China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi reportedly told the EU's top diplomat Kaja Kallas on July 3 that the country cannot afford for Russia to lose the war in Ukraine amid fears the U.S. would shift focus towards Beijing, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported, citing sources familiar with the conversation.
  • plyth@feddit.orgEnglish
    13·
    17 hours ago

    Ukraine seems to be more of a unipolar project than a multipolar project. The important part is the last part of the last sentence.

    David C. Hendrickson, in his article in Foreign Affairs on November 1, 1997, saw the core of the book as the ambitious strategy of NATO to move eastward to Ukraine’s Russian border and vigorously support the newly independent republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus, which is an integral part of what Hendrickson said could be called a “tough love” strategy for the Russians. Hendrickson considers “this great project” to be problematic for two reasons: the “excessive expansion of Western institutions” could well introduce centrifugal forces into it; moreover, Brzezinski’s “test of what legitimate Russian interests are” seems to be so strict that even a democratic Russia would probably “fail”.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard

    Of course there can also be wars in the multipolar world. But there are enough started by the US that peace seems to be secondary.

    • Gsus4@mander.xyzOPEnglish
      5·
      16 hours ago

      Ukraine is as multipolar as it gets: they don’t want to be russia’s bitch, so they asked everyone else for help, some helped.

      • plyth@feddit.orgEnglish
        12·
        16 hours ago

        Sure. Unfortunately that’s not what counts. Also history is more complicated and doesn’t start in 2014.

        Wang was said to have given Kallas – the former Estonian prime minister who only late last year took up her role as the bloc’s de facto foreign affairs chief – several “history lessons and lectures”.

        • Gsus4@mander.xyzOPEnglish
          5·
          16 hours ago

          What counts is what is convenient to you, apparently. That is why multipolarity is a royal mess without strict rules, everyone thinks they can do whatever they want. Read some history.

          • plyth@feddit.orgEnglish
            12·
            16 hours ago

            Unipolary didn’t have strict rules either.

            Neither is convenient for me because there will be a very inconvenient war. It’s just that people only count when there is an election, and then they only count as a manipulatable resource. Otherwise nobody in power cares about what people want.

            You are right about your expectations about future wars. It’s time to come up with something to make a better future.