Yves here. It has been frustrating to see nearly all of the anti-globalist commentary community (at least as represented on YouTube and Substack) fall in line with simple-minded black and white stories about the old US led hegemony, which in a brutal phase of lashing out with its remaining power to retain its dominance, as opposed to the virtuous Global Majority that is seeking to bring a less oppressive era of multipolarity into being. Some observers are noticing a considerable gap between the boosterism and PR and are calling it out.
Admittedly, there have been some exceptions. John Helmer performed a careful reading of the 2024 Kazan Declaration and pointed out how it reaffirmed the centrality of the post-WWII Bretton Woods institutions, such as the UN and the World Bank, and explicitly called for the IMF to continue to be bailouter-in-chief. The documents merely called for more Global South representation in these institutions. We were early to point out that the talk of BRICS forming a new currency was wildly implausible, given how much governance participating states would have to cede for that to happen (see the euro as an object lesson, which also depends on having a supranational legal decider in the form of the ECJ). While BRICS has arguably served as a forum to accelerate the development of information systems to facilitate bi-lateral trade so as to escape the dollar and dollar sanctions, note that that this type of coordination was not necessary for bi-lateral trade to get going.
Having said that, former ambassador Chas Freeman has in passing voiced reservations about BRICS. He said a few months back that it seemed to be mainly in the business of complaining and not advancing a positive agenda and hoped it would start making progress on the latter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVtpuTaWvLU (see at 43:30), Freeman depicts BRICS as conservative, as in interested in preserving existing institutions. Freeman contends the concepts of the UN Charter are worth preserving, but not the UN itself. Freeman depicts preserving the governing precepts of the post WWII order as desirable. But BRICS so far has been taking the position that it can effect what amounts to a hostile takeover of the likes of the UN and IMF by having Global Majority states play a greater role in how they operate.
But the IMF is extremely unlikely to get away from US control. As CADTM pointed out last year:
The USA by itself is entitled to an Executive Director who controls a 16.49% share of voting rights – keeping in mind that important votes require an 85% majority. This means that the USA is the only country that has veto power.
That article also describes in detail how giving sub-Saharan Africa an Executive Directorate was mere optics and was not making the IMF more democratic.
Now to a new article at CADTM by Eric Toussaint, on how BRICS does not provide new model for financing and trade to the Global South. From The BRICS are the new defenders of free trade, the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank, which included evidence, such as statements from the declaration at the BRICS+ summit in June 2025:
The BRICS+ countries assert that the IMF should continue to be the cornerstone of the international financial system….
They also express their support for the World Bank. In point 12 of their declaration, they indicate a desire to enhance the legitimacy of this institution. However, since their inception, both the World Bank and the IMF have implemented policies that contradict the interests of people and ecological balance.
The BRICS+ have stated their intention to bolster the financial capacities of the IMF and enhance the legitimacy of the World Bank.
The BRICS countries express a desire for improved representation of so-called developing countries within the IMF and the World Bank. That is all….
In their final declaration, the BRICS countries fails to critique the neoliberal policies that the two Bretton Woods institutions actively promote. At no point do they question the debts that these institutions are demanding repayment from indebted countries….
The BRICS countries have emerged as the principal advocates of the WTO, which has been effectively paralysed by President Trump’s actions during his first term in office….
o understand the BRICS+ position, it is essential to recognise that China has secured an advantage over the United States and Europe regarding production and trade, both in terms of costs and productivity, and technological advantages in a number of important sectors. China has emerged as a staunch proponent of free trade, free trade agreements, WTO rules and free competition, while the United States, the EU, the UK and Canada have become increasingly protectionist…
Now, the BRICS have emerged as the main advocates of capitalist globalisation, which is itself in crisis…
The expansion of the BRICS in 2024, now referred to as BRICS+, has generated expectations regarding their potential to provide an alternative to the global economic system largely dominated by traditional imperialist powers, particularly the United States. However, despite their significant demographic and economic influence — comprising nearly half of the world’s population, 40% of fossil fuel resources, 30% of global GDP, and 50% of economic growth — the BRICS+ nations do not appear to seek a departure from the existing international neoliberal framework.
We have pointed out that Putin is firmly neoliberal and with Russia as a key member of BRICS, it’s hard to see that changing.
The discussion below, after the opening section on Charlie Kirk, has a full throated criticism of BRICS for continuing to support Israel and the Gaza genocide. For a short-form related take, consider this recent exchange in comments:
ilsm
September 12, 2025 at 6:43 pm
Saudi Arabia and the UAE joined BRICS in Jan 2024.Saudi has recently joined the Shanghai Coop Organization as a dialog partner. A step to better relations with PRC.
GM
September 13, 2025 at 9:04 am
Great, they joined BRICS (and even that is not true — Saudi didn’t actually do).Did they kick out the US military bases and did they close their airspace for US/UK/Israeli planes?
No.
Well, one of these things matters and the other is performative. Guess which one.
After this long-warm up, to a main event in the form of a full throated critique of BRICS by Vanessa Beeley and Fiorella Isabel. They call out how BRICS has not even made the sort of demands for action against the genocide that Iran and pariah Venezuela have, and that many BRICS members not only continue to trade with Israel but some are at even higher levels. Beeley also argues that BRICS looks to be in danger of being very similar to the old order, but with 4 to 5 countries calling the shots as opposed to one.
There is a transcript at Fiorella Isabel’s site. I have taken the liberty of hoisting big sections below because the full argument IMHO is deadly.
Vanessa Beeley (10:50): But I think I still, where I’m struggling with the issue of BRICS, BRICS countries and their lack of drive to end the genocide and to actually under the Geneva Convention to effectively prevent genocide and punish those that are accused of committing genocide. And it is very clear now that Israel has been accused under international law of committing genocide. It’s clear to the majority of the world population and you have A nexus of countries which represent half the world’s population, 40% of their fossil energy resources, 50% of world growth, 30% of global GDP, who are literally doing nothing. And their statement at the last BRICS summit that everyone was hailing as the new dawn and the alternative to the Western neocolonialist access, You know, this region and all of the global south, not that I particularly like that term, but all of the oppressed peoples of the world have suffered under for decades, if not centuries. And yet we’re not really seeing any alternative from the BRICS countries.
We’re seeing an increase in trade between China and India and Israel, both of them being heavily involved in the arms trade with Israel and certainly not throttling back. China’s invested through Chinese state companies and the settlement programs in the occupied territories. It’s investing in Ashdod and Haifa port, both of which receive weapons for the Zionist military on a regular basis. India is both an energy supplier, it’s just inked a new deal with Israel in the last few days, but also a weapons mutual trade deals between them. Russia is providing energy, it’s facilitating the delivery of oil from Kazakhstan becauset oil hub is under their control. It’s providing, you know, its trade is not throttling back. It’s increasing. We know that there are a huge number of Russian passport holders, dual nationalities, Israeli-Russian, that are fighting in the IOF against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
Brazil is the only one that appears to be really trying to kind of throttle back. Lula is doing his best to reduce the supply particularly of coal to Israel. Even South Africa that has brought the genocide case at the ICJ. Of course, Russia and China also have refused or have not refused. approved joining the case, right?
And what I find most interesting is in their statements this year, it was basically a repeat of the statement of 2024, where they don’t even label it as a massacre or an ethnic cleansing or a genocide. And they’re certainly not calling for any kind of sanctions or boycotting or diplomatic expulsion of ambassadors.
Not a single gesture has been made by any of these countries, apart from, of course, South Africa and Iran, which, of course, I’m not even including it in the discussion. Egypt, we know, is… basically in bed with Israel since 1979 onwards, but increasingly so under President Sisi, actually participating in the persecution of Palestinians from many different perspectives.
And what I find sort of disturbing is this inability by these countries to even address the fact that it is a genocide. and even to uphold the measures that must be taken that have been recommended by Francesca Albanese, by the ICJ, look at Yemen’s adherence to the genocide convention. And Putin at the same time, while he’s never used the word genocide in relation to what Israel is doing, he has used the word genocide in relation to what Ukraine has been doing to Russian nationals in the areas now reabsorbed into Russia by referendum.
So I find it very difficult, added to which Russia and China have condemned, for example, the Israeli attack on Qatar, on Doha, to assassinate Hamas officials. But neither country condemned the murder of almost the entire Yemeni government cabinet around 10 days ago. And there’s a good reason for that, because both Russia and China uphold UN Resolution 2216, which was designed to be able to blockade 23 million Yemenis on behalf of the Saudi puppet regime.
And we know that both Russia and China are also heavily invested with Saudi Arabia and with the UAE, both of which, one, were created to partner with the Zionist entity when the British created the so-called State of Israel, they also effectively created Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states that would later provide protection and collaboration for Israel, which we’re now seeing. So I guess what I’m struggling with is nobody is holding them responsible for this situation. But we do have to hold them accountable while they are making very strong statements about international law.
They’re condemning the West for violating international law. And yet, effectively, they’re turning a blind eye to what Israel is doing, which, in my opinion, is the greatest transgression of international law since the UN was created and has been since the creation. of the state of Israel. And I’m struggling with people’s inability to understand that the central cause right now is preventing global genocide, because it’s also ongoing in Sudan, in other countries. But of course, Palestine is center of all of our humanity, compassion, and drive to end this kind of oppression of, I’m not going to call them a defenseless people, but they are disproportionately unable to defend themselves against a US-backed
Zionist aggression against them that’s been ongoing for 100 years.And I guess what I’m trying to say is morally, I’m not understanding why people are so clinging to a bias which blinds them to holding these countries to account and saying to them, you have the power to do something. We don’t expect,
the West is never going to do anything because we know they’re absolutely joined at the hip with Israel. But these countries have an opportunity. They have literally, they have the only capability in the world today, apart from the armed resistance in the region, to actually do something economically, not militarily, economically, to stop what is happening in Palestine.And they’re failing to do it.
And later in the discussion:
Fiorella Isabel (23:10): When the majority of countries that have the capability to stop the Holocaust of our time aren’t doing it, then what world can I expect? What difference does it make if China and Russia rise and they’re not doing something different? Then the U S perhaps cosmetically, there is more of a transactional, um, I would say soft power type of, you know, relationship. It is more cooperative. There is some sort of win-win to some, if you have, you know, if they, if there’s a respect, a mutual respect, if you have enough of a, of, of something to show for it, when it comes to Russia and the way they operate pragmatically, um, That is how it is. I mean, they will have respect for Iran, but they don’t necessarily have respect for the rest of the Middle East or West Asia. And I think we’ve talked about this before. They’re not…..
If you’re going to be against hegemony, that is an ideological perspective. I don’t really think they’re against the hegemony. think they want to have a piece of the pie. And that’s very well and fine.
But what I don’t like to see is the xenophiles and the Russophiles and all the people that are either, and you asked why they’re doing this, they’re either doing this because they’re too invested in this rose-colored perspective of what it creating in their mind that China and Russia are something they’re not, or two, they’re profiting off of that financially.
And one of the things that I know for a fact is, for example, the influence of between Israel on Russia is there because I couldn’t even say the word genocide in any of my presentations at RT because Israel will get mad…So for me, there’s this like kind of like gripping desire for people to just sort of kind of justify things that they wouldn’t justify the United States doing. that they wouldn’t justify, you know, anybody, any, any, the UK or any European country from doing, but they justify it or look the other way because there’s also a sense of cognitive dissonance of being, seeing how just hopeless things are. And here we go again.
I’m not trying to rob people of that. That there’s a possibility of another world. But if there is a possibility of another world, we need to actually do it or otherwise we’re just going to repeat the same thing with just different players in different stages. And I feel like that’s where we’re going. I really am….
Vanessa Beeley (32:18): And as we keep saying, if you’re going to hold BRICS countries up, Russia and China up, as some kind of viable alternative to the paradigm we’ve been living in for decades and that the world is sick of, then how can we accept that they’re doing virtually the same thing?…
Fiorella Isabel (38:40): It is actually just a very formulaic type of, of cheerleading for a team. It’s just more iterations of that, you know, from the microscopic left, right paradigm to, you know, multipolar and unipolar thing. It’s become just very much iterations of the same type of mentality where you’re just choosing a team and you’re just repeating what is most advantageous for you, what is most popular, what X, Y analysts said and whatever they say goes. And so when you question outside of that, you break people’s brains.
These are long extracts, but even so, there is a lot more supporting detail in the talk and transcript, so please find the time to listen or read. This discussion is an important reality check.
____
1 Even though India has been slapped in the face by Trump, it is not keen about the BRICS project either. From a talk between Glenn Diesen and former Indian diplomat M. K. Bhadrakumar after Trump announced his 50% sanctions on (selected) Indian goods if India continued to buy oil from Russia:
Former Ambassador M. K. Bhadrakumar: Look, Professor, this is a brainwave of the Russians, BRICS’ idea and then the Chinese. And our prime minister happened to be visiting Russia at that time and on the sidelines of a multilateral event he was sounded out whether he would sit in for a meeting like this. He agreed, if anything out of sheer politeness. And then it was languishing. You look at the history of this moment, languishing, and then the Russians breathed new life into it in 2014 and in 2020 uh 2022 when they needed it. They brushed it up and brought it up as a platform to defy the US and to orchestrate processes which have a strong anti-American content. Plainly I’m saying that this is what has happened on BRICS.
Otherwise BRICS is a toothless organization and it has absolutely no cutting edge in it. This is completely a doing of the Russians and the Chinese. India had nothing to do with it. That is the plain reality.
Now therefore if Trump is raising dust over it, the person to answer that should be Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping. This is “Do not pit India against Trump when it comes to BRICS.” That is maybe a very smart game and they go and lie under the carpet, not being seen at all. But they are the ones, the culprits here, to give a cutting edge to this.
And at earlier time, even Shanghai Cooperation Organization you were had a cutting edge like this and it used to be called Asian NATO. India never, really, never really, was part of giving an anti-American slant to the BRICS. So Trump knows that and Trump is comfortable with that.
If Trump, if BRICS has not gone in the direction of developing a new BRICS currency, Trump should give credit to India because it was India’s opposition, India’s reservation.
Look at it like this: India has no problem with SWIFT. India has no problem in trading with dollars. India is not fearing that, India is not fearing that its resources are going to be confiscated by the Americans. Whose problem is this?
India is interested in one aspect of it which is to transfer the payment system to local currencies because that is an entirely different matter. It is in giving a habitation and a name for India’s currency in the world currency basket commensurate with India’s growing stature as an economic power.
You see it also has no anti-American thrust to it. If there are countries which do not have dollars to spare, India can still trade with them if they trade in local currencies. There is no anti-American content there. And the both these countries India and that country which does it they both have access to SWIFT. Nonetheless we use it like this. So therefore you know, it’s an ingenious thing that is happening here when you speak about on the one hand time-tested friendship and so on between India and Russia and then the Russians going and hiding when there is pressure from the Americans on BRICS and saying that it is, it is India’s can of worms. It is not. It was conceived in the womb of the Russian decision makers. So the Russians must answer this.
Both China and Russia are permanent members of the UN security council so they have vested interests in preserving the system. Multilateralism for all but not too much since we still want our veto power sort of thing. In the statement they issued they even warned about having to be very careful about making changes to the UN.
At best what we can hope for in a BRICS-multipolar world is less hegemony and less bullying, but not if you are not recognised as fully human as in the case of Palestine. Countries like Iran and Venezuela would benefit from it in some way as they would be harder to attack, but if an attack did take place, I am not even sure that the rest of the BRICS states would do anything about it. It’s mostly there as a confidence game: BRICS countries feel free to continue to trade with Russia despite threats of sanctions because they know that the other members will continue to do so, and will continue to trade with them if they, in turn, are sanctioned. Seeing BRICS countries do this also empowers non-BRICS countries to start defying the hegemon.
Just to add, when I criticized Russia and China of not doing anything to stop the Palestinian holocaust here some time last year, I was myself roundly criticized by the commentariat.
An exception among leading commentators, Larry Johnson has criticized Russia and China for lack of action regarding the genocide as well. I’ve heard him say this several times on interviews.
But no matter what we believe, foreign policy is about pursuing power and interests. Morality is only a PR tool. That’s not to be overly cynical, just an observation of human behavior on the national interest level. Russia and China do not see it in their interests to engage in any direct challenge to Israel, which would likely lead to a confrontation with the US. Of course most of us would like to see the knight in shining armor coming to save the day, but that won’t be China or Russia in this regard.
Thank you for mentioning that. I was remiss in not crediting Johnson.
I believe that what BRICS exemplifies is the re-emergence of the NIEO (New International Economic Order) approach as per the Havanna declaration in 2023. Now focusing with the BRICS in the creation of Global South interdependences rather than pushing for increased access to Western markets. It would be a “success” for the BRICS if they manage to increase exchanges between its members reducing their dependence, both financial and economic, from the CW. Rather than an ideological change it looks like a simple push for diversification and to succeed it would need long term stability and, IMO, a more equilibrated, less neoliberal, approach. India, very much worried about sovereignty issues, and not wanting to become dependent on a different set of powers looks like a good example to follow. Many other countries which are not BRICS members themselves are probably watching how this scheme works and see if they can also diversify. With the CW going increasingly unhinged what should take decades might go somehow faster because the need for diversification is more pressing. Pardon me for being too generic.
I wonder about this… Taking out BRIS as states that aren’t even in the running to be a peer competitor to the US, and looking only at China: what is their government thinking? They have played their hand well in the current global economic system, so of course they would want to keep it as is. They also do not want economic sanctions over political issues to become a jus cogens norm. They have used Israel in the past as a way to keep abreast of US military tech at least, at most to copy it. The US empire already has China in its crosshairs, so without a high risk tolerance, best to keep one’s head down. Plus, the US empire is currently burning up soft power over its genocide – and “never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake.” Lastly, if China immediately cut off trade with Israel, is there any reason to believe it would make a material impact – or would we expect the US step in to provide needed imports at subsidy?
For all of those reasons, it makes sense that China isn’t sticking its neck out to become a leader of a global movement to isolate Israel. But even given all that, it seems sensible to try to become a leader behind the scenes, and push other countries to implement BDS; even if the US steps in to make up for lost imports – not just from China, but from the G77 countries – it would put pressure on a weak spot in US domestic support. If that is China’s play – organize behind the scenes, and only with critical mass come out into the open – we wouldn’t know about it.
But I think it’s more a matter of risk aversion, and blindness to the soft power bonanza that would come from taking the lead on this, and presenting themselves as the only country with the power and moral sense to try to make a difference. That being said, the argument to keep one’s head down and avoid conflict when the empire is set on WWIII against you just seems inestimably more persuasive, especially for those with a weak risk appetite.
One of the mistakes we are apt to make in analyzing international affairs is to personify a country, and this is, i believe, what leads us into the moralizing and from there to mistakes like Yves points out in the post. Marxists would call it ‘campism’.
China, like the U.S., is not a single actor; it is a term we use to refer to the sanctioned actions of government officials, representing as they do mainly business interests.
