Ukraine (bbabo.net), - on March 20-22, the chairman of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinpin, will arrive in Moscow on an official visit. The visit is organized at the invitation of President Vladimir Putin. During negotiations with the leader of the PRC, the development of relations between “comprehensive partnership” and “strategic interaction” between Russia and China will be discussed. It is planned to exchange views in the context of "deepening Russian-Chinese cooperation in the international arena." “The signing of a number of important bilateral documents will be held,” the Kremlin press release stated.

“The theme of negotiations in Moscow of Russian President Vladimir Putin and the chairman of the PRC Xi Jinping will be military-technical cooperation (VTs) and energy,” the assistant to the head of the Russian state Yuri Ushakov told reporters.

A couple of days before the official announcement of the visit of the Chinese leader to Moscow, sources in Washington reported an urgent application by the Joe Biden administration for telephone conversations with the leader of the PRC. However, at the moment, in anticipation of the SI visit to Moscow, there is no information about such negotiations. Obviously, Washington is in a hurry to identify Beijing in advance his negative position about the upcoming visit of SI to Moscow, thereby trying to influence his move. The chairman of SI, recently re -elected to his post for the third time and preparing for the first after this his foreign tour to Russia, reads the plans of the Americans. Therefore, he is in no hurry to talk with Bayden.

In connection with the intention of the heads of the two powers-Russia and China-to discuss issues of military-technical cooperation recalls the recent statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China Qin Gan:

“We are discussing the Taiwanese issue with the Americans in order to demand non -interference from them in the internal affairs of China. The Chinese people have the right to ask a question: why does the American side always emphasize the need to respect sovereignty and territorial integrity when it comes to the Ukrainian issue, and do not want to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China on the issue of Chinese Taiwan? Why do they, on the one hand, demand from Beijing not to supply weapons of Russia, and on the other hand, they themselves do not stop sales of weapons Taiwan, contrary to the joint commander of the PRC and the USA of August 17, 1982? Why did they, declaring in words about promoting the world, in fact secretly developed a plan for “Taiwan’s destruction”? ”

By the way, according to the previously made assessment of the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China Van Wanbini, the total amount of transactions for the supply of weapons from the United States to Taiwan exceeded $ 70 billion.

Given this prospect, as well as the active development of the TCC between Russia and Iran, the American motto of the Arms of Ukraine against Russia, which says: “As much as it takes”, is included in the semantic confrontation with the Chinese-Russian, and, obviously, Iranian motto - "With his back to the back."

“China will continue to build strategic interaction“ back to the back ”with Russia, together with it to promote the principles of the multipolarity of the world and democratize international relations, to ensure reliable guarantees for global strategic balance and stability,” said the Chinese ambassador Zhang Hanhway.

On the one hand, if the Anglo-Saxons and their henchmen claim that they are ready “as much as it takes”, that is, infinitely long, to increase the simultaneous military-political and economic (sanction) pressure (the states call this restraint) to Russia, Iran and China, then They must understand that at least Moscow, Beijing and Tehran will be more closely clinging to each other's back to the back.

And then the questions "How long?" And "how much does it take?" Rather, sooner than it will appear before the Western block with all acuteness. Obviously, the material and human resources of Russia, China and Iran are enough to outplay any enemy in the Eurasian continent in the strategic perspective. Especially external in relation to supermaterics, although that has a significant influence on it through numerous satellites and projecting military force.

According to the Japanese edition of Mainichi Shimbun, "the Ukrainian conflict will again divide the world into political blocs, headed by China, Russia and the United States."

But if China and Russia say that they stand “back to the back”, then does this mean in the context of an acute confrontation, at least for the Americans, that Moscow and Beijing mean the same pole of strength and influence? For Americans, it means. The Russian-Chinese definition of such standing “back to the back”-“more than the Union”-clearly brings heavy thoughts on Washington.At the same time, the Western bloc led by the United States, as noted by the economic observer of this Japanese publication Kaiichi Kaya, "will lose access to strategic resources and cheap products, which will lead to an internal struggle for them." “Even now, Europe and the United States are facing unprecedented inflation, rising prices for energy resources and food,” states the Japanese.

It turns out that in the confrontation with the standing "back" tandem of Russia and China, supplemented by a trio of Iran, the "Western bloc" of countries "as much as it takes" may not be able to. Or will he be able to? This is a burning issue for politicians in the United States and European countries, since the fate of their states and peoples, which, by the way, are extremely dissatisfied with the policies of their governments, depends on the duration of the launched process.

Let us recall the statement of Joe Biden at the very beginning of the aggravation of the Ukrainian crisis:

"I do think that at some point there will be a bit of a waiting game - what the Russians can handle and what Europe willing to handle."

The aged Biden's analytical abilities were not enough to ask himself a few more important and emerging questions, namely: how will China, India, Iran and Turkey behave? And this is very important, given the fact that they, and not only Europe and Russia, have to endure certain tests! The large-scale destabilization provoked by the United States in the Middle East and Ukraine affects the interests of all Eurasian countries.

