【Text/Observer Network Columnist Shen Yi】
On February 25, 2022, President Xi Jinping had a telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, focusing on exchanging views on the current situation in Ukraine.
The press release used the following description: "Putin introduced the historical latitude and longitude of the Ukrainian issue and the situation and position of Russia's special military operations in the eastern region of Ukraine, saying that the United States and NATO have long ignored Russia's reasonable security concerns, repeatedly reneged on their commitments, and continuously pushed forward military deployments to the east, challenging Russia's strategic bottom line." ”
President Xi Jinping pointed out in the call that recently, the situation in the eastern region of Ukraine has changed dramatically, which has aroused great concern from the international community. China decides its position on the basis of the merits of the Ukrainian issue itself. It is necessary to abandon the Cold War mentality, attach importance to and respect the legitimate security concerns of all countries, and form a balanced, effective and sustainable European security mechanism through negotiations. China supports Russia and Ukraine in resolving the issue through negotiations. China's basic position on respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and abiding by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations is consistent. China is willing to work with all parties in the international community to advocate a common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security concept and firmly safeguard the international system with the United Nations at its core and the international order based on international law.
Previously, on February 21 and 24, Russian President Vladimir Putin made two national televised speeches in which he gave a comprehensive account of the historical trajectory of the Ukraine issue, especially the development process of NATO's eastward expansion after the Cold War, explaining to the global system the cognitive framework of Russia's top decision-makers on the Ukraine issue and Russia's core concerns on the Ukraine issue.
In the early morning of February 24, local time, Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized military operations in Donbass and made a televised speech.
On February 23, in the face of the classic unreasonable entanglement of the Western media at the press conference of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, spokeswoman Hua Chunying made an impressive statement: Some countries should think about the consequences of forcing a big country to the Jedi when the United States violated the agreement with Russia, expanded NATO east to Russia's doorstep five times, and deployed a large number of advanced offensive strategic weapons.
Hua Chunying's statement, translated into straightforward language, gives a concise and concise answer to the development of the situation in Ukraine and the logic of Russia's actions: forcing a big country like Russia to the Jedi, or touching the red line of security interests drawn by the Russian side, so that the leaders of this big country find themselves unable to retreat, then you should not continue to use some kind of clumsy word game to touch the porcelain country after the situation changes.
In fact, the United States should be very clear about this, how does the United States view the famous Cuban missile crisis during the Cold War, how does the United States view the Soviet Union's preparation to transport medium-range missiles into Cuba as a deterrent weapon against the Invasion of Cuba by the United States, and what kind of action it has taken?
If there is basic empathy, or a basic knowledge and understanding of the history of international relations, we will know how NATO's continuous eastward expansion will stimulate and affect Russia.
This is not a big problem, and there is no shortage of people of insight in the United States who can recognize this problem. In 2014, Brzezinski made it clear that it would be useful to promise Moscow that Ukraine would pursue a neutral course like Finland. Brzezinski argues that this model could mean "mutually respectful proximity, the broad side of [Ukraine's] economic relations with Russia and the European Union; and not joining any military alliance that Moscow considers aimed at anti-Russian." Another veteran of U.S. diplomacy, Dr. Kissinger, has a more profound view, saying that the West should understand that "Ukraine has never been more than a foreign country for Russia (the West does have a poor understanding of this basic fact)." Of course, Kissinger, who is skilled in balance of power, also made it clear that he did not want the United States to cede Ukraine to Moscow, and he believed that the compromise should be Ukraine becoming "a bridge between East and West, not an outpost of these rivals against others."
In the middle of the question, although the ideas of these two senior figures do not conform to the analytical framework of "democracy vs authoritarianism" that prevailed after the Cold War in the United States and the West, they are indeed based on the medium- and long-term interests of the United States and the West, and after pragmatically analyzing and considering the goals pursued by the United States and the West on the Ukraine issue, the resources available to them, and the cost-benefits of each option, the rather politically intelligent solutions proposed by the United States and the West are of great practical significance to the United States and the West, whether then or now.