China is Israel’s largest trading partner , with exports of $19 billion and imports $2.8b. Presumably a shift here would do something. As to your next point, I see no evidence that China is organizing anything behind the scenes; seems like wishful thinking to me.
First, you appear to take the position that China is not seeking to be a leading force in BRICS. Please look at the Bhadrakumar footnote. He is clear that Russia and China are the big drivers of this project.
Second, the BRICS 2025 declaration had this very wordy section. Consider this strong affirmation:
The commitment to international law entails opposing genocide. UN member states have obligations under the Genocide Convention. They might have been able to ignore them until a UN committee indeed just found that Israel is committing genocide.
Third, at the just-completed SCO, Xi announced a Global Governance initiative, which included five overarching principles. Per China New:
The combo plate of “abiding by international rule of law” in light of the Genocide Convention obligations plus “focusing on taking real actions” would suggest that refusing to even acknowledge that Israel is engaging in genocide and continuing to support it by being a top trading partner of Israel suggests that the Global Governance effort is a crock.
Fourth, even the feckless US poodles called EU member states are starting to sanction Israel. Haaretz (see https://archive.is/20250921171337/), also in today’s Links) makes clear that the Netanyahu freakout about needing to become an autarky is the result of the prospect of even more serious action from the EU.
Take a shot every time you see “reiterate” in the statement. Have someone around to call an ambulance.
My position is slightly different – I agree that the Chinese government wants to take a leading role in BRICS, my point is rather that (at this stage) BRICS isn’t a cohesive alliance, and only China has the power to be in this conversation.
Per my reading, the Genocide Convention imposes an obligation on China and all other signatories to prevent and punish the crime in accord with international law: prosecuting individual genocidaires in one’s jurisdiction, and using the UNSC for all forms of coercive power. Obviously the UNSC is hamstrung by the genocidaire US government, so that is practically out. Economic sanctions? I presume the Chinese government is of the position that economic sanctions should be considered a form of warfare and solely governed by the UNSC. I’m partial to that interpretation of the UN Charter, but it is contested; and I think it’s a fair reading of the Genocide Convention, even though it does not specifically mention sanctions, that a “reasonably available” measure to prevent/punish genocide is sanctioning the guilty government/country.
I also agree with your moral argument: the Chinese government *should* call the genocide a genocide, and build a coalition of sanctioning countries, even if by first announcing unilateral sanctions and then inviting other governments to join. The fact that they haven’t, I also agree, means that they lack the muscle/spine/guts to back up their stated goals of an international-law-based global order.
My focus however was on the power politics of this situation, leaving morality and legality aside. I lean toward the argument that in this case, doing good would be doing well – that the Chinese government taking the lead on sanctioning Israel to prevent genocide would redound to its benefit. Precisely because the US empire has its sights set on China, and that taking the lead on ending this genocide would be a soft power bonanza, means that the Chinese government would be wise to do it, if only to help in the Dumb Cold War the US government has launched against China. But when I imagine this argument playing out with someone who values soft power less, or has far higher risk aversion than me (who has zero governing responsibilities for China), the counterargument just seems stronger, for the reasons I listed above. (Again, just from a power-politics perspective, leaving out the morality and legality which sadly have had little impact in international relations.)
This article prompted me to look at who actually trades with Israel. All date from UN Comtrade database.
In 2024, US easily bought the most at $17.4bn , strangely Ireland was in second place with $3.2bn. China third at $2.8bn. Russia was only $469m.
China sold the most at $19bn ( EVs, phones and computers), then US $9.4bn ( weapons, explosives), Germany $5.6bn (vehicles, pharma products). Russia again low at $237m
Interestingly in 2018 Russia sold $4.43bn , showing a rapid reduction in trading recently, which has little to do with Russian sanctions by the west, which Israel has mainly ignored. Its not that long ago Israel was talking with Russia and Belorussia about a common free trade area. It appears that one of the key BRICS parties has cut trades considerably since Gaza and Syria blew up.
About 20% of Israelis speak Russian as their first language, third highest after Hebrew and Arabic. Its thought that up to 50% can speak some Russian.
I think the only people who consistently say BRICS is anti-west is the west. M. K. Bhadrakumar tells it from one aspect of the Indian viewpoint, there are at least two, probably more. I have never read anything produced by BRICS that talks of a ‘new currency’ , this is one of those narratives constructed deliberately to obfuscate.
reposting because the links were broken on the first comment
“Brazil is the only one that appears to be really trying to kind of throttle back.” This is certainly not the case, I’m afraid. Brazil is increasing exports to Israel of critical resources such as fuel and steel.
Despite Lula saying some strong words against the genocide, no concrete action has been taken, and on the contrary, Brazil is importing record ammounts of weapons from the nazisionist regime.
Lula’s position is similar to that of Erdogan’s: occasional fiery rethoric to placate the masses while silently increasing trade with Israel.
Thank you, Yves. This article “broke my brain” as Fiorella* Isabel put it. The evidence that Russia and China, in particular, are not lifting a finger to stop the genocide, has been staring me in the face and I’ve been struggling to accept it.
*Note the spelling – it’s not Fiona.
Yes, and look who traded with Germany during the second world war. Countries pursue their own interests, although they pretend otherwise when it suits their purposes. And powerful countries cannot help smaller countries that will not help themselves, as Russia learned in Syria.
Will be interesting to see how the Saudi/Pakistani military alliance plays out.
Vanessa Beeley and Fiona Isabel also had this discussion a couple of days ago on a channel that I recently stumbled across. It was the first time I was introduced to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0DPTSUsKOo
Why is BRICS Providing a Lifeline to Israel? | w/ Vanessa Beeley & Fiorella Isabel
(BettBeat Media)
Additionally, the writings and debates/discussions over the years from Prof. Patrick Bond of South Africa have turned a more critical eye on BRICS for many years. He’s also had debate/discussions with Michael Hudson about the issues and is featured on the CADTM site.
It’s kind of sneaky to keep supporting Israel as long as the West gets the biggest soft power black eye for doing the same.
The alternative perspective is one presented by KJ Noh https://youtu.be/HHRb7M9B634?si=mXIM1Gv14YJoE-_m who happens to know East Asia very well and have a substantial analytical framework for looking at great power competition. What’s happening in Palestine is a stain, but needs to be viewed in the context of an Anglo-American imperial order that richly profited from the cross Atlantic slave trade, knowingly starved millions Irish and perhaps a hundred millions Indians to death, supported fascists in Germany and Japan before and after WWII (seems like every European leader these days has at least one NatSoc grandpa), exterminated a quarter of the population of North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, etc.
Russia has repeatedly stated that it’s not fighting Ukraine but Ukraine+EU+US. China knows it’s not dealing with Japan, South Korea, or even Malaysia or Indonesia as sovereign countries, but as US vassals that could be color revolutioned and destabilized like Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Philippines. Thailand, South Korea, and Indonesia came very close. These are next door neighbors (similarly Russian haplessness over Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and Romania). So expecting a substantive show of force in the Levant where neither have land borders nor reliable regional allies (even after the 12 days war, Iranian establishment still can’t decide between building the bomb or rehashing JCPOA).
There’s nothing China could do to stop Israel even if it wanted to do more, we see how Qatari media poisoned Arab minds against Iranian and Hezbollah involvement in Syria, and that was at the invitation of the official government of Syria and against ISIS head choppers. China and Russia and Iran can’t act directly without buying-in by the local Arab regimes that are in America’s back pocket. If they did it would make Afghanistan look like a cakewalk.
Beeley, Isabel, and Karim from Bettbeat focuses on asking China to stop trading with Israel, but frankly that does nothing substantive as Israel will simply get the same supplies from Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, and the EU. In comparison, China supplying the global South with alternative avenues of trade and industrial goods and tightening shipment of rare earth minerals seems a lot more useful than grandstanding alone on Palestine.
Like it or not, Russia and China inaction isn’t because they’re unwilling to act but in their calculations, they are not able to act. If China can’t stop the coups of significant countries on its borders and took a year to deal with a color revolution within its own borders, why do westerners assume they can easily march into a completely separate part of the world and effect useful change? Maybe SCO will have the coherence and legitimacy to do that in another 5-10 years, but it seems far too early right now. If the Chinese want to effect positive change against the US, it would do better to cross train with Cuban, Venezuelan, and Iranian forces and push towards more formal alliance structures in the SCO.
I don’t assume it would be easy. I don’t believe they think anything done wouldn’t be a challenge.
And as you mentioned about the “happenings” near China’s borders….looks like the Philippines are heating up now.
Yes, the challenges are numerous, but it is a global challenge because of all the possiblities of what next.
Everything China/Russia does in each theater needs to be understood to be part of a global challenge, where their strengths and weaknesses are untested, and the consequences of a loss is catastrophic (such as misjudging Turkish intent in Syria). PNAC expressly named Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Lebanon for destruction, and we saw what happened in the next 3 decades. The danger of action is very real and different forces have made mistakes, but acceding to perspectives of outsiders who can’t understand the real scope of the battle field is not going to help with understanding or strategy.
That’s why I find westerners like Beeley, Isabel, and Bettbeat to be very irresponsible in constantly talking about Chinese and Russian treachery. They’re talking about Israel in isolation, when Israel is impossible without complete backing from the US. If the US state apparatus and oligarchy is willing to destroy its own facade of liberal democracy for Israel, then it’s something that goes a lot higher than “why isn’t X country doing enough”. Their discussions isn’t about what to do to help Palestinians or how to effectively establish the world order, but their personal feelings about why more isn’t being done, by people who have done (I still follow them on Twitter and they have just been going in self indulgent circles rather than offer a proper anti-imperialist analysis based on current events) very little personally beyond talking trash and muddling the primary responsibility of US, EU, Turkey, and the GCC.
Wise words, that should be obvious. Russia had to let their own people in the Ukraine be subject to ethnical clensing (or genocide, or whatever you wanna call it) for many years, because it was not ready for war with the whole Western World. Something westerners barely even mention.
Understanding all the complexities is hard. Virtue signaling is easy. Westerners that expect Russia (or China, or anyone else for that matter) to save them (or those they care about, or the whole world as they see it) need a reality check. Recently, Trump said that he is dissapointed in Putin (because he did not get what he wanted). Putin replied that dissapointment comes from unrealistic expectation.
I’m not from the west, and have not seen a single western expert that really understand what’s it like to be on the other side (except those like Sleboda that are not westerners any more, if they ever were). They have a framework where all the pieces should fit, but they just can’t. And when they don’t, then it’s always someone’s elses fault (and virtue signaling ensues). Meanwhile Russians are actually fighting (and taking casualties) an existential war that has no end in sight. Existential for more than just Russia, because it is dealing with root causes of many things.
On the other hand, there is just as much projection about the shangri-la a “multipolar” world is supposed to magically create. They also mention the projection onto the BRICS institution for the fights others won’t take up for themselves.
I’m speaking of the instances of people claiming BRICS is somehow taking up the sword to fight “the evil empires”.
What their discussion brings to light is that, when a subject is brought up that could possible show that to be a goal – it falls short.
It’s about asking deeper questions about the what “world order” BRICS is talking about.
Yeah, the mindless boosterism by the likes of Carl Zha and Danny Haiphong is hard to stomach. No country can win against something as malevolent as USA by just “do nothing, win”.
The best I can do is stitch up a case for China and Russia going in the direction of taking a more proactive and positive role going forward. I really hope they are actually playing a subtle long term game to win and understand the stakes. But we in the West need to do our part and not expect a Marvel action hero (or Charlie Kirk’s magical bone head) to save us.
Though I have to say, China these days does seem like quite the Shangri-la (or Wakanda?) of reasonable governance, good public safety, amazing infrastructure, high tech everything, and low cost of living. The difficulty of immigrating and naturalizing there kinda satisfied the Shangri-la mystique.
Their tv programming is crap and the weather is worse, so there’s that.
A lot of what you say makes sense. I also put too much hope in thinking one of these nations will take greater action. I get depressed seeing China and Russia still working with Israel (in particular China getting angered by the Israeli ambassador’s recent Taiwan visit, I thought by then they should have completely cut ties at least, it seemed humiliating).
Is there a chance China still hopes to mediate some future negotiations. It would be one reason they keep an embassy and trade. Also they did try to negotiate with all the Palestine representatives to form some sort of unified government (didn’t seem to happen). Now they say they fully back a security/military alliance between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Are they hoping this will lead to greater Islamic/Arab unity, which could lead to more independent decision making in the region?
I can’t put myself in the heads of the Chinese leadership but like you, I noted that they did make efforts towards Palestinian unity and Arab unity, and their efforts got them nowhere. The Chinese government’s poverty alleviation efforts in its own population is also remarkable. So I do believe that they would want to do well whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Given the current state of West Asia, we may have to wait a long time.
Even China’s population has its discontents.
Indeed. Many of them now live in Syria and behead Alawites for fun. China is not a utopia. But at least it doesn’t appear to be a dystopia.
I would advise a little more optimism. My premise is that China and Russia are acting deliberately and very carefully because they want to win the war. They don’t want to waste energy fighting unwinnable battles along the way. There are risks with such slow approaches and they include moral injuries for not doing enough to stop a genocide.
But this is a better prospect for long term success than if they didn’t act due to cowardice or collusion with US/Israel/GCC. The power balance is quickly accruing towards the China led block and Trump is accelerating the process. We’re living through a time of monsters. May the vast majority of us live to see something better come to replace the monsters.
“We have pointed out that Putin is firmly neoliberal”
—–
Not quibbling with the main thrust of this post, but this particular line jumped out at me. The truth is – he is, and he isn’t. It is very frustrating.
If you carefully listen to his speeches and interviews, for example, he will routinely slip in statements straight out of the “Perestroika-era pro-american liberal dissident” (read – Reagan-era neoliberal) playbook. Because that’s what he’s always been. [This is why the “Putin is a KGB man” trope to me is an indicator that the speaker knows absolutely nothing about anything, or, specifically, the Soviet Union in the 1980s; the KGB of that era was incredibly instrumental in forcing the transition to capitalism and the dissolution of the USSR.] On top of that there is Putin’s continued backing of people like Nabiullina and Gref, who are as neoliberal as they come, and in a stupid let’s-just-imitate-the-americans-without-considering-any-national-context way. Which is something even some senior members of the Duma routinely chafe at, in public.
HOWEVER.
One of the key issues with neoclassical or neoliberal economics – “laissez faire capitalism” on steroids, if you will – is that it completely and absolutely fails whenever it is necessary to actually “get stuff done”. Bring the country back from a Great Depression-era economic collapse, for example, or rebuild the army, or fight a war, or whatever. Hell, the concept of “war socialism” dates back to at least World War I, when some of the participants found that unregulated capitalism won’t get the artillery shells made and sent up to the front either on time or on budget. [As opposed to…now!]
And Putin, on some level, has understood this for a long time. I was shocked when I looked up his dissertation – you all did know that in the 1990s he got a second degree, this time in Economics, right? – from 1997, I think. It is basically something like – “how can the state manage oil industry investments in a free-market-capitalism context”, i.e. backdoor Keynesianism. This is during the peak neoliberalism era in the Russian economy, and he clearly must have understood that this dog won’t hunt. [Hence, one of the first things he did once in power was to re-nationalize “strategic industries”, to the chagrin of people like Khodorkovsky.] And “the other half” of his advisers, Belousov comes to mind (because of his father), are literal Keynesians, though the word itself seems to be taboo in Russian media. Some of whom, specifically Manturov, have claimed in interviews that they’ve been planning a “turn-to-Keynesianism” type of economic reform from as far back as 2007-2008, and the current war just kick-started the process.
So that’s what I mean. Putin has his ideological preferences, which he tries to hew to at every opportunity, but he also knows he has to get things done, and his ideological preferences do not work in that context. It’s the married guy with two kids daydreaming about a hot teenage cheerleader sort of scenario, and I did not mean to reference “American Beauty” when I started to type that sentence, but there you are. In effect this puts him in a position of a bridge, or a mediator, between the different economic and social forces in Russian society. Somehow, however, I suspect that if he had his druthers, i.e. if the US hadn’t been so bent on regime change for the past 20 years, then yes, he’d be building a “model neoliberal” society of the sort that only exists on the pages of textbooks. Fortunately for the Russians (?), US foreign policy is typically run by idiots, so there you are.
Even more tangentially, it’s kind of the same way with “denazification” – because enough big-budget mainstream government-funded-or-controlled efforts have been made to at least partly rehabilitate Nazis and collaborators in Russia all the way through 2021 to suggest that if the Ukraine thing hadn’t been a thing, there’d be “Russian Bandera” (Krasnov, Vlasov, whomever) statues in central Moscow by now. He wants to, desperately, Putin does, which is why closet Nazi sympathizer Medinsky still has a job or public standing of any description, but he knows it’s completely impossible given extant political realities.
Detour to tangent – over.
Putin is an almost religious believer in balanced budgets. He is also an almost fierce defender of Elvira Nabiullina. See John Helmer on how orthodox she is CENTRAL BANK GOVERNOR NABIULLINA IS THE NATO BANKERS’ FAVOURITE RUSSIAN BANKER, PRESIDENT PUTIN’S TOO
I also thought about posting this link when I read your line about Putin’s neoliberal leanings.
Another example: Putin’s “Special Presidential Envoy on Foreign Investment and Economic Cooperation”, Kirill Dmitriev, also has a resume worth a look. Helmer has also discussed Dmitriev in his analyses of economic debates within Russia.
Agreed. I also recall Michael Hudson criticizing Nabiullina (and Putin) in a similar vein some years ago, and maybe more recently as well. Points well taken.
Oooh … I’d like to find this …
#ElvriaNabiullinaFanClub 😁
I’m a fanboy! LOL (via NC)
Seriously though … I’m reading through Helmer’s article …
Does the following excerpt make sense given the July 2023 date on the section of the post?
[emphasis mine]
Which Russian banks – no doubt under heavy sanctions in 2023 – could do this? Or is he referring to private financial institutions that can skirt SWIFT somehow? I’m not following this particular assertion.
However, FX markets provide a mechanism to move exchange rates and swaps with Yuan are on the menu (via Reuters), so it’s not too far fetched to see how a dollar|euro –> yuan –> ruble game could be stitched together by parties for whom a 16% interest rate is too good to let waste.
Money follows interest rates! But money does move via airplanes!( via NC) … :)
ooof … how can her fanboy misspell her name?!!
And meant to say ” … money does not move via airplanes!”
So disappointing to read the contents of this post but it goes a long way i explaining how Israel continues to carry on with almost complete immunity. Well, except for opposition from countries like Yemen and South Africa that is. Am not surprised that Vanessa Beeley is helping expose this as she does great work in this part of the world.
This is really, I don’t know what to say. The Arab countries are with Israel, Turkey is with Israel (all their words aside), US voters are with ’em. EU ruling class is with ’em. And you expect country like China to take the lead. We are not even “people of the book”. And our economy is not cruizing at ease with the current situation regarding USA.
If there is anyone to blame, because there are easy, or comparatively easy, options to take, and they are not taking the easy options for humanity, for general good, then it is the American voters. Why can’t they stand up, take a more forceful opposition against the genocide. Their country is supposed to be a democratic republic. Is that all but a sick joke?