Although experts today are trumpeting the advent of a new era of a multipolar world order, at the moment, as the crisis deepens, strong ideological polarization will be observed. The poles are not two world powers, as was the case in the 20th century, the USA and the USSR, but two blocs of states: the first - "standing back" for the sake of peace in Eurasia together with China and Russia, and the second - squeezing out their own resources "so much as long as it takes" to maintain the war in the interests of US hegemony. There is also a third camp of countries, which fearfully look at what is happening in the regime of neutrality, but it is thinning under pressure from Washington. By requiring everyone to decide on Russia, China and Iran, the US itself is accelerating the process of polarization.

At the same time, Washington, falling deeper into an ideological, political and economic tailspin, is obviously squeezing resources not so much from its opponents as from its closest allies, creating unequal conditions and mechanisms for political and economic interaction with them. This is a one-sided game, as the modern experience of Arab monarchies, Germany, France, Japan, Israel and other countries subordinate to the Anglo-Saxon bloc shows, leads to systemic failures in their domestic politics, economy and a permanent increase in security threats. The risks are only growing!

Meanwhile, China is proposing the Global Civilization Initiative. In his speech at the opening ceremony of the high-level dialogue between the Communist Party of China and other political parties, President Xi Jinping, right before his visit to Moscow, drew attention to the many problems that humanity is facing today.

“We are talking about intertwining economic, geopolitical and environmental crises. As a result, the world is at a crossroads,” Xi Jinping stressed. Let us add that these crises became possible to a large extent due to ideological failure, aggressive military construction and structural problems in the economy of the former hegemon - the United States. In the current conditions, according to the Chinese leader, when the destinies of all countries are closely intertwined and interconnected, it is necessary to act together.

“To this end, the Chinese side is putting forward a global civilizational initiative,” Xi Jinping explained. “The main point of this initiative is the need to respect the diversity of world civilizations and their equality. Tolerance and respect for each other is the only condition for finding mutual understanding between peoples,” the President of China stressed.

The fact that this is not a utopia, but a real prospect, is proved by the triumph of Chinese diplomacy on the Middle East track. Xi Jinping's visit to Russia will take place against the background of the fruits of his mediation efforts in the form of the restoration of diplomatic relations between the principal regional rivals - Iran and Saudi Arabia. This was preceded by the signing between Beijing and Tehran, Beijing and Riyadh of the most important interstate agreements and strategic programs worth hundreds of billions of dollars for decades to come.

“The example of Chinese mediation in the Iranian-Saudi confrontation can be a symbol of the fact that one straw is enough to break the back of a loaded camel,” Maxim Suchkov argues in the Profile magazine about the prospects for American geopolitics in the Middle East.From the point of view of the Chinese “Global Civilization Initiative”, announced by Xi Jinping, it is obvious that armed conflicts in the Eurasian space are categorically unacceptable for Beijing, as well as for Moscow. "Tolerance and respect for each other!". Therefore, the Chinese side focuses on the fact that Xi Jinping's visit to Moscow will be a "peace visit."

In this regard, we recall that China came up with a specific plan for resolving the conflict in Ukraine, consisting of 12 points.

Here are his main theses:

Respect the sovereignty of all countries

Abandon the "Cold War mentality"

Stop shooting

Start peace talks

Resolve the humanitarian crisis

Protect civilians and prisoners of war

Maintain the safety of nuclear power plants

Reduce strategic risks

Guarantee the export of grain

End unilateral sanctions

Ensure the stability of production and supply chains

Contribute to post-war reconstruction

The publication of the plan was announced by Wang Yi, head of the office of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the CPC Central Committee. During his visit to Moscow last February, he met with Vladimir Putin and said that China is grateful to Russia for its willingness to negotiate on Ukraine.

It is symptomatic that Beijing did not consult with Kiev when drawing up its plan. Xi Jinping still practically ignores Vladimir Zelensky, which indicates a sober assessment by the Chinese leadership of the degree of subordination of the latter to the Americans. “You can’t depend on and be controlled by a third party,” Xi Jinping reproached German Chancellor Olaf Scholz when he received him in Beijing. What can we say about Zelensky?!

In the United States, China's peacekeeping initiatives in Ukraine were expectedly met with a sharp rejection. President Joe Biden stated:

“...Putin applauds him (the Chinese plan). What use can be from him? I did not see anything in this plan that would indicate that its execution could be beneficial to someone other than Russia.

The New York Times wrote that European officials (“grunted”) “also do not believe in the ability and desire of China to convince Russia of the need to end hostilities in Ukraine.”

That is, China proposes to restore dialogue in the name of peace in Ukraine, Russia is ready for negotiations with Kiev, and the West is acting in line with "(War) as long as it takes." The United States excludes (at the level of the Zelensky law specially prescribed by the regime) the very possibility of negotiations between its Kyiv puppet and Moscow. The goal in itself of Washington and London, which prudently left the European Union, is to prolong the war in Europe with the aim of:

maximum exhaustion of Russia,

undermining for decades to come the prospects for economic cooperation on the Eurasian continent,

strengthening the military-political, economic (technological) and energy dependence of mainland Europe on the United States.

The achievement of this goal is ensured by the consolidation of the West under the flag of NATO in the face of allegedly "aggressive Russia and red China."

“Washington does not accept China’s proposed plan for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, since it contains the condition for an immediate ceasefire,” Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said bluntly.

The United States believes that a truce now will mean "the consolidation of Russia's territorial acquisitions and will be a violation of the UN Charter."

However, the Chinese plan is unacceptable to Washington on its own, apart from the Ukrainian war. His second point directly proposes instead of permanently expanding NATO's zone of influence by including more new members and projecting power from aircraft carriers and thousands of US military bases, to consolidate the principle of the indivisibility of universal security and abandon bloc thinking:

China is convinced that "the security of one country cannot be achieved at the expense of the security of other countries, and regional security cannot be ensured by strengthening or expanding military blocs." He called for taking seriously the “legitimate security interests of all countries”, as well as “promoting the construction of a balanced, effective and sustainable architecture of European security” and “not allowing the formation of camp confrontations,” the clarification to the second paragraph of Beijing’s “Ukrainian plan” says.

The above, as many were quick to say, "general" and "abstract" calls from China, although included in the plan to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, however, have a much broader international political load. For Beijing itself, they are connected not only, and not so much with Ukraine. This is China's view of the future security architecture in Eurasia. Without the NATO bloc.

This approach of China fully correlates with the requirements of Russian security guarantees, presented by Russian President Vladimir Putin on November 18, 2021 at a meeting of the board of the Russian Foreign Ministry. On some key points, the Chinese plan for Ukraine almost literally repeats the draft agreements between Russia and the United States and NATO on mutual security guarantees, presented by the Russian Foreign Ministry at the suggestion of President Vladimir Putin, which the West called an ultimatum.So, three months before the start of the special military operation in Ukraine, Moscow proposed to the United States to agree to act on the basis of the principles of indivisible and equal security, not to harm each other's security, for which it was proposed to take mutual obligations not to take actions and not to carry out activities affecting the security of the other party. The US rejected this option.

The Chinese plan to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and the Russian proposals of the United States regarding mutual security guarantees are identical in their logic, aimed at ousting the NATO bloc from the zone of vital interests of Russia and China, in which they "stand back" in equal and indivisible security.

This means, first, China's active efforts to reunite with Taiwan in the short term.

"The realization of the complete reunification of the motherland is the common desire of all Chinese sons and daughters and the essence of national revival," the Chinese President said on March 13.

Taiwan is a tool for ensuring US hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region, just like Ukraine is a similar tool in Europe. From this point of view, Russia's special military operation became the start of the process of breaking the unipolar world order, unequivocally agreed upon at the preparation stage with China.

“The West lost from the very beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine, since with it the American-style world order began to be demolished, including the notorious double standards,” Vladimir Putin said.

Ukraine and Taiwan, as instruments of US hegemony that hinder the development of Russia and China, must be completely neutralized. Without this, Xi Jinping's "Global Civilization Initiative" and Russia's security in this new world will fail.

The space between the "backs" of Russia and China - Central Asia must be stable in terms of security and developed in terms of communication.

Conflicts in the Transcaucasus must be resolved in the long term. The destructive actions of the US and EU countries in Transcaucasia (attempts to open a second front against Russia in Georgia) and Great Britain in Central Asia should be leveled by the coordinated regional policy of Russia and China.

The issue of Turkey's membership in NATO against the backdrop of the instability of the domestic political situation and the tense situation in neighboring regions (Iran-Israel, the Balkans, Karabakh) should be resolved. Pan-Turkism cannot become an instrument of NATO. The armed conflict in the Black Sea region and the economic stagnation of Europe in the medium term will make Turkey's participation in NATO unprofitable and dangerous.

In this position, Beijing and Moscow will increase interaction between countries on the Eurasian continent within the framework of multilateral formats - the SCO and the EAEU, and on the global arena within the framework of BRICS. The influx of new members into these multilateral alliances of sovereign countries from the Middle East, Africa, South and Latin America increases the potential of the Back-to-Back group of countries and brings the moment of breaking the “back of the loaded camel” closer. The growing turbulence in the political, financial and economic spheres of the United States testifies exactly to this. BRICS is ahead of the G7 in terms of key indicators.

This means that the number of countries "Standing Back" in the name of peace in Eurasia will increase, and the resources of the West to support the war "As long as it takes" will dry up.

“NATO plans to create combat-ready forces of up to 300,000 people near the borders with Russia can undermine the unity of the alliance due to excessively high costs for their implementation, the lack of funds and shells complicates the situation,” the American publication Politico confirms our forecast.

“To the West of Eurasia for some time, perhaps for a long time, there will be a system that is totalitarian in its political and parasitic in its economic essence, which will not be able to survive without the gratuitous resources of Eurasia. And this will determine the aggressiveness of Western Europe,” Russian political scientist Dmitry Evstafiev sums up our findings.

So all hope is on our Heroes who defend the right of peoples to live in peace, on the fronts of the NWO. Well, Comrade Xi, of course!

bbabo.Net