Washington’s policies against China and Russia will not produce the desired results.
The US approach is rooted in an outdated cold war framework which does not apply to the current political environment.
It is no longer a secret that NATO regimes view Russia and China as their strategic rivals.
However, NATO’s assessment of the two is seriously flawed.
The US regime and its surrogates view Beijing and Moscow as temporary allies and aim to pressure each through the divide and conquer policy.
Russian policy centers are keenly aware of this.
On February 5, Dr. Andrey Kortunov, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council, an academic and diplomatic Russian think-tank, wrote an in-depth analysis on how Washington views Russia-China partnership.
Relying mainly on the policy paper by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), authored by ex-CIA official Andrea Kendall-Taylor, whom Joe Biden picked to head the Russian section at the National Security Council, Kortunov highlighted significant miscalculations present in assessing Russian-Chinese relations.
Kortunov points out that Washington inaccurately views Moscow-Beijing partnership as tactical, which he views as flawed.
According to Kortunov “Russia and China are united by their desire to resist the global influence of the United States. Both countries view the United States as a major challenge to their national security; they are also united in their perception of the United States as a superpower in long-term and irreversible decline. Moscow and Beijing are striving to revise the fundamental rules of the game of world politics that took shape during the era of American hegemony. Second, both Russia and China are determined to stop the advancement of Western-style democracy. The Russian and Chinese leaders act on the assumption that it is the United States that is the global leader in the export of Western models of political structure, using democratic slogans to destabilize sovereign states and advance American geopolitical interests.”
Examining Moscow-Beijing cooperation in political, military and economic fields, Kortunov concludes that “Russian-Chinese partnership is serious and for a long time.
“Relations between Moscow and Beijing are not tactical or situational, but strategic. The interests of the two countries are not identical but coincide or are close to each other on a very wide range of issues, and there are very serious grounds for further deepening and expanding their partnership.”
One of the greatest Machiavellian tricks of the US-Zionist war criminal, Henry Kissinger was his ability to create a split between China and the Soviet Union.
By separating the two most powerful communist states from each other and forcing them to compete, Washington gained the upper hand against the Soviet Union during the Cold War and managed to establish a unipolar world order.
It is becoming clear that America’s policy kit is relying on its success of the 1970s and does not consider that Russia of today is not the Soviet Union, and China of 2021 is not the China of 1970s.
Both Beijing and Moscow are no longer constrained by rigid ideological interests.
Russia and China’s political systems are far more pragmatic and flexible than they were in the 1970s.
In addition, both countries have adopted non-dogmatic economic policies which allow them to reconfigure their economies in a way best suited to resisting NATO’s geopolitical and economic pressure.
Observing Russia and China’s internal and external policies clearly show that NATO regimes are misunderstanding their opponents and their outdated policies will not be able to reestablish the West-centric global order.