This is going to be a brief note. It has been a hectic week so I don't get much time to write. I will focus on 2 most notable events. #1 Blinken came, with a rumored “ultimatum”, but capital markets seem to have shrugged it off Anthony Blinken came to China, supposedly with
Regarding the reason for Blinken's "ultimatum", I also found it strange. However, recently reading what Li Daokui said in his book "China Demystified" about the particularities of China's diplomatic stance caused me to think a little about the strangeness of America's diplomatic tactics, and made me understand this kind of behaviour a little better.
Li says that China's main approach is a "respected-centred policy" rather than a classically realist or values-based policy. The basic gist of this is the idea that China government's primary goal is to get the respect it feels it deserves as a large and important country- thus if you are respectful/polite in public, then in private there will be some latitude for compromise behind the scenes and your diplomacy will be received much better. The logic underlying this stance is that of the "China dream", giving internal stakeholders in China the signal that the century of humiliation is over. The reception of Janet Yellen in China recently is a good example of this- her demands were actually quite unhelpful, but her general actions came across as polite and respectful and thus she was well received.
Thinking about it, I realised that America's diplomatic tactic is almost the complete opposite of this. I don't have a snappy name for this diplomatic stance, but it can basically be summarized as "allow me to disrespect and bully you in public, so that the world understands exactly who's in charge, and maybe I can compromise a little in private". The underlying logic of this stance actually mirrors that of the Chinese approach, i.e. that it's for the benefit of America's internal (stakeholders, lobbyists, politicos, donors) rather than for that of the country on the receiving end. Because American politicians rely on support from lobbyists and big donors for their re-election, and because these stakeholders believe deeply and draw material benefits from America's continued dominance and belligerence over the world, the main priority in the mind of any American politician in interacting with a foreign counterpart is "what words will make me look most tough and uncompromising in this situation?". A good example of this is way back in 2021, with the fallout from the Soleimani assassination- Trump called up Iran and privately begged them to let him fire off a few missiles on an empty patch of Iranian soil, just to show the world who's in charge.
Yes, and another downside of the American approach is that it leads to a (deserved) reputation of being mendacious oath breakers. Secrets will out, and once they become public such agreements are often repudiated. Much of this illness started with Nixon and Kissinger, their political gamesmanship.
More than a year ago China came up with a peace-plan, contents of which don't seem to have been published by the usual suspects outside China, while the comments to the widely unknown contents of the plan derided it as useless.
Anyway, it was not relevant, as neither side in the war was ready and willing to talk.
I became curious, when Russian FM Lavrov recently seemed to have signalled readiness for talks on base of this plan. I searched and found the contents of the plan on the Xinhua website. By and large the contents are diplomatic in nature, establishing principles which are uncontroversial to anyone on the planet, while either party in the war could read into it whatever they want to see written there. I don't think, that an EU Commission peace plan should have looked substantially differently.
On the assumption, that Lavrov may actually have been serious, a very long shot, there should be a chance for immediate ceasefire and talks, since the more recalcitrant partner shows interest. And thereby it does not matter, who the mediator is, as long as the killing stops. Both, Ukraine and Russia need and want China's favour, so why not let China be the mediator?
Ignoring such an opportunity and increasing tensions instead would be rather controversial.
"Anyway, it was not relevant, as neither side in the war was ready and willing to talk. " Yes, and exactly this. Worse, don't expect that to change. Neither side will give up or negotiate, each of them is in a war to the finnish.
" it’s the US side feeding this type of information to the media outlets, it seems to me that somehow the US believes that by publicizing the threat, China will actually be fearful enough to comply. I think it’s likely to backfire." 1. It is the U.S. side but 2. the real target is republicans especially the MAGAs who could be flipped to support aid for Ukraine. 3. I expect tony's little ouf to be memory holed within 24 hours, at worst within 72 hours. China's simply not doing what is being insinuated.
If Blinken wants more compliance from China on Ukraine he can get that, but everything has a price. How many more Chinese drones does he want in Ukrainian hands, and what is he willing to trade for that?
Regarding the reason for Blinken's "ultimatum", I also found it strange. However, recently reading what Li Daokui said in his book "China Demystified" about the particularities of China's diplomatic stance caused me to think a little about the strangeness of America's diplomatic tactics, and made me understand this kind of behaviour a little better.
