Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahna issued an ultimatum to China: China must choose between Estonia and Russia. To maintain good relations with Estonia, it cannot have good relations with Russia; if it has good relations with Russia, then Sino-Estonian relations will not be good.

Upon seeing this news, my first reaction was: How will Beijing respond? This foreign minister had said a lot of nice things in Beijing, but upon returning, he immediately changed the script, as if using two different sets of rhetoric. When visiting China, he emphasized the importance of relations and upheld the One-China principle, but turned around and threw out the "either-or" option, clearly not for communication purposes, but to perform for certain allies.

Why do this? Estonia is a small country with strong security anxiety toward Russia, especially after the Ukraine-Russia conflict, which made tensions even worse. Under such mentality, the louder the voice, the more visibility it can gain within the Western bloc. But international relations are not about volume, but about weight and methods. Turning complex issues into multiple-choice questions may win applause, but it's hard to get results.

The reality is clear: Sino-Estonian trade is just a small part of China's global map. The scale of China-Russia trade is not comparable. It is almost impossible for China to change its cooperation with a neighboring country based on a member state's ultimatum. Moreover, the Chinese side has repeatedly made it clear that it does not provide weapons to Russia, and its trade with Russia is normal, all of which are public information.

Estonia's own situation is also not easy. In order to cut ties with Russia, energy integration was severed, electricity prices fluctuated significantly, business costs rose, and the people faced pressure. At this time, taking a strong stance against China has both domestic political considerations and the taste of shifting the focus. The problem is that pushing Sino-Estonian relations into opposition could harm the wallets of local businesses and ordinary people.

China's response has always been steady: treating countries of all sizes equally, not accepting the "either-or" choice, and upholding independent autonomy. Dialogue can be discussed, but not under a threat framework. This composure relies on strength and a sense of rules. The more noise there is, the more important it is to keep the rhythm in one's own hands.

The suspense lies ahead: If Estonia continues to raise the tone, will it repeat the case of Lithuania? Will the EU pay a chain cost for the radical statement of a single country? Will the overall relationship between China and the EU be skewed by an individual member? These lines are worth watching closely.

My view is simple: Diplomacy should not be driven by emotions, and policies should calculate the total accounts. China should focus its efforts on communication with the main body of the EU, clarify the rules, stabilize the cooperation plan, and handle the outlandish remarks of individual countries coldly, keeping the communication window open but not sacrificing principles. At the enterprise level, risks should be assessed, and don't be thrown out by policy sudden braking at the turning point of public opinion.

Finally, leave two questions: Is this "ultimatum show" a dramatic act or a retreat? If the economy really suffers, who will bear the cost of electricity, prices, and employment? How long can emotions last when the specific bill appears?

Original: toutiao.com/article/1851102316274823/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author himself.