Professor Millsheimer, who is more committed to offensive realism, who deeply abhors neoliberal rhetoric and pompous frameworks, and therefore self-deprecating as "a 19th-century man," made incisive comments six or seven years ago about the phenomenon that the United States was "deeply surprised" by the phenomenon of the United States dominating NATO's arbitrary advance on the one hand, and the strong opposition to Russia on the other, to the effect that perhaps Washington is a group of human beings of the 21st century, and they have forgotten the Monroe Doctrine that the United States itself advocated and continues to this day. The central point is that no "extraterritorial" country other than the United States will be allowed to deploy military forces in the Americas, including North and South America, so following the principles of the Monroe Doctrine, the United States should not be surprised by Russia (resistance to NATO's eastward expansion).
Many of Professor Millsheimer's arguments are debatable, but at least he has shown a remarkable consistency in his willingness to recognize That Russia's right to have the same concerns about core national security interests as the United States, without adopting the multiple standards of the giant baby-like style common in the words and deeds of American and Western media, research institutions, and politicians.
Kissinger's article was published in the Washington Post 8 years ago
However, it is clear that as far as the current situation is concerned, neither the insight of senior strategic researchers into history, nor the induction of contemporary American researchers based on the practice of US strategy, or the practical experience hidden in the diplomatic archives of the US government, have not been able to overcome the optimism brought about by "winning the Cold War" and have not been able to block the erroneous idea of "enjoying the dividends of the Cold War at will without bearing any price for it". Of course, a large number of facts that have been observed by all parties around the world also prove that NATO, like a delicate but crude beast, has been frantically advancing on the delicate geopolitical map of Europe for nearly 30 years, and after successfully forcing Russia into the corner of the national strategic choice, it finally ushered in a somewhat unexpected but completely reasonable Jedi counterattack that may be somewhat unexpected for washington policymakers.
Overall, this is the eve of the United States and Western countries maliciously consuming the Cold War dividend, and after making a series of cross-corroboratable and interactively enhanced wrong decisions in the objective and subjective dimensions of NATO's eastward expansion, russia was finally forced into a helpless situation of "either eruption or slow extinction". And the real development of the situation has also declared to the world: after a big country is forced into the Jedi, it will take all means to fight back, including the use of force.
After Russia began to carry out "special military operations" in Ukraine, US and Western politicians and media seemed to have remembered the concept called "national sovereignty" overnight, instantly transformed into pure angels of peace, forgotten how the United States and Western countries held high the banners of "human rights above sovereignty," "democratic peace theory," "preventing weapons of mass destruction," and "combating terrorism" after the end of the Cold War, creating many disasters in Libya, Syria, Iraq, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and other places, with a view to freedom, democracy, and so on. The agitation driven by the sincere feelings of peace has repeatedly discussed the major question of whether it is "aggression" on various occasions.
To tell the truth, this routine is really hypocritical and outrageously embarrassing, and behind it is such a basic fact: Politicians and media in Western countries continue to stubbornly immerse themselves in the dream of "western victory and the end of history" after the end of the Cold War, firmly believe that the world operates according to their needs and imaginations, when to use what standards to discuss what issues to make what judgments, to think completely about what is a play, to think how to do, to think that what must be what. This state of mind has gone beyond the "multiple standards" in the general sense and is more like a mental plague with self-reinforcing characteristics and a collective mental illness caused by the arrogance of Western-centrism.
The development of the situation has exceeded their expectations, and the wrong decision made by western countries on NATO's eastward expansion has finally led to a Jedi counterattack of "late but arriving", and the seemingly strong Western elites, whether politicians or the media, have invariably entered the "white lotus" mode in a neat manner driven by exquisite and extreme egoism, and even really sought some psychological comfort from this purely arbitrary emotional action.
