China is strategic partner to Russia: Putin – People’s Daily Online

English: Logo of the People's Daily 中文: 人民日报题字

English: Logo of the People’s Daily 中文: 人民日报题字 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


This is a very interesting, MUST-READ lead article in China’s People’s Daily Online. Check it out!


via China is strategic partner to Russia: Putin – People’s Daily Online.


This article does not surprise me. Indeed a few days ago I reblogged a similar article published by the People’s Daily Online entitled “Chinese president discusses ties, global issues with Russian counterpart“.


As it is still relevant to the latest article, let me restate my views on the first article:


Russia and China are complimentary in many ways, with Russia’s enormous mineral wealth and China’s industry powerhouse. Together they provide a remarkable challenge to Western interests that have been weakened by bickering.


Let me pick up this thread focusing on bickering.


The major Western democracies are proud of their democratic traditions, with executive decisions tempered by parliament, Congress or the Senate; in the case of Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court plays a critical role too. By comparison, democracy in Russia and China is a sham.


One of the principles of Western democracies is checks and balances on executive power. The rules are different in Russia and China permitting both countries to follow strategic objectives more assertively with decisive leadership.


One of the downsides of democracy is constant bickering. This seems to be especially prevalent since the financial crash of 2008. In the US, the Repubicans, especially the Tea Partyists, are not prepared to deal with the Democrats and a Democrat President, sapping at the US’s strength and energy. In Europe, it is similar, with the austerians in Northern Europe holding many countries in Southern Europe to randsom. Similarly, anti-European feeling in the UK is isolating the UK and reducing her effective power and economic competitiveness. Of course, in Europe there is another dimension to the creeping crisis, namely the European Commission.


Western leaders, like Angela Merkel of Germany and David Cameron in the UK seem to lead by muddling through rather than setting out vision, strategy and examples of executive leadership.


I am not advocating reduced democracy, indeed I believe that the IMF has too much power. However, I am advocating the return to proper strategic analysis to decision-making, reducing the horse-trading and bickering.


In passing, I must draw attention to the United Nations and her agencies which seems to have lost its way in recent years; once again the strength is reduced by bickering.


Of course, strategic analysts in Russia and China will have noted that bickering reduces the strength of the major Western democracies. This will not be lost on Russian and Chinese policy-makers whose interests will be served by indeed facilitating or encouraging Western bickering; this will reduce strategic focus in the Western democracies. Meanwhile, Russia and China are leveraging their joined combined strengths by strong strategic focus.


Let me turn turn this to an open question:


How should the US and Europe strengthen strategic focus and reduce the bickering in response to the Russian/Chinese strategic partnership?




Enhanced by Zemanta

6 responses

  1. Pingback: Commentary: A reading of China’s roadmap for market-oriented reforms – People’s Daily Online « Dr Alf's Blog

  2. Pingback: China’s emphasis on market’s ‘decisive’ role to boost economic efficiency – People’s Daily Online « Dr Alf's Blog

  3. Pingback: Putin’s Syria stance offers US way out – People’s Daily Online « Dr Alf's Blog

  4. Pingback: Xi’s speech on China-Central Asia ties catches global attention – People’s Daily Online « Dr Alf's Blog

  5. Pingback: Reflections on “China is strategic partner to Russia: Putin” – John Gelmini « Dr Alf's Blog

  6. Dr Alf poses the question about how the US and Europe should strengthen strategic focus to reduce the bickering in response to Russian/Chinese strategic partnership.

    To my mind, this requires commonality of vision and an acknowledgement of where true power actually lies plus an understanding grounded in reality by the West of where its interests lie.


    America sees itself as the world’s policeman, the strongest military power and the arbiter of which regimes are legitimate, which should be “taken down” and which should be bullied, helped, approved of and left alone.

    Europe does not really exist as a separate country and has Germany as its real master although the British Establishment cannot in their minds accept that particular reality.

    They, in the shape of the Queen who heads the former British Empire through the use of her Governors General, puppet leaders in the newly “independent countries”and her personal ownership of 7 billion acres of land (All of Canada, all of Australia and New Zealand, most of Kentucky and all of Manhattan plus ultimately all the land in the UK), want to control the entire world.

    Beyond that some 21 families plus the Black Nobility families,the Vatican and through it the Jesuits,the Sun Society and the Knights of Malta,also exercise power.

    Through the various groupings beneath these upper levels the West is really run from 3 capitals,The City of London Corporation,the Vatican and Washington.

    In total there are around 2,500 people effectively controlling some 189 countries ,much of its food supply and most of its energy.

    Russia, China and non aligned countries are not part of this structure although there are people in both Russia and China who are or were part of this edifice.

    Putin has expelled most of them from Russia which is why so many of them live in London.
    The Chinese have them in the form of the Li Ki Jiang family but because China has been earmarked for growth and development that country will be allowed to grow economically until such time as a war can be started to curtail their military power.

    This is similar to the strategy that was adopted with Germany in 2 World Wars, allow it to forge ahead economically, finance its war machine, finance another war machine, wage a World War and bring it to heel.

    Because of miscalculations on the part of the 2,500 people in overall charge China has caught up technologically much faster than they anticipated (4 years instead of 20), so the plan is now one of “containment” coupled with denial of mineral supplies through regime change in Africa.

    It has also profited from Globalization, a mental construct of the Club of Rome, and has used the money to build up its military, its cyber warfare capability and its ability to control financial flows via Hong Kong which will be the number one financial centre by 2016(the City of London is now 2nd).
    Russia has minerals that the Chinese want and need and it has very advanced space based weapons systems and weather warfare capabilities.

    Thus between them they might be the modern “Carthage” that “Rome” wishes to destroy(See PNAC website),but the outcome in a direct conflict might prove problematic.


    Until all these competing groups within the West decide on a common approach or are succeeded by new groupings which have the interests of ordinary people at heart the “bickering” Dr Alf talks about will continue unabated and there never will be a strategic solution.

    However in the meantime we would do well to think about our common interests by:
    1) Becoming self sufficient in energy within 5 years across the UK and Europe through fracking,wave power,nuclear power and eventually “Singlepoint energy”

    2) Encouraging more inward investment from China and Russia but not in power generation,the London Underground infrastructure company,food supply,water supply or devices which give them access to our computer networks

    3) Massively expanding 3D printing to make us less reliant on imports

    4) Issuing infrastructure bonds to use foreign funds from Sovereign Wealth Funds to pay for infrastructure improvements

    5) Using robots to make things here and in Europe to offset Far Eastern and Chinese advantages in inexpensive labour

    6) Abandoning the Malthusian doctrine,”environmentalism” and other forms of defeatist nonsense and trying to reach a form of rapprochement with these countries looking at what we are each good at rather than pretending that we have all the answers.

    Similarly ,where there are climatic problems it is cheaper for all of us to develop technologies to assist adaptation and overcome them than it is to make ourselves uncompetitive through carbon taxes.

    7) Become self sufficient in food and improve productivity thus making it more attractive to make things here

    8) Put sensible tarriffs in place so that we allow imports but not in an unfettered way

    9) Stop engaging in megaphone diplomacy which simply put the Chinese and the Russians on the defensive and encourages them to come closer together to counter the perceived threat from us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: