Baerbock's Xi Jinping Comment Only Gives Away Germany's Subservience To USSouth Front

Click to see the full-size image

Written by Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst

Conducting any sort of diplomacy requires a certain level of intelligence and at the very least basic decency. However, top diplomats of the political West must’ve missed the classes on either of those, probably busy listening to people like Josep Borrell and his rants about the “garden” and the “jungle”. This is particularly embarrassing when dealing with millennia-old civilizations, such as China and India, countries with magnificent cultural heritage, both of which have recently been characterized as societies with “low intellectual potential”. As we all know now, during an interview with local media, high-ranking Kiev regime official Mikhail Podoliak arrogantly stated that China and India are supposedly “incapable of thinking about long-term strategies” because of this “low intellectual potential”.

We can imagine what sort of “intellectual potential” is present in a person who thinks that countries such as China and India are “incapable of devising long-term strategies” when both have quite literally existed for thousands of years, continually, we should stress. If Beijing and Delhi don’t have such strategies, the question is – who does? And yet, it seems that Podoliak is hardly the only Western politician (or Western-aligned, in this case) with such “highly intellectual” opinions. Namely, the German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock also decided to demonstrate similar “high intellectual capacity” during a recent interview with Fox News. On September 15, she directly called Chinese President Xi Jinping a “dictator”. Worse yet, she did so while giving a statement about the Ukrainian crisis, a matter that isn’t directly related to China.

“We will support Ukraine as long as it takes,” Baerbock stated during the interview, adding: “If Putin were to win this war, what sign would that be for other dictators in the world, like Xi, like the Chinese president? Therefore, Ukraine has to win this war.”

Once again, she demonstrated how to conduct diplomacy if one really wants to get on the bad side of not one, but two global superpowers, both of which are of essential importance to Germany itself. It seems Berlin learned nothing from the disastrous decoupling with Moscow, a move that has effectively destroyed German industrial might. Russian commodities such as oil and natural gas, the vital importance of which cannot possibly be overstated, have never been less accessible to Germany, and yet, Berlin continues its hostile policies towards Moscow. Still, this is obviously not enough, so it’s now also showing enmity towards Beijing. It should be noted that, according to the German Federal Statistical Office, trade exchange with China amounts to almost €300 billion.

This makes Beijing its largest trading partner and for the eighth year in a row, at that. German exports to China are immensely important for saving what’s left of its industry. Such enmity towards Beijing may very well destroy it completely. This also comes on the heels of what can only be described as a crawling trade war between China and the European Union, as the troubled bloc has announced it would “launch an investigation into Chinese electric vehicle subsidies“. And to say nothing of the mindless decision Brussels made earlier this year when it announced that EU navies will “support Taiwan”, although Europe itself is faced with a massive surge in illegal immigration, a problem which the aforementioned EU navies can’t deal with in the Mediterranean, their own primary zone of responsibility.

China has already expressed indignation over the label, deeming it “absurd” and an “open political provocation”. Mao Ning, the spokesperson of Beijing’s Foreign Ministry, said that Baerbock’s remarks “infringed on China’s political dignity”. As of this writing, no concrete moves have been announced in response to Germany’s rhetoric, but it’s virtually guaranteed that Beijing will not tolerate such insolence. It’s also not the first time that Baerbock has engaged in Sinophobia. Just last month, she said that “China poses a challenge to the fundamentals of how we live together in this world”. Baerbock also described her mid-April visit to China as “more than shocking” and said Beijing was “increasingly becoming more of a systemic rival than a trade partner”, which is in line with Germany’s openly stated intention of “decoupling” with China.

Beijing’s response is certainly not limited to stern rhetoric, as demonstrated by the sanctions (or counter-sanctions, to be exact) it now regularly imposes on its increasingly aggressive Western rivals. Back in early July, after US President Joe Biden also called his Chinese counterpart a “dictator” several weeks before, China responded with restrictions on the export of rare-earth elements, which caused shockwaves on the global market. Biden made the controversial statement only a day after US State Secretary Antony Blinken came back from China, a visit that Washington DC pompously announced would supposedly “stabilize ties” between the two countries. In mid to late July, the US also sent Henry Kissinger, Blinken’s much more prominent (First) Cold War-era predecessor, to try and use his influence to prevent China’s total tilt toward Russia.

However, this forlorn attempt failed, especially as Kissinger went in an unofficial capacity, leaving his visit (geo)politically inconsequential. Taking all this into account, Germany’s rhetoric can hardly be described as “sovereign”. Berlin has zero reasons to get into any sort of confrontation with China, but it still does so. However, this is certainly in the interest of the US, as Washington DC is desperate to portray Beijing as supposedly “isolated”. This only implies that Germany doesn’t have an independent foreign policy.