It is no secret that the Western camp of the United States, the Russian camp and third-party forces are waiting for the outcome of this war in Ukraine. This is because the outcome of this war will determine the new world pattern and the dominance of the international order.
Based on the latest changes in the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine and the information released by an important foreign visit at the beginning of Putin's new term, Western media believe that there is no suspense about the camp "taking sides", and the West no longer has "illusions", and what will follow will be a "decisive battle" covering both inside and outside the battlefield in Ukraine, which means that a "new pattern" of the world is about to take shape.
Western media reported that some think tanks and scholars believe that even the word "counter-table" is used, which is enough to show that the camp has completed its "standing in line". As for what it means, the Western media have given their own judgments.
In its report, the Spanish newspaper El Mundo said that Putin was seeking help and support to "challenge the global order dominated by the United States." The Washington Post notes that Putin's aim is to provide an "alternative" to the U.S.-led world order.
According to an analysis by the Financial Times, although there is no "bilateral defense treaty", substantial military cooperation is bound to have a significant impact on a global scale. The Telegraph said that while they were talking about peace, they were "preparing for war".
There are also Western media who believe that the United States has long included Russia, Iran, and North Korea in the camp of the "new Axis powers", but it has the illusion of "preventing the expansion of this camp". But now, the "illusions" are shattered. Therefore, the latest term used in the United States is "you can't have both fish and bear's paws."
Some Western think tanks have analyzed and pointed out that as early as the end of April, after the "Ukraine Aid Act" was passed, the strategic determination of the United States has changed from "consuming Russia" to "defeating Russia". Because the United States has realized that Russia, which also has the support of the camp, is unlikely to fall "in attrition".
And now, due to the drastic change in the state of affairs, there is no suspense about the "side" of the camp. Next, the United States will inevitably make a more important "strategic determination," because it is impossible for the United States to give up its "dominance" to the international order, even if it is a "dying struggle."
Obviously, judging from the evolution of the situation, when the camp is decided, whether it is a cold war or a hot war, a "decisive battle" for the new world pattern and the dominance of the international order seems inevitable. So, who will win?
To put it bluntly, before answering which side will win, we must first understand what exactly are the demands of both sides?
Needless to say, the United States is aiming to maintain its dominant position in the world and the post-World War II rules order that is conducive to embodying Western values and codes of conduct.
As for the demands of the Russian camp, Putin said at the World Russian Congress on November 28 last year: "Our country is now at the forefront of building a 'fairer' world order." Obviously, much the same as the rhetoric of "multipolarity".
Western think tanks and media have interpreted Putin's proposal for a "fairer world order", believing that its core demands have two points: First, the political discourse can no longer be "the United States has the final say". Second, security concerns among major powers must be "indivisible". The West interprets this as a "buffer zone" or "sphere of influence".
Judging from the comparison of the demands of the two sides, the Russian camp seems to have missing the element of "values" in its claims, which is precisely what some "countries of the World South" are more likely to accept. Because they are unwilling to be "constrained" by the values advocated by the United States. To put it bluntly, this is where the "highlight" lies. As for whether it will work or not, it will naturally depend on the outcome of the decisive battle.
There is no doubt that if this "decisive battle" is unavoidable, there will inevitably be a situation of either a cold war or a hot war, and it will not be possible to have such a "hook and fight" situation as it is now. Because, once the face is torn, there is no room for "compromise".
In fact, to a certain extent, the "hot war" has already begun, and the only uncertainty is the question of whether the battlefield will expand. For example, Russia has been fighting on the Ukrainian battlefield in Eastern Europe for more than two years in several countries that have been included in the "new axis" by the West. On the battlefield in the Middle East, Hamas has been fighting Israel for more than seven months, and in April, Iran also took Israel in person for a round.
Obviously, if the scale of the hot war must be expanded, then it is very likely to be the peninsula region and the Pacific theater. And what will happen if this hot war breaks out in full swing?
It is almost certain that if war breaks out on the peninsula, Japan will inevitably intervene, because it sees it as an opportunity to shake off the burden of a "defeated country," and Japan's military strength cannot be "seen through" at a glance.
And if war breaks out in the Pacific, it will be even more necessary to be "vigilant." This is because not only Japan will participate, but also Anglo-Saxon countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom. And more importantly, the United States has been "accumulating" strength.
"Caring people" should be able to notice that after the disgraced withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan at the end of August 2021, the United States did not actually fight again. For example, in the war in Ukraine, the United States is just helping some weapons and spending some money. On the battlefield in the Middle East, the United States is only sending aircraft carriers to "deter" it.
For example, on the Syrian battlefield, it seems that the US military is fighting, but in fact, there are less than 1,000 US troops on the Syrian battlefield. As for the Houthis, the US launch-point missiles are nothing more than "exercises". It is obvious that the United States is "accumulating strength". Its purpose is also "Sima Zhao's heart is known to everyone". Therefore, these factors must be taken into account when judging who wins and who loses.
As for the Cold War, that meant "full decoupling". In fact, the Cold War will have more uncertainties. To some extent, the damage to the losing side could be greater and more far-reaching.
Objectively speaking, the United States and the West have decoupled from Russia, Iran and North Korea. The only suspense now is whether it will decouple from the larger economy. In this regard, some analysts believe that the "de-risking" theory of the United States is already "paving the way" for comprehensive decoupling. And once there is no suspense about "choosing sides", "decoupling" is very likely to become a "fact".
If "decoupling" and "cold war" become a reality, then the struggle between politics and values will be secondary, and science and technology and economics will become the "winners and losers". At the economic level, for example, it has been argued that resource-rich and industrially large countries can "complement each other", but the "market" factor should not be left out. We must have a clear understanding of this.
Obviously, whether it is a cold war or a hot war, the losing side will "fight with chickens and eggs", and not only will it not be able to establish a new international rule and order with "dominance," but its original power will also be weakened or even lost as a result.
Moreover, no matter which side wins or loses, it is certain that it will be exhausted by paying a huge price. Therefore, in the new world structure, "third-party forces" are likely to "profit", such as India.
It has been noted that whether it is the Russia-Ukraine war or the Middle East war, India, a country with a population of 1.4 billion, seems to be "out of the way". In fact, India has been burying its head in economic development. To put it bluntly, no matter which of the two camps wins in the end, there is a high probability that India will have a place in the future world pattern.