You appear to be new here. I suggest you read our site Policies, to which you consented by commenting. Among other things, they explain how we require commenters not to engage in rhetorically/logically invalid forms of argument. You did so by straw-manning Beeley and saying she was calling on China to lead, as in exhort other countries to boycott Israel. She did not. She called on China to act, noting its cowardly failure to even use the genocide word.
We pointed out in another comment that Netanyahu’s recent freakout about Israel needing to become an autarky is due to merely some EU member states imposing sanctions, with more likely to follow. China acting alone sends a powerful signal to other nations and emboldens others to act. It does not need to exhort. Look at how China continuing to trade with Russia after the start of the SMO led more and more to get up the nerve to follow suit.
However, you also act as if China has no obligation to lead. This is a perverse position given China’s and Russia’s efforts to steer BRICS (in admittedly a herding cats manner give the importance of national sovereignity as a principle) and more recently. Xi setting forth a Global Governance initiative at the SCO. As we explain above, adherence to those principles is inconsistent with standing pat in the face of Israel genocide.
Finally, you appear to have swallowed Kool-Aid about America’s “democracy” . It is a money-driven, not a vote-driven, regime. The Israel Lobby can and does fund most of Congress, heavily. Anyone who ran on an anti-Israel position, or even was known simply not to be an Israel backer would be primaried. Even if they managed to survive that, the candidate would have expended so much money so early in his run as to be too weakened to have a decent shot at winning in the general election.
I agree that there is nothing entirely (innately) virtuous about any particular nation, government, or people. Or individual. I think no one would dispute the shortcomings of any of us, for there are too many to count. Likewise, no nation or government, or people, or individual, should be raised up above all others as any kind of paragon.
Confronting the current neoliberal hegemon, it is not clear whether it will lead to another neoliberal hegemon, or something else. We are slow-walking towards what we do not know. Therefore, these reports and ongoing discussions are all important, and I think corrections are constantly part of the value of the discussions, so I welcome them.
I do wonder, however, about the interests of the current governments that appear to condone the current genocide of Palestinians (who are the people currently receiving the principal media attention for being genocided): Is it Israel that is being shielded, or is it the Bibi who is being shielded (from his own country’s judicial system)? Who or what is doing the shielding?
The toothless U.N. just voted overwhelmingly to ‘do something’ about the Palestinian genocide, specifically, after a year of feckless waiting-and-seeing. Now what?
I think it’s more instructive to look at how Israel is changing vis a vis BRIC (not S–I think Israel and SA have, eh, issues) rather than the other way around, although I’m not sure if I have a good sense of where things are now.
Until just a few years ago, I’d have sworn that Israel was moving towards Russia, China, and INdia. It made good logical sense: they’d want to hedge since they can see the US and Western power generally waning. Things like Naftali Bennett involved in mediating between Russia and Ukraine made good sense in this dimension. Then, over the last few years, as the Ukraine situation became messy and the Middle East heated up, things became muddled when it came to Israeli foreign policy. While I’m hazy on the moving parts, on the whole, the net consequence of everything in th epast 3-4 years is that Israel is now far more dependent, materially and politically, on the West and far more ensnared (I choose the word deliberately) within the West. (Now, this is not to say that Israel is not influencing the politics of the West–but this is becoming a two way entrapment: I’d say that, now that they are stuck with the West, Israel is trying to milk the West for everything it can get.)
On th eflip side, BRIC have always been engaged with Israel: Russia had been, until very recently, developing close ties to Israel; China has been doing a lot of profitable business with Israel–including using it as the conduit to engage in tech espionage vis a vis the West, both military and civilian, India has always had good relations with Israel. So there’s nothing new there. If there is a break between BRIC and Israel, it’d be Israel’s doing, not Russia’s, China’s, or India’s. And I don’t see Israel willingly cut off the relations if they have full agency for their own actions.
‘Israel is trying to milk the West for everything it can get’ — I agree totally.
Israel has not imposed any sanctions on RU. There are still many daily flights between the two countries; not just El Al, but also several RU airlines. One can buy Israeli fruits/veggies in many Moscow supermarkets. Life goes on.
Israel-RU relations (and USSR before 1992) have always been complicated, nowadays even more so given that 15% or so of Israeli citizens are native RU speakers (not all from RU, though, many from UKR, yet another complication). There have been rumors that Israel might send captured Hamas weaponry to UKR (or obsolete Patriot systems), but so far it’s just talk; I’ve yet to see any confirmation of such.
Netanyahu and Putin are wily survivors and will both keep their options open as long as possible. Iran could be a sticking point if Israel decides to do something drastic (as many are speculating will happen sooner rather than later), but until that actually happens I don’t expect any big changes to Israel-RU relations.
Russia and China have greatly cut back their trade and investment with Israel, even if the existing investments and trade ties haven’t been severed. The diplomatic language is much harsher than before October 7. While they want to maintain relationships with as many countries as possible, thinking that they would ever replace the US for Israel is a fundamental misunderstanding of Israel’s role as loathed minority enforcer for the US empire in West Asia. Russia and China have different approaches to diplomacy that doesn’t have a role for Israel. They deal with Israel as part of the US hegemon.
Unlike US, who still seem able to sow chaos in other countries without any visible blowback, I understand the reluctance of Russia/China/Iran to act because there are very high costs for misjudging. The leadership of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas have all paid with their lives for trusting the US to abide by basic rules of diplomacy. Syria is now in the hands of a CIA created Daesh puppet because Russia misjudged Turkish intent.
So they move deliberately and slowly because there’s a lot to lose and I don’t think the soft power gains from moving on Palestine are there, there are a lot of Al Jazeera brainwashed Arabs who still see Iran and Hezbollah as invaders and celebrated Julani, so direct involvement when the regional authorities support US/Israel and many Arabs still mindlessly repeat “Uyghur genocide” at a time when Uyghur Takfiri are genociding Alawites and Druze, seems like a bad bet.
I just don’t see what they can do for Palestinians – any economic sanctions is meaningless when the Israeli economy is backstopped by the US, military intervention is a complete no go beyond covert support for Ansarallah and offer of a Belarus style nuclear shield for Iran that the Iranian leadership keeps refusing.
Given their inability to prevent color revolutions and NED style subversions next door, Russia and China have much bigger fishes to fry. It’s up to Westoids with a conscience to do what the Italians are doing and what we should have started doing 18 months ago. General strikes. Zero tolerance for genocidaires (including going no contact with any friends or family who still support Israel). BDS against not just Israel but to the extent possible US/Germany/UK/Hungry. Pledge to not support any politician who is not explicitly anti-Zionist. Pledge to boycott any artist who is not explicitly anti-Zionist. Pledge to avoid all sporting and cultural organizations that do not ban Israel. I’m trying to practice what I preach, which means I have no friends, hate my family, watch Chinese and Russian movies, and trying to move to a different continent.
Might it be possible that the BRICS are giving the West enough rope to hang itself? Israel as a case in point has jumped the shark, to put it mildly. It has become increasingly brutal and expansionist and seemingly intends to attack Iran before the year ends. The EU doesn’t even uphold the minimal standards of diplomacy regarding snap-back. Iran is left with no recourse but to hit Israel hard and decisively if it is attacked again. Alastair Crooke is again worth listening to this morning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_urhZglaz4
To add to your point about giving them rope, I’d say both Russia and China are in a very difficult predicament with regards to all this thanks to the international institutions currently on offer.
The international legal mechanism would be to have the UN recognize a genocide taking place and then having UN peacekeepers sent in to stop it. But the US vetoes that effort so it doesn’t happen, even though the vast majority of the world would be on board if the US would get out of the way.
As has been noted for years at NC, BRICS is not all that organized or powerful yet. India, at least with Modi in charge, has a huge antipathy toward its own Muslim population, and aren’t likely to take the side of the Palestinians in this conflict. If Russia and China were to, that would likely create some fault lines in an already precarious alliance. Russia does have strong ties to Israel due to the settler movement. What would the repercussions be for Russia for hanging Russian Zionists out to dry? Judging by the damage Zionist oligarchs can do to the US government, I’d imagine Russia would face similar pressures for crossing therm. China is the most powerful of the BRICS, and there was a link here recently showing a Chinese official dressing down an IDF representative in China, telling him that Israel’s credibility is shot and nobody in the world believes a thing Israel says except a handful of Israelis. But if China were to send troops to Israel, that risks fracturing BRICS too. And isn’t one of the problems with the current world order the fact that the US believes it should be the world’s policeman, rushing into conflict after conflict putting Uncle Sam’s finger on the scale for its approved winner? As this article notes, most of the world would like a different world order, not just China replacing the US as policeman, so it is understandable why China is reluctant to jump in on their own.
As far as trade goes, it does seem like cutting off trade would be an easier thing to do than military engagement, but again they would risk being just another mass sanctioner like the US already is, and inflicting collective punishment on all Israelis, not just the genociders.
Then there is the issue of Zionist insanity, and what they’ve already shown they’re capable of doing. Nobody wants to be the next leader to be assassinated for crossing Israel. Personal fear probably plays a role here.
So maybe for lack of better options, they quietly wait for the Western countries to discredit themselves, hastening their ongoing decline. And maybe that’s not all they are doing either. If BRICS were going to shore up Iran and others’ defenses against the Zionist entity, would they send a telegram to Trump advertising it?
I’m not defending the inaction at all, just pointing out the difficulties if BRICS were to engage more forcefully.
During the Cold War, Russia and China supported Palestine militarily and economically from anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist perspectives. Thanks to this support, Palestine was able to compete with Israel, a military powerhouse. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, abandoning the socialist path resulted in the loss of the national liberation ideology. This caused both countries to reduce or terminate their support. In other words, Palestine was another loser of the Cold War, and its fate was sealed over 30 years ago.
#ChinaAndPalestine
Once again, this wonderful family blog delivers. I only regret that I don’t have sufficient time these days to give to deeper engagement, but I will try since I am benefitting from a short disco-nap tonight (nee insomnia).
Regarding China absconding its global moral duty w.r.t. Palestine, I will confess that many a time I have asked myself, “Why doesn’t China flex (its muscle) more?” Why doesn’t it do more reverse sanctioning? Why doesn’t it take western malfeasance to task more by punishing Western companies that do business in China? We see how the whole rare earth restrictions have affected the west. We’ve even seen some leaders, like Emmanuel Macron, travel to China or meet with Chinese diplomats to discuss both international conflict resolution and trade. Well, as with most things, it’s complicated. I like K. J. Noh’s explanation here (via India & Global Left YouTube channel). The entire episode is just over 20 minutes long, but the preceding link is cued to the 5:54 mark. Excerpt:
[emphasis mine]
Now, for those who listen to the whole thing, Noh does begin his argument from the perspective of Israel not being some super entity on its own, but rather the settler colonial project of the US/UK/West to destabilize the region, and so the reasoning above follows from that perspective. I give credence to the measured approach because even as China tries to gather up allies from the Global South, its government also knows that these allies are not China from a military and economic perspective, and that the wide reach of the US (wherever there’s an embassy!) can spread pain farther than China can ably assist or defend an ally. And while it’s good to see countries like Spain begin to sanction Israel, the recent spate of “Palestine State Recognition” rings a bit hollow and late – the cynical take, #natch (via X).
[Disclaimer: I do not agree with Noh that it is a deflection (of Western blame) to question China’s erstwhile lack of action, by my own admission above, in case one missed it… :)]
Not a deflection, as Noh agrees that no country is doing enough to stop the ongoing genocide. But certain westerners focus on what they think China should do rather than focus on applying what leverage they have on their own governments.
If those peaceful Saturday Gaza solidarity marches last year were turned into coordinated general strikes every Wednesday and if we publicly shamed all Zionists we come across and if…
I’m ashamed of us all.
> If … if .. if
Yep. The struggle is real as they say … but perhaps the Zionists have brought us to the “when your enemy is making a mistake …” phase. We can’t stop them until they rip the veils to shreds, which is exactly what their murderous plot has done.
Can’t wait to see if i5r43L is responsible for the massive telecommunications network planted near the UN (via securityaffairs.com). From the article:
I dunno … who has most motive? Maybe the one that the UN just accused of g3n0c1d3?
A Chinese person tries to answer your questions:
After the end of the Cold War, the Chinese people believe they should focus on economic development and national security. At the same time, the Chinese people strongly resent foreign countries criticizing China under the pretext of morality.
The Chinese have their own sense of morality (personally, I estimate that 70-80% of Chinese netizens support Palestine), but they are unwilling to translate this sense of morality into action. The Chinese people hope their country stays away from troubles and conflicts while developing its economy. There is a popular proverb in China – “Keep a low profile and make a fortune” – which conveys this idea.