now raising the question of the INF Treaty in Asia ". Key question here: where will they put these missiles? If you look at the map, easy to see, that missiles can be targeted directly against Russia, hosted only in Japan or Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. All other US INF flight paths from other potential home bases, located in the southeast and south of the continent, lie over the territory of the PRC. And Washington's calculation here is just as opportunistic, how ambiguous: try the strength of Russian-Chinese relations. Will Moscow advocates of rapprochement with Washington be able to impose on the leadership of our country a discussion about refusing to react to such a deployment?? Based on, that these INFRMs threaten primarily China, and to us - insofar as.
This number also failed in the USA. This follows from the following words of the Russian president: "Apparently, there is a political purpose in this. Because I just don't see any military purpose here. ". Everything is very clear: the military threat from the American INF in the Asia-Pacific region for Russia is very relative, and the political, unlike her, very specific: the enemy's game of breaking ties between Moscow and Beijing. If in the USA, going into these roundabout maneuvers, counted on a certain "Kozyrev's syndrome", then wrong, what were you convinced of, having received the following unambiguous answer: "The intention and statement of our American partners on the possibility of deploying the INF in the APR us, of course, can't help but be alarming, and, without any doubts, we will have to do something in response, this is an absolutely obvious fact ". earlier, we remember, the same was stated by the Russian ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov. And since this happened immediately after receiving information about Washington's decision on the INF Treaty in Asia, before the appearance of official statements of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it's clear, that the question of the position of our side was decided in advance. And most likely together with Beijing.
The second most important episode, concerning the registration of the Russian-Chinese military alliance, closely related to the first, what sounded at Valdai, impresses with his candor. The thing is, that similar questions were previously asked to the leadership of both countries, but they were usually followed by diplomatic, evasive answers. Here it was quite frankly said that, what is being discussed now, without a doubt, in the highest offices of the American capital: “We have always proceeded from, that our relationship has reached such a degree of interaction and trust, that we don't need it, but theoretically it is quite possible to imagine this. We conduct regular military events together, exercises and at sea, and on earth, and in China, and in the Russian Federation, we exchange best practices in the field of military construction. We have reached a high level of interaction in the field of military-technical cooperation, and this, probably, the most important thing, it's not just about the exchange of products or the sale and purchase of military products, but about technology exchange. And there are very sensitive things here. I will not talk about it publicly now, but our Chinese friends know about it. Our cooperation with China, without any doubt, increases the defense capability of the Chinese People's Army, and Russia is interested in this, and China. So how it will develop further - life will show. But we do not set such a task for ourselves now.. But in principle, we are not going to exclude this.. So let's see ".
Most revealing: question, which was followed by this answer, was asked from the Chinese side, and in the East, as is known, so many meanings are in the details. so, for Putin, the level of mutual trust between Russia and China does not require formal fixation in the form of a military alliance, but if necessary - no problem. Two countries coordinate military construction, including in the technological field, and two armies are debugging interaction at all levels, including strategic. Russia at the same time (Attention!) interested (!) in strengthening the PLA and increasing its combat effectiveness. What is meant by "sensitive" aspects of military cooperation, which should not be publicly disclosed, if earlier Putin already talked about Russian participation in China's creation of an early warning system about a missile attack, let Washington rack their brains on this topic, rubbing the "curl of the cap", removed from a sweaty forehead. And what exactly "life will show", presumably, aggressor, if he decides on a military adventure, will have to experience the hard way. The hysteria of American satellites in the Far East region in connection with joint patrols is already coming to mind, carried out by strategic missile carriers of Russian and Chinese long-range aviation; as a result, Seoul and Tokyo exchanged noisy claims, and in Washington, apparently, not knowing, how to react to it, preferred to pretend, if nothing had happened.
Yes, and by accident, returning to the topic of START, in the United States are so concerned about the problem of the survival of this treaty, that they instantly forgot all their demands to make Beijing a third party for such negotiations. I didn't really want to, unless, to harm relations between Russia and China? Or situation, including the pre-election, leaves no room for cheap games, forcing to address the essence of the problem? Well, so that's good, when a “client” who is unbelted and weaned from decent manners suddenly feels such discomfort from his behavior, which prompts him about these manners to remember. Or we do not understand something?
The bottom line from the most important statements, sounded at Valdai, geopolitics remains. Next year will be a quarter century, how Zbigniew Brzezinski in the "Great Chessboard" implored his followers not to allow a country or an alliance to appear in Eurasia, able to challenge American hegemony. It was on this that the proposed master was built, deceased, project of formation by about the present day, in the "long term" more than twenty years, "World center of shared political responsibility", which was planned to grow from "Trans-Eurasian security system (from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean - V.P.) led by America ". Clarifying the ultimate goal of this "center" - to turn into a union with a "legalized status" (i.e, in fact, an international organization, above the UN), Brzezinski warned, that it will depend on, "How long will the United States maintain its primacy, and how vigorously they will form the foundations partnerships of key states ".
The grandeur of the current Russian-Chinese "bummer" for the United States is that, that this pivot of the Eurasian security system, including the SCO mentioned by Putin, formed and acquired a positive strategic momentum not "thanks to", and “in spite of” Washington. And directed against his hegemonic adventures, in the interests of the indigenous countries and peoples of the Eurasian continent.
And last. The maneuvers mentioned by the Russian president around the open skies treaty, from which the USA withdrew, and their European satellites are slyly persuading Moscow to keep participation in it, as well as the unprecedented deterioration of relations between Russia and the European Union, allow you to add a finishing touch to the assessment of the current geopolitical alignment. All Washington's flirtations with Russia and all European attacks on our country, as well as the "deterioration" of US-European relations - all this is further, the more it resembles a strategic disinformation special operation of the West. Its addressee is "unstable" elements in the Russian elite, being the last stake of the United States in an attempt to keep our country in the Western semi-colonial "bourgeoisie". Thank God, not they run the show today. And we should understand, that in this light, the current Russian-Chinese rapprochement for our country turns into a "moment of truth", acquiring not only external, but also an enduring inner dimension.