In a move of utter desperation, the EU has once again turned to China. According to Hong Kong Satellite TV, during the recent United Nations General Assembly, European Council President Charles Michel addressed China directly in his speech. He stated that China had warned Russia against using nuclear weapons, a stance he found commendable. Consequently, Michel suggested that China and Europe should join forces to persuade Russia to end the Russia-Ukraine military conflict.
Does this appear to be an olive branch from Michel to us? Hardly. From Michel's own statements, it seems he is setting a trap for us. According to reports, Michel's remarks can be divided into two parts. The first part mainly praises us for warning Russia against using nuclear weapons. The second part suggests that China and Europe could unite to persuade Russia to resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
This implies that Michel's remarks can be split into two sections. In the first section, we are warning Russia and coordinating our stance with Europe. The second section builds on this coordinated stance, proposing that we can jointly exert strategic pressure on Russia to resolve the conflict. Do you see the trick here? Michel means that for us to join forces, we must have a coordinated stance, which initially involves issuing a strong warning to Russia.
But the question is, did we issue a warning to Russia? Obviously not. Looking at the entire Russia-Ukraine conflict, who has been repeatedly pushing the limits on nuclear weapons and nuclear safety? It's Ukraine, backed by NATO, and NATO's leader, the United States. From the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant incident to the AUKUS submarine deal, and the U.S. attempting to deploy nuclear weapons in South Korea, nearly all global nuclear security issues during the conflict have been orchestrated by NATO. In contrast, Russia has remained relatively quiet on the issue of nuclear weapons.
Therefore, it's clear that our so-called warning regarding nuclear weapons was meant for all nuclear-armed nations. To put it bluntly, it was directed at NATO, led by the United States, and its followers. Michel either didn't understand this or deliberately twisted our words into a strategic warning solely against Russia, thus completely missing the point from the start. Of course, Michel might also be trying to use this opportunity to drive a wedge between us and Russia, hoping to sow as much discord as possible. This intent makes the idea of a coordinated stance or joint pressure a non-starter.
Both we and the EU have a genuine need for the Russia-Ukraine conflict to end quickly. However, are our approaches to achieving this the same? Clearly not. Our stance is that regardless of the current situation, NATO must stop fueling the fire and withdraw its black hands from Ukraine immediately. Then, both sides should cease fire on the spot, preventing further bloodshed, and leave the myriad of issues to be resolved by history and future generations.
What is the EU's perspective? The EU is typically trying to have it both ways. They need to continue supporting Ukraine to maintain their high moral ground on human rights. NATO must maintain its presence in Ukraine, as any nation should be free to join international organizations. Russian troops must withdraw to prevent Russia's gains from being solidified. Based on these principles, the EU and China agree on the need for a swift resolution to the Ukraine conflict.
However, compared to our pragmatic approach, the EU's stance is about self-aggrandizement. Why hasn't Europe's military aid to Ukraine ceased this year? Why were they so invested in Ukraine's counteroffensive? This was part of the EU's envisioned ceasefire plan: arm Ukraine to a level deemed sufficient to confront Russian forces, launch a decisive counteroffensive in Zaporizhzhia to break through Russian lines, and push to the Sea of Azov, using strategic advantages to force peace. Yet, with the Ukrainian army performing poorly, the EU's plan has failed, making forced peace negotiations impossible. Now they want to rope us in, clearly revealing their intentions.
Considering the EU's past interactions with us, they typically see us in two roles: the big fool and the cash cow. Take the Galileo project, for instance. The EU took our money and spectrum and then kicked us out, denying us access to technical data and participation in scientific meetings. If the EU seeks our cooperation to mediate the Russia-Ukraine conflict now, you can bet they'll again see us as the big fool, wanting us merely to show up while they call the shots. Worse, they might use us to pressure Russia, claiming joint sanctions or other measures, and then pin the blame on us, driving a wedge between us and Russia.
Therefore, while we and the EU share the goal of ending the conflict, our methods and strategic aims differ significantly. Additionally, we must consider potential EU maneuvers to create discord. We should not rush to cooperate based on a single statement from the EU.
Is there any possibility for cooperation between the EU and us? Potentially, yes, but not eagerly pursued. Since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, some have revisited the idea of strategic cooperation between China and the EU, believing it could enhance the EU's strategic autonomy and counterbalance the U.S.
This idea, however, is naive and laughable, failing to understand Europe's current state. Europe today is deeply entrenched in a state of hedonism, with short workweeks and leisure-filled weekends. Talk of military readiness finds no resonance. Despite promises to increase military spending, results have been lacking. Europe enjoys such a comfortable life partly due to its own foundation but mainly because the U.S. provides the necessary security. NATO is crucial for Europe's safety.
Secondly, U.S. control over Europe is comprehensive and has only tightened since the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In times of conflict, military might is paramount. Given that the U.S. can protect Europe, its standing has naturally risen. Moreover, the EU's structure grants significant influence to Eastern European countries, through which the U.S. can exert control over the EU.
Thus, the notion of EU strategic autonomy is one of the biggest strategic jokes. Europe has no real strategic autonomy and doesn't seek it, preferring a life of leisure over the hardships of reindustrialization. Achieving strategic autonomy contradicts human nature and is unachievable without significant external pressure. To see a strategically autonomous EU, our focus should not be on cooperation but on reducing U.S. influence in Europe. Only by weakening U.S. influence can Europe awaken from its delusions and truly appreciate the significance of strategic autonomy. This is our stance towards the EU: a negation of the negation.
