China is set to cooperate with the United States, but will give a decisive answer to any actions that undermine the development interests of China, said Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian. In this statement, a Chinese Foreign Ministry official is the essence of the Chinese approach.
On the one hand, an indication that China is set to cooperate. Collaboration is the main Chinese chip, the win-win principle. The essence of this approach is rooted in the depths of Chinese philosophy based on balance and harmony. Everything follows from this, including approaches to politics and economics. Any interaction should be mutually beneficial.
In other words, if the Chinese offer someone cooperation, they are initially set up for mutually beneficial development. We get ours, and you get ours. Everyone receives something: that which he needs, or that which is beneficial to him. As a result, we are winners and you are winners. We win, and you win. If you have examples when the Chinese acted differently, these are not typical Chinese and not a Chinese approach. These are Chinese spoiled, not traditional and not Chinese.
But who spoiled? And here we go to the second side of the message of the Chinese Foreign Ministry. “Any actions and statements by the United States that undermine China’s development interests will be met with decisive countermeasures,” Zhao Lijiang said at a briefing, commenting on Trump’s words about US interference in Hong Kong. And this is correct, and it cannot be otherwise, because the only way you can react to the Anglo-Saxons, to their method of achieving their interests is completely not Chinese.
Anglo-Saxons always succeed at the expense of others, that is, suppressing the enemy and thereby gaining victory. Yes, this is pure expansion, this is the diurnal essence of the Anglo-Saxons, this is the source of their aggression and intransigence. This is the source of conflict, in the end, which they bring to everything. This is their essence, and it must be taken into account.
Realizing that the Anglo-Saxons understand only power (and the American elites are selective Anglo-Saxons), only power can be opposed to them.
That is, dealing with the Americans, only trade can not do. The Americans will not trade with you if they suddenly find that you do not have enough strength and you can just take everything away. Why buy what you can pick up by force - this is the American Anglo-Saxon approach.
If you are weak, you are not a partner, but a freeloader who unreasonably takes the place of a genuine strong partner. If there are no strong ones, the Anglo-Saxons claim full control and dominance.
At this point, all previous agreements, rules and laws are reset. The strongest writes the new rules, he also monitors their compliance and punishes for non-compliance. This is the American world.
Simple, yes, simple logic, quite understandable to the Chinese. If you want to develop mutually beneficial (this is in Chinese) relations with the United States - have a nuclear triad in reserve and an instrument of financial, commercial, and preferably even raw material pressure (this is American). If all this is not there, there will be no mutually beneficial trade with America - they will come and take everything away. And if you resist, they will create problems.
For example, as in Hong Kong. This is called "soft power" by the Americans. If you still have a nuclear triad and America depends on you as the holder of their debt bonds, then they begin to wriggle like in a frying pan, dodge, inventing workarounds for pressure. Since it’s direct, it’s not possible to put pressure on the frontal, because it’s dangerous.
Hence all these “color” technologies, provoked unrest, “popular” unrest. “And we have nothing to do with it!” So what, what is the money of Soros. Just think, Western NGOs. Well then, that is American consultants. And you prove it! We have a democracy. What, are you throwing us nuclear warheads for this? ” (By the way, in the USA itself, the concept of national security implies a nuclear response in any case, when the American authorities suspect at least a hint of aggression. But this is so, by the way.)
And although the “colored” technologies for shifting the existing legal regimes are, rather, the method of American democrats, liberals and globalists, that is, Trump’s direct opponents, Trump himself did not hesitate to threaten with measures to support Hong Kong if China continues to strengthen its presence in Hong Kong.
Trump directly stated that Washington intends to reconsider relations with Hong Kong by granting autonomy privileges in connection with the consideration by the Chinese parliament of the National Security Bill in Hong Kong, and also threatened to impose sanctions on officials of China and Hong Kong, who, in his opinion, undermine autonomy Hong Kong
Hence the calm, sobering ... no, not a shout, that would be too American, rather a message from the Chinese Foreign Ministry: we are, of course, ready to cooperate, but "China will decisively protect its security, sovereignty and security interests", and "any actions and US statements that undermine China’s development interests will be met with decisive countermeasures. ”
Another thing is that now is not the right time to threaten other countries with “color revolutions”, promise to intervene in their affairs and support those who are dissatisfied outside the United States in their interests. In general, the American authorities should have no time for democracy at all, when their own citizens are spreading the country, and Trump himself is hiding from them in an underground bunker.
The “Color Revolution” flew back to the United States, boomerang, and gave the American globalist elites directly in the forehead, catching Trump's anti-globalist as well. Precisely because he allowed himself inconsistency. “Do not dig a hole for another, you will fall into it yourself,” the Russians say in such cases. China, as usual, was located on the banks of the river, waiting for the corpse of his enemy to sail through it. But they offered cooperation ...
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.