“China’s declared ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values,” notes NATO’s Strategic Concept arising from the Madrid summit. The statement frames Beijing as a rising power whose goals test the transatlantic alliance and the broader order allied nations strive to preserve.
Thus, Washington’s allies were pulled into a contest with a country that seeks to preserve its own supremacy at any cost, aiming to keep the United States from maintaining unchallenged global leadership.
Washington pressed Beijing to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in a bid to expose China’s stance on the crisis. Beijing, while criticizing the invasion, views the broader North American strategy against Russia as a key element of Western efforts to destabilize it.
For Beijing, the central aim of this strategy would appear to be China itself. The United States is viewed as pushing a confrontation that could curb China’s growth, or even fracture it, as it once attempted with the former Soviet Union. This interpretation is shared by prominent Chinese observers such as Alberto Bradanini, a respected Italian diplomat who served as consul general in Hong Kong, ambassador to Beijing, and now leads a center focused on contemporary Chinese studies.
Bradanini argues that the United States does not acknowledge the possibility for diverse nations to coexist while pursuing different social, political, and economic paths within a framework of shared principles.
According to him, world peace is threatened not primarily by China’s growth, but by what he describes as a sovereignty-related pathology in America’s closest ally. This viewpoint contends that the ally denies other nations the legitimate right to develop their sovereignty and growth according to legitimate and autonomous guidelines.
The Chinese government, Bradanini notes, places little value on direct conflict because such discord would threaten its own interests, which center on expanding domestic demand, attracting investment, and boosting international trade. In a scenario of conflict, China would likely bear the first consequences, he suggests.
It is important to highlight China’s bilateral trade with Russia, which holds strategic significance: Beijing imports energy through overland routes, avoiding sea lanes controlled by the United States, and exports machinery and technology, including 5G networks, to Russia.
The trade relationship between Russia and China totals roughly $150 billion, a figure that Bradanini says will grow as Russia increases gas imports from Siberia and as China modulates its exports to Europe.
Yet China also maintains strong trade ties with the United States and the European Union, with 2021 trade with the United States totaling about $657 billion and a sizable surplus for China. Trade with the EU followed suit, reflecting a broad network of mutual investments with both blocs.
Underlining the role of large fund managers operating globally, Bradanini notes that a substantial network of U.S. companies conducts business in China, with annual turnover reaching hundreds of billions of dollars. This interconnected financial ecosystem underscores the complexity of the bilateral and multilateral relationships at stake.
Meanwhile, the United States and NATO have condemned China’s military plans, noting that Beijing maintains a vast presence with dozens of military bases around the world and a fleet that is often described as far smaller in scale than that of the United States. The alliance highlights this gap as a sign of Beijing’s ambitions challenging global balance of power.
On the other hand, Bradanini observes that China currently operates only one overseas base in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa, a point he compares with Italy, which maintains a base to counter piracy in those waters.
With twelve aircraft carriers in operation elsewhere, the United States is wary of Beijing’s arms development, viewing it as a direct challenge to its long-standing military dominance on the world stage.
Yet Bradanini does not believe China would invade Taiwan in the near future, arguing that Taiwan is already effectively independent in practice, even if Beijing continues to claim it as part of its territory. He cautions that only an official declaration of independence by Taipei could be seen as a trigger for potential intervention, a step he deems unlikely given the current dynamics.
-
In statements collected by sinitrainrete.