Li says that China's main approach is a "respected-centred policy" rather than a classically realist or values-based policy. The basic gist of this is the idea that China government's primary goal is to get the respect it feels it deserves as a large and important country- thus if you are respectful/polite in public, then in private there will be some latitude for compromise behind the scenes and your diplomacy will be received much better. The logic underlying this stance is that of the "China dream", giving internal stakeholders in China the signal that the century of humiliation is over. The reception of Janet Yellen in China recently is a good example of this- her demands were actually quite unhelpful, but her general actions came across as polite and respectful and thus she was well received.
Thinking about it, I realised that America's diplomatic tactic is almost the complete opposite of this. I don't have a snappy name for this diplomatic stance, but it can basically be summarized as "allow me to disrespect and bully you in public, so that the world understands exactly who's in charge, and maybe I can compromise a little in private". The underlying logic of this stance actually mirrors that of the Chinese approach, i.e. that it's for the benefit of America's internal (stakeholders, lobbyists, politicos, donors) rather than for that of the country on the receiving end. Because American politicians rely on support from lobbyists and big donors for their re-election, and because these stakeholders believe deeply and draw material benefits from America's continued dominance and belligerence over the world, the main priority in the mind of any American politician in interacting with a foreign counterpart is "what words will make me look most tough and uncompromising in this situation?". A good example of this is way back in 2021, with the fallout from the Soleimani assassination- Trump called up Iran and privately begged them to let him fire off a few missiles on an empty patch of Iranian soil, just to show the world who's in charge.
"一放就乱，一管就死" what a great saying!
You are spot on! Here is maybe how future tragedies between the two powers will take place.
I know exactly how either side would provoke the other into war of one sort or other.
You can relax, the nightmare scenarios are all planned out and thus prevented.
yes, both sides are grandstanding for domestic audiences, and i expect it to stop on the U.S. side soon, as in sooner is better.
Yes, and another downside of the American approach is that it leads to a (deserved) reputation of being mendacious oath breakers. Secrets will out, and once they become public such agreements are often repudiated. Much of this illness started with Nixon and Kissinger, their political gamesmanship.
More than a year ago China came up with a peace-plan, contents of which don't seem to have been published by the usual suspects outside China, while the comments to the widely unknown contents of the plan derided it as useless.
Anyway, it was not relevant, as neither side in the war was ready and willing to talk.
I became curious, when Russian FM Lavrov recently seemed to have signalled readiness for talks on base of this plan. I searched and found the contents of the plan on the Xinhua website. By and large the contents are diplomatic in nature, establishing principles which are uncontroversial to anyone on the planet, while either party in the war could read into it whatever they want to see written there. I don't think, that an EU Commission peace plan should have looked substantially differently.
On the assumption, that Lavrov may actually have been serious, a very long shot, there should be a chance for immediate ceasefire and talks, since the more recalcitrant partner shows interest. And thereby it does not matter, who the mediator is, as long as the killing stops. Both, Ukraine and Russia need and want China's favour, so why not let China be the mediator?
Ignoring such an opportunity and increasing tensions instead would be rather controversial.
"Anyway, it was not relevant, as neither side in the war was ready and willing to talk. " Yes, and exactly this. Worse, don't expect that to change. Neither side will give up or negotiate, each of them is in a war to the finnish.
" it’s the US side feeding this type of information to the media outlets, it seems to me that somehow the US believes that by publicizing the threat, China will actually be fearful enough to comply. I think it’s likely to backfire." 1. It is the U.S. side but 2. the real target is republicans especially the MAGAs who could be flipped to support aid for Ukraine. 3. I expect tony's little ouf to be memory holed within 24 hours, at worst within 72 hours. China's simply not doing what is being insinuated.
If Blinken wants more compliance from China on Ukraine he can get that, but everything has a price. How many more Chinese drones does he want in Ukrainian hands, and what is he willing to trade for that?
Russia had 4.8 to 5.2% growth in GDP, and guess who had a lion's share of that growth reflected in their exports.
there's a sucker born every minute...
It would take a much greater rate than 1 per minute to explain America.