This cannot help but make people sigh, but also feel deep sadness that the so-called Western world, which was excited about winning the Cold War just thirty years ago, was deeply saddened. What a tragedy to unfold, to be able to squander the strategic assets given by history in such a short period of time with such a lofty and vigorous posture, without knowing how to introspect itself, and still have a colorful face, and it is so depraved that it is touching.
As far as the development of the Ukrainian region is concerned, as of the time of writing, the latest news coming from the front is that the Russian presidential spokesman Peskov said that the Ukrainian side said that it was reconsidering the idea of holding talks with Russia in Minsk, the capital of Belarus, and chose the Polish capital Warsaw, and then disappeared. Yes, the Zelenskiy who took acting as a profession before becoming the president of Ukraine disappeared, and it is expected that the script will unfold like this: delaying negotiations and contacts with Russia in various ways, and western countries intensively carrying out various political performances with strong visual effects, whether condemnation or sanctions; at the same time, using funds from various sources to maximize the continuous bloodshed of Ukraine, trying to make the situation in Ukraine middle-east and Afghan, and coldly turning Ukraine into a quagmire that "traps" Russia. With the blood of the Ukrainian people, he continued to write scarlet strokes for the personal biographies of American and European politicians.
A close reading of Putin's two speeches, combined with the post-Cold War experiences of Russia, China, and many other countries, coupled with the observation of the history of Western countries abusing the Cold War dividend for three decades, shows that US and European politicians have played a crucial role in it. One of their basic preferences, which is to put the interests of the individual and his political faction above the interests of the state that has been on the lips all day, is arguably the most crucial reason for the current situation.
As mentioned earlier, whether it is Brzezinski, Kissinger, or Millsheimer, they all have quite profound insights into how to properly deal with the geopolitical security problems of post-Cold War Europe; in terms of Russia's overall performance during this period, there is no shortage of opportunities to solve the problem, but in the end it is perfectly missed. In this process, the most crucial power is in the hands of politicians in the United States and Western countries.
Observations on the strategic decision-making practices of Western countries in the three decades after the Cold War can be concluded that the overall development trend of the United States and Western countries after the end of the Cold War is to use a game-play attitude to look at and understand foreign strategic decisions, and decision-making considerations on issues such as NATO's eastward expansion depend more on whether they can bring enough domestic political chips to help politicians win elections; as for the geopolitical consequences that are difficult to become election issues, As well as serious thinking about the medium- and long-term strategic stability of Western countries and even the world, in the past three decades, it has been systematically expelled from the thinking space at a speed visible to the naked eye.
What is particularly noteworthy is that when Western countries are faced with an increasingly obvious lack of structural governance determined by systems and systems, and cannot face the challenges of deep problems such as the increasingly obvious gap between rich and poor, unbalanced economic structure, weak growth, and ethnic rifts in China, the countries and leaders who are set as challengers are demonized in a face-like manner, and they are shaped into so-called external enemies with significant domestic political mobilization effects and contradictions, which has almost become the general rule of the United States and Western countries, and even becomes a new type of political correctness.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced "the toughest in history" sanctions and offered refuge to Ukraine's leaders. Picture from RT
This is true not only in terms of the international situation and the perception of strategic opponents, but also in terms of building coping capabilities and systems. The United States and the West, as a model, have a pathological attachment to the so-called "clean" policy tools with economic-financial sanctions at the core. The so-called "clean" means that the West has the imaginary advantage of not having to pay for the use of tools in the short term (during the term of the politician who made the decision), and can be invincible on any issue, so that even those who follow geopolitical game theory and the preparations that countries must make certain choices are not willing to invest.
As a result of this, judging from the fact that NATO's eastward expansion of Ukraine has pushed Russia's national security bottom line to the limit and induced Russia's Jedi to counterattack, from beginning to end, the United States and the West have done two diametrically opposed things at the same time: on the one hand, they have vigorously amplified and demonized Russia's response to NATO's eastward expansion into Ukraine, demonizing Russia's various countermeasures to NATO's eastward expansion into Ukraine, and demonizing them into confrontations between "dictatorial leaders" and "free world"; on the other hand, vigorously amplifying the "free world" with economic and financial sanctions tools to "win without a war" of inevitability, without any other preparation. So, when the Events in Ukraine entered the fermentation stage, the world, especially those individuals who had lost their original political identity in the spiritual cult of the United States and the West, were stunned to find that the powerful United States they knew, the seemingly invincible "West", still remained in Hollywood works and their imaginations. What emerges in the real world is the British prime minister, who has invited Ukraine's top leader to "exile abroad" before the cannon is fired, and the US president who has expressed firm emotional support far below the market's expected sanctions in the White House.
It is extremely ironic that, along with the successful practice of domestic political mobilization, policymakers in the United States and the West seem to have really formed a certain recognition that problems such as NATO's eastward expansion can be handled rashly in this irresponsible way, and the risk of falling into a real price can be avoided.
Subsequently, this erroneous perception and practice has spread not only in Western countries, but also in some large and small areas within the scope of Western radiation, especially some leaders of countries and regions like Ukraine who are at key points in sensitive geopolitics, and have also accepted this extremely frivolous and irresponsible cognition: they can trust the West unconditionally, they can provoke Russia's security red lines without risk, security commitments and economic support from the West are blank checks that can be squandered indefinitely, and any speech is allowed. Any decision is feasible and there is no need to worry at all.
The line in the movie "Infernal Affairs", "Those who come out of the mix, all want to be returned", inadvertently, give a very dramatic answer. The Jedi counterattack that Russia is determined to make is a Jedi counterattack forced out by the HEGEMONy of the United States, and finally at the practical level, the answer is given.
As a strategically approached by the United States and the West in the past three decades to "slowly perish without eruption", Russia, after extracting the historical longitude and latitude of the whole thing, it is of course difficult to become a "perfect victim" in the sense of meeting the strict moral-theoretical standards led by the West. Realistically speaking, the perfect victim is generally either lying on the autopsy table, or has been written into the textbook as a classic case, in the world shrouded by the hegemony of the United States and the West, can still survive there, always have to do something to survive first; and these, in the discourse system dominated by the Hegemony of the United States and the West, are described as flaws, problems, defects, deficiencies, etc.
In the case of China, after the founding of New China in 1949, the measure to abolish unequal treaties was mercilessly labeled by the United States as "refusing to fulfill its international obligations"; as far as NATO is concerned, the blood debt of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia that was bombed in the Kosovo War is still owed. To tell the truth, people who are truly peace-loving, people who can really distinguish between right and wrong, are difficult to follow and believe that the United States and the West, which are famous for "one bomb and one road", will not hesitate to discuss such topics as non-interference in sovereignty on the incident of Russia's Jedi counterattack on the Ukrainian issue.
To put it bluntly, today's world, because of the wanton consumption of the Cold War dividend by the United States and the West, and because of the reckless behavior on the issue of NATO's eastward expansion, has entered a situation where Russia must fight back. What we need to do is, first of all, to abandon the Cold War mentality and advocate the concept of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security; in practice, as far as the European direction is concerned, it is necessary to attach importance to and respect the legitimate security concerns of all countries and form a balanced, effective and sustainable European security mechanism through negotiations; at the global level, it is to truly follow and implement the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and to cooperate pragmatically in the direction of a community with a shared future for mankind at a time when mankind is facing complex challenges, so as to seek a better tomorrow for mankind.
This article is the exclusive manuscript of the observer network, the content of the article is purely the author's personal views, does not represent the platform views, unauthorized, may not be reproduced, otherwise will be investigated for legal responsibility. Pay attention to the observer network WeChat guanchacn, read interesting articles every day.