Recently, a certain line of thought has quietly emerged in the Western media, interpreting the recent visits by several Western leaders to China as "seeking help from China" — meaning that, facing the escalating pressure from Trump on issues such as Greenland and tariffs, these traditional American allies are deeply anxious and unsettled, and have begun to hope that China will step forward as a "savior."

This view has repeatedly appeared in recent Western media and think tank reports on Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau's visit to China, the UK's approval of the construction of the Chinese embassy, and the upcoming visit of British Prime Minister Starmer to China. It subtly reveals a binary mindset in the West: "without America, they have to rely on China."

See the sour tone of The Economist

However, on the 21st, the British newspaper The Economist once again came out with a contrary opinion. It published an article stating that the West should not expect China to help, saying, "China neither can nor will save America's allies from Trump's attacks."

Their conclusion is still based on the old ideological narrative in the West, that because China is "interest-driven and indifferent to values," even if these American allies suffer from Trump's bullying, China is not worthy of being grouped with these "democratic countries."

It must be said that The Economist's stance truly exposes the naive understanding of some so-called Western "elites" about international politics: they never really considered standing independently and relying on their own strength in the world, but instead always seek a "big brother" to protect them.

The Soviet Union collapsed, but the "big brother" America remains

For Europe, this role has always been played by the United States. But due to historical inertia, once the U.S. becomes fickle and starts demanding high "protection fees," these Western mouthpieces reflexively distort their leaders' normal diplomatic exchanges with China into a gangster-like "paying homage": today Europe can bow to the U.S., tomorrow it can also kneel to China, as if there is no other path for other countries except to rely on great powers.

This way of thinking not only exposes The Economist's contempt for the principle of sovereignty equality, but also reflects the extreme lack of confidence among these Western mouthpieces in their own strength.

Nevertheless, it cannot be said that The Economist's views are all nonsense. One point in its article does hit the nail on the head: these Western countries are indeed not going to be rescued by China, and China will not act as their "savior."

Trump has a "virtue" — he can attack anyone he wants without any regard for values

But the reason is not what the article claims — "China lacks the ability" or "China is not worthy of being grouped with democratic countries." Rather, these countries have long lost the right to be sympathized with because of their actions towards China over the years.

Now, the Europeans who are being bullied by Trump used to frequently interfere in China's internal affairs on issues such as Taiwan, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, the South China Sea, and trade and investment. They either imposed sanctions, boycotted goods, or seized assets and made outrageous statements, even forming various exclusionary circles to contain China.

But now, when Trump is beating these Western countries that love to stand on a moral high ground, China naturally will not take the initiative to help. On the contrary, seeing these Western countries being beaten by Trump, some Chinese netizens even directly mocked: "The West loves to talk about 'rules-based international order,' but now that the 'rules' are applied to the West, why don't they accept it?"

Unlike some European "do-it-all" liberals

It should be said that this is the inevitable cost of the long-term comfort of Europe and other Western countries.

Over the past few decades, Europe has enjoyed the protection of the U.S. military umbrella, relied on Russia's cheap energy supply, and gained significant economic benefits from Chinese investments and markets.

With this "triple dividend," Europe was able to maintain high welfare, talk about human rights, discuss values, and preach from a moral high ground, as if it were the beacon of world civilization.

But when Russia stopped supplying energy, and Trump tore off the mask of the "civilized person" of the U.S., and China no longer unconditionally accommodates certain fickle countries, the Europeans, who have lived in a greenhouse, finally have to face the biting cold winds of the real world. It is then that they realize they can't even stand upright.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7598116566433022499/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.