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.
As the war in Ukraine drags on, Wang’s reported comments suggest that Russia’s war in Ukraine may serve China’s strategic needs as focus is deviated away from Beijing’s mounting preparation to launch its own possible invasion into Taiwan.
[…]
China has been a key ally to Russia during its full-scale war, helping Moscow evade Western sanctions and becoming the leading source of dual-use goods fueling the Russian defense industry.
[…]
The frankness of Wang’s reported admission was greeted with surprise by EU official, according to Hong Kong-based SCMP, amid China’s past public statements in favor of a peace deal. Two sources familiar with the meeting told SCMP that they believed Wang was providing Kallas with a lesson in realpolitik during the four-hour encounter.
Wang on July 3 again reportedly rejected Western accusations that it was providing funding and weaponry to support Moscow’s war effort in Ukraine.
President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly accused Beijing of providing weaponry to Moscow. On May 29, Zelensky said that China had stopped selling drones to Ukraine and Western countries while continuing to supply them to Russia.
[…]
Thanks for your effort!
The way I see it, most of these conflicts can be boiled down to the Communist bloc trying to establish Communist rule while the Western bloc tried to maintain the previous, non-Communist rule. In those cases, I’d say that both sides equally fought a proxy war to achieve their own respective goal.
Take the Greece Civil War for example. You say it is on the UK and the US. For helping the existing government fight a Communist uprising, which itself was supported by the Communist bloc? I’d say it is a perfect example of both blocs supporting their respective side. Hence, I’d count it on both. Both blocs were in a global struggle to increase their respective sphere of influence.
You say the Iran crisis of 1946 is on the USSR. I’d instead also attribute that to both, as it is part of that larger struggle for power between the two blocs. As in Greece, one bloc supported the faction trying to spread Communism, one bloc supported the side trying to uphold the current rule.
The problem in the case of Greece is that the “existing government” was quite extensively involved in collaborating with the Nazi and Italian Fascist occupation forces. As such it may be existing, but arguably not legitimate. Also it later lead to a far right dictatorship in 1967-1974.
That’s true, but the other bloc was still run by a man called Stalin who himself was not very cautious when handling his opponents (and also collaborated with the Nazis when he deemed it beneficial for himself). For a political opponent, it might not be so important what political ideology locks him up in a prison camp.
My point: at that time, you’d have a hard time looking for someone that fulfilled our ideals from today.