The summit held on August 31 and September 1 in Beijing with the participation of China, Russia, North Korea, India and several countries of the “global south”, has aroused uncertainty and fear in some media and political circles in the West. Amidst attempts at peace negotiations between the US, the EU, Ukraine and Russia, the Beijing meeting is nothing more than an episode in the well-known almost 4-year-old effort by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea for a new multipolar world order.
Between the two blocs, the democratic Western bloc led by the US and the Eurasian bloc led by China and Russia, there are also countries such as India, South Africa, etc., which are also seeking a place at the big table of the “new world”. This bloc called the “global south”, which was joined by BRICS, is in fact not aligned with either side, but is seeking a role on the big stage, starting from the UN Security Council to a possible G-20 that would replace the G-7, although the G-7 is only an informal organization. These countries are not aligned with either side, but are meanwhile exploiting the rivalry between the two sides to take their place.
But of course the tension between the West and the East is represented by the two main blocs and not by the global South. And in this conjuncture of almost antagonistic rivalry, although still at the level of rhetoric or regional conflicts, it is clear that the world tectonics has undergone some oscillations. And officially this rivalry began with the joint statement between Xi-Ping and Putin, just 3 weeks before the start of the Russian aggression in Ukraine, in 2022. So the Beijing summit constitutes an episode, while the real dramatic performances are the ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. What has revived tensions at the global level between the powers is the conviction that China has created mainly that it has grown from a regional power to a global power. At least on paper.
While Russia is also suggesting itself as the former Soviet Union has been revived, while from the half of Europe that it had under its influence and the former Central Asian republics that it included in the BS during the Cold War, it has already occupied only 3% of the territory of Ukraine for 20 years at a very high human, military and economic cost. So much so that Kim Jong-un's soldiers had to "borrow" to advance something on the combat line. For this help, Putin publicly thanked the North Koreans for the heroism shown in the battles behind the war front, in several villages of southern Russia, occupied by the Ukrainian army! What an achievement! But the story does not end here. It only begins. After all, it is one thing to watch videos of the Chinese army parade, and another thing to take seriously the unilateral change of the world order according to China and Russia! And this requires an analysis, not slogans or parades!
First, it must be said that the world order is no longer changed by declarations, parades or local conflicts like the one in Ukraine and Israel. But by force on a global level! That is, by war on a large scale. A direct military clash between the powers themselves. But does the China-Russia axis have the power to enter into armed conflict with the US and their allies around the world with the declared goal of changing the international architecture? And above all, what are the chances of winning such a conventional war if the US and its allies do not listen to the repeated demands of the challenging axis? The data we have, as far as they are worth, lead us to the almost certain answer that: NO! Even though we are very far from the expectations of China and Russia.
Secondly, only the US, not counting its allies, are capable of winning any major conflict for at least the next 5 decades in every corner of the globe. It is enough to see the number of US military bases from Japan and South Korea, or the Pacific to the Middle East, Europe and Africa. As for the American continents, there is no need for comment! And of course, the aspects of the mobility of the US military in terms of vehicles and people, such as ground, naval and air forces, or even air strike capabilities at very large distances, are obvious and proven advantages.
The US can deploy thousands of attack, stealth and multi-role bombers to any corner of the world in a few days through its 11 active aircraft carriers. While their rivals still dream of having a third aircraft carrier, which greatly limits their strike power beyond their area of influence! The most recent case was the bombing of bunkers in Iran, where the US Air Force carried out a successful bombing mission at a distance of approximately 10 thousand kilometers.
But the US also has many other advantages, both technological and industrial. It is enough to see how much they spend on Scientific Research to understand that the US is several steps ahead of others. Not counting civil-military cooperation and satellite communication systems in which the US is the absolute leader. All these capacities and others are the product of a military budget almost 3 times larger than that of China and Russia combined.
And last but not least, the geostrategic position that makes the greatest power in the world almost invincible. While the geographical weaknesses of China and Russia have been known for centuries. China and Russia are familiar with these advantages of the US. The facts show exactly this, that they have not shown in these years that they are capable of conducting military operations beyond the areas surrounding their borders. China no, no, but neither does Russia, which in any case has a long tradition of war and a legacy of military interventions since the Cold War, such as in Hungary and Afghanistan.
When they tried to threaten the US with ballistic missiles in Cuba in the Bay of Pigs Crisis, Khrushchev failed miserably! The Russians have mostly intervened in the past 15 years through the Wagner Group, helping several anti-Western governments in the Middle East and Africa in their internal conflicts. But that is too little to consider themselves a rival to the US on a global scale. It is one thing to keep Assad in power, and another to invade a US ally. The collapse of the attempt by Iran and its proxies to strike Israel since October 7, 2023,
It clearly shows that the attempt to weaken the US and its allies has completely collapsed. What remains is the resistance of Hamas and the Houthi in Yemen, which no longer represent an imminent threat to Israel's existence.
And to put an end to this discussion, we must also take into account the economic indices of the two blocs. The US and the EU alone will have a Gross National Product in 2024 of around 48 trillion dollars, compared to around 22 trillion for China and Russia taken together. And here we are not including the economies of allied countries from Canada to New Zealand, Japan or Israel, which would make the difference even deeper, at almost 1:2.5. And let's not forget that the US has allies all around China and Russia, as long as many countries feel threatened by the expansionist ambitions of the two autocratic countries.
So for all these reasons, the chances that the military parade in Beijing, which was abandoned by half of the guests, will turn into a real threat beyond the videos on Youtube and Tik-Tok, are almost zero. But there is something that can be essentially taken into account in the coming months and years. China and Russia are not what they were 20 or 30 years ago. They have experienced a certain economic growth and military capabilities that have consequently increased their ambitions at the regional level. But the transition from regional powers to equal global partners that seek multipolarity represents a very large gap. So the virtual panic that comes mainly as a result of propaganda, which autocracies use skillfully, remains mainly virtual.
And for this reason, the ironic message to Xi-Ping on President Trump's Truth Social network, "greetings to Kim Jong and Vladimir Putin", is the best reflection of the real balance of power. In these conditions, it is good for Xi-Ping and his partners to remember Comrade Mao's expression "imperialists are paper tigers", addressing themselves first of all. Can autocrats do this, that is, reflect? Traditionally not, since decisions in autocracy are taken immaturely due to the leader's dictate and not democratic consultation. But the Chinese are different, they are atypical. Pragmatists and above all, they have not represented an expansionist empire even in the times of the glory of their empire.
So let's see what happens. But one thing is certain. War is won with force, not propaganda! So as long as television studios have to fill long broadcast schedules and pay a lot of people for international security analysis, let's say there is a rhetorical threat of global conflict. But that's all!
(BalkanWeb)
