One Belt, One Road | Eurasian Century Unstoppable

There has never been a period in which China’s diplomats were more active on the global stage.
Under President Xi, the Chinese leadership has substantially stepped up its foreign policy
ambitions, heavily expanding the scope of its activities in the region and its global reach.
By altering long-standing traditions of relative restraint and adjusting key foreign policy
priorities, Beijing is engineering a new course in global affairs. Enlarge map.

Moritz Rudolf (Oct 04, 2016) - In autumn 2013, Chairman of the CCP and President of the PRC, Xi Jinping, announced the “One Belt, One Road (OBOR)” initiative. This core element of a more pro-active Chinese foreign policy comprises of the land-based “Silk Road Economic Belt”, and the “Maritime Silk Road of the 21st Century”. The OBOR initiative by far exceeds the development of linear connections between Europe and Asia. In fact, Beijing strives to establish a comprehensive Eurasian infrastructure network. Trans-regional corridors are to link the land and sea routes. As the primary investor and architect of the Eurasian infrastructure networks, Beijing is creating new China-centred pipeline, railway and transport networks. In addition to this the Chinese leadership is focused on the expansion of deep-sea ports, particularly those in the Indian Ocean.

With the OBOR the Chinese leadership is primarily pursuing three main goals: (1) Economic diversification; (2) Political stability and (3) the Development of a multi-polar global order. From an economic perspective, China strives that the development of new trade routes, markets and energy sources will result in growth impulses and at the same time reduce dependencies. Projects linked to the OBOR are to once again fill the order books of Chinese SOEs which are presently suffering from over-capacities. Furthermore, with the expansion of the Eurasian transport infrastructure Beijing aims to lay the foundations for China-centered production networks, for instance with Chinese companies relocating production to South-East Asia. Politically speaking, the Chinese leadership hopes that the OBOR initiative stabilizes Beijing’s western Provinces, as well as the neighboring trouble spots, like Pakistan or Afghanistan. As China finances most infrastructure projects Beijing is also able to increase its political influence. Many countries along the Silk Roads depend on Chinese infrastructure investments.

The overarching goal is to be an active part in the establishment of a multi-polar world-order. China seeks to play a constructive role in the reform the international system. The OBOR-Initiative is intended to be the foundation of a new type of international relations. The Chinese leadership speaks of the establishment of a “community of common destiny”. Core elements are more connectivity in Eurasia, “win-win-cooperation”, “mutual progress and prosperity” as well as upholding the UN principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. So far, the OBOR-initiative has not been embedded in an overarching international framework and primarily is a concept, a meta-strategy. It is still unclear whether the initiative will be realized through a bilateral or multilateral process. The Chinese leadership speaks of an inclusive process, which means, that all involved parties are invited to shape and promote the “Silk Road Economic Belt” and the “Maritime Silk Road of the 21st Century” in line with their own economic interests. First steps of institutionalization are already emerging. The recently established AIIB and the Silk Road Fund serve to finance the projects. In May, China and Russia agreed to link the Silk Road Initiative with the Russian Far East Development Program for Siberia. In addition to this Moscow and Beijing agreed to link the Eurasian Economic Union with OBOR. Moreover, in June Hungary and China signed a Memorandum of Understanding to jointly promote the Silk Road Initiative.

A brilliant plan: Xi Jinping’s ambitious strategic initiative – an adaptation of the historical
Silk Road – could sow the seeds for a new geopolitical era. Enlarge map.

While central banks continue to "print" liquidity, now at a pace of nearly $200 billion per month, they are
unable to print trade, perhaps the single best indicator of deteriorating global economic conditions. The
latest confirmation comes from China: In 2015 China’s import growth slowed starkly, driven by both
external and domestic factors, including a rebalancing of demand. Econometric results point to weak investment
and rebalancing as the main causes of the import slowdown. Spillover effects from China’s rebalancing are
estimated for some 60  countries using value-added trade data, and are found to be more negative on Asia and
commodity exporters than others (HERE).

William Engdahl (Oct 11, 2016) - The totality of the strategy behind Xi Jinping’s Eurasian One belt, One Road rail, sea and pipeline initiative (OBOR), which is moving quietly and impressively forward, is transforming the world geopolitical map. In 1904 a British geographer, Sir Halford Mackinder, a fervid champion of the British Empire, unveiled a brilliant concept in a speech to the London Royal Geographical Society titled “The Geographical Pivot of History”. That essay has shaped both British and American global strategy of hegemony and domination to the present. It was complemented by US Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan’s 1890 work, “The Influence of Sea Power Upon History”, which advocated “sea power,” stating that nations with domination of the seas, as the British Empire or later the USA, would dominate the world.

The One Belt, One Road, by linking all the contiguous land areas of Eurasia to the related network of strategic new or enlarged deep-water ports of OBOR’s Maritime Silk Road, has rendered US geopolitical strategy a devastating blow at a time the hegemony of America is failing as never in its short history. The Eurasian Century today is inevitable and unstoppable. Built on different principles of cooperation rather than domination, it just might offer a model for the bankrupt United States and the soon-bankrupt European Union, to build up true prosperity not based on looting and debt slavery.

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) has 57 member states (all "Founding Members") and was
proposed as an initiative by the government of China. The bank started operation on 25 December 2015;
the capital of the bank is $100 billion, equivalent to  2⁄3 of the capital of the Asian Development
Bank and about half that of the World Bank (HERE).

The United States is the number one trading partner for 56 countries, with important relationships
throughout North America, South America, and Western Europe. Meanwhile, China is the top partner
for 124 countries, dominating trade in Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Australia (HERE).

Hybrid Warfare & Strategic Stalemate in China–US Competition | Jin Canrong

Structurally speaking, China–US relations are certainly not good. The logic is quite simple: the world is changing significantly, and China is the variable, while the US is the leader of the original order. Naturally, the US is not pleased. [...] Whether it's Biden or Trump, both consider China their only opponent. This is very critical. America’s power is still greater than ours.

Jin Canrong (金灿荣), leading scholar of China-US relations, American politics, and foreign policy;

CCP strategist; Professor and Associate Dean, School of International Studies, Renmin University of China.

[...] China–US relations entered full competition in late 2017, when the US began to wage a hybrid war against China. It is called a hybrid war because multiple tactics are employed: trade war; industrial war (denying chips and pushing Chinese companies to relocate industries); financial war (aggressive interest rate hikes to extract Chinese capital); legal battles; media campaigns (such as accusations of genocide in Xinjiang); and biological warfare allegations, including SARS and COVID-19 claims.

» Siding with the EU to split the West. «
The China-US Competition, Jin Canrong, August 19, 2025.

[...] There are also sovereignty issues concerning Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the East and South China Seas, as well as opposition to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) through new alliances, like AUKUS (US, UK, Australia) and the Quad (US, India, Australia, Japan).

[...] The first phase involved US offensives and China’s strategic defense; now, we have entered a strategic stalemate. The key to strategic alignment is domestic management. The US faces high debt, declining manufacturing, and internal challenges, while China confronts economic performance issues, social conflicts, and a rapidly falling birth rate. Addressing domestic challenges strengthens both nations’ positions abroad.

[...] The US strategy toward China involves territorial ambitions (Canada, Greenland, Panama Canal), aligning Russia, reorganizing allies (Europe, Japan, Canada), and increasing defense spending to ensure allies can act independently. China, meanwhile, has abandoned its low-profile policy, focusing on active defense and strategic deterrence.

[...] Since last year, China’s defense policy has changed. China has moved from passive strategy to assertive action. Strategic stalemate depends on addressing domestic issues first, then external threats. For external alignment, China should coordinate with the EU to balance the West, manage neighboring relations, and continue Belt and Road and BRICS initiatives. This roughly represents the current positions of both parties.

 

Reference:
Jin Canrong (August 19, 2025) - The China-US Competition.

Digital Yuan Reshaping Global Trade And Power | G. Valiachi & S. Murugan

The global financial order is witnessing a seismic shift, and at its epicenter is China’s digital yuan. The recent launch of the Digital RMB Cross-Border Settlement System (CIPS) by the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) is more than just a technological breakthrough—it is a geopolitical maneuver with far-reaching implications for global trade, financial sovereignty, and the dominance of the US dollar.

The Digital Yuan’s rise is not merely a financial evolution

—it is a recalibration of global power structures.

 

Will the rest of the world, particularly the West, adapt to this new reality, or will they be left navigating a financial ecosystem where China dictates the rules? One thing is certain: the era of uncontested dollar dominance is coming to an end. The world must prepare for a future where digital currencies, led by China's digital yuan, reshape global finance in ways we are only beginning to comprehend.

A Disruptive Technological Edge: For decades, international transactions have relied on the SWIFT system, where dollar-dominated settlements often take 3-5 days to clear, involving multiple intermediary banks and high transaction costs. China's digital RMB, powered by blockchain technology, has completely upended this model. With settlement times reduced to just seven seconds and handling fees slashed by 98 per cent, the efficiency gains alone are compelling enough for emerging markets and strategic trade partners to make the switch. The first successful real-time settlement between Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi using digital RMB has already demonstrated its disruptive potential. By bypassing SWIFT and eliminating reliance on correspondent banks, China has effectively engineered an alternative financial network—one that reduces the influence of US-dominated monetary systems and reshapes the global trade paradigm.

» Settlement times reduced to just seven seconds and handling fees slashed by 98 per cent. «

Digital RMB vs SWIFT.

Redefining Financial Sovereignty: The ramifications of this development extend beyond mere efficiency. For years, the US has wielded its control over the SWIFT system as an instrument of economic coercion, particularly through sanctions. The digital RMB offers an alternative, allowing countries under Western financial pressure—such as Iran and Russia—to conduct transactions without US oversight. This is already materializing: six ASEAN nations, including Malaysia and Singapore, have incorporated the RMB into their foreign exchange reserves, and Thailand has completed its first oil trade settled in digital yuan.

The Global De-dollarization Trend: The cross-border RMB settlement volume in ASEAN exceeded 5.8 trillion yuan in 2024, a staggering 120 per cent increase from 2021. As China strengthens its digital payment network, the US dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency faces an existential challenge.

» Over 87 per cent of the world’s countries are now digitally integrated with the RMB settlement system. «

China’s Digital Silk Road expands its influence through digital infrastructure projects.

Strategic Integration: The digital yuan’s role extends beyond financial transactions; it is a foundational pillar of China’s broader economic expansion strategy. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), already a monumental undertaking spanning over 140 countries, now has a digital counterpart in the “Digital Silk Road.” By integrating the digital RMB with Beidou satellite navigation and quantum communication, China is creating a seamless trade infrastructure that enhances efficiency by 400 per cent. This convergence of digital currency and physical trade infrastructure fundamentally alters the balance of economic power. European car manufacturers are already settling Arctic route freight costs in digital RMB, and Middle Eastern energy traders have reduced settlement costs by 75 per cent. If this momentum continues, the dollar-based financial order could soon become a relic of the past.

The Future of Global Finance: With over 87 per cent of the world’s countries now digitally integrated with the RMB settlement system, China has successfully built a financial architecture that challenges traditional banking norms. The total volume of cross-border digital RMB transactions has already surpassed $1.2 trillion, and this figure is set to grow exponentially as more nations join the digital currency bridge test. Meanwhile, the US and Europe remain embroiled in regulatory debates over digital currency frameworks. The Federal Reserve’s hesitancy on Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and the European Central Bank’s slow progress on the digital euro underscore the West’s lack of preparedness for this revolution. While Washington deliberates, Beijing executes.

Quoted from:
Ganesh Valiachi and Soundarya Murugan (March 29, 2025) - The End of the Dollar Era? 

China’s Digital Yuan Is Reshaping Global Trade And Causing Financial Power Shift.

» China is no longer playing by the old rules. It’s a war for the future of global finance. «

Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, April 14, 2025.

Make Chimerica Great Again | Mitchell Presnick

Forget about the G7 and G20. The truly important focus is the US and China, and what we do together. First of all, we are moving into a multipolar world. This means that the US and China will be peer competitors, but there will also be other important countries rising and becoming more influential over time, such as India, Brazil, Indonesia, and Russia. 

 

» Donald Trump is probably the most pro-China President in US History. 

President Trump said that the US and China could solve all the world’s problems, and he is right. «
Mitchell Presnick.

 

We have this multipolar world, and within this context, we are going to see the formation of the G2. Forget about the G7 and G20. The real focus is the US and China and what we do together. President Trump said that “the US and China could solve all the world’s problems”, and he is right. He specifically said the US and China; not the US, China, BRICS, and the developing world. If China and the US are working together, everyone else—over 200 countries—will be aligned with one or the other, or both in some cases.

This, I believe, is the world order that is coming. I think it is going to be net positive for the world because it will provide more opportunities for countries that have been ignored. Africa did not get much attention until China entered and began developing business and resource opportunities there. Now, Africa is receiving a lot more attention from everyone. The same is true for Latin America. The US has been dominant in this hemisphere since the early 1800s, and yet Latin America and South America have struggled to develop. Objectively, it is clearly in the interest of South America for China to get more involved and help develop infrastructure there.

This might even encourage the US to do the same, which would be a net positive for South America. It would also create business opportunities, because one thing people don’t understand about the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is that every time China builds a railway, road, port, or airport in a developing country, it is also creating the foundation for a middle class who will later buy other goods from China. In other words, it's like brand building for Chinese industry. China, as a brand, is being built in these countries. People there will become familiar with Chinese cars, well-built roads, and high-quality products. As these consumers develop, they will naturally be more inclined to buy Chinese goods, which are well-priced and of good quality. This is something I think the US also needs to be doing.

Reference:
Mitchell Presnick (March 6, 2025) - Donald Trump, Probably the Most Pro-China President in US History.

BRICS+ Destroys The US And EU Currency Monopoly | Michael Hudson

There is no way that today’s international debt overhand can be repaid. That is as true for the United States as it is for Global South debtors. The US Treasury owes much more to foreign governments in the form of their holdings of US securities than it can foreseeably repay. It has post-industrialized its own economy, and has committed to spending enormous sums abroad, while its dependency on foreign imports is rising and its prospects for collecting its existing debt claims on deficit countries is looking shaky. The past half-century’s foreign investment has taken the form of privatization of the public domain of debtor countries. This investment has not helped them develop but has merely transferred ownership of their oil and mineral rights, public utilities and other assets. A viable international financial system requires productive investment such as China’s Belt and Road Initiative that can help countries prosper, not asset stripping. Dollar dominance will continue over Europe and other US satellites. Other countries that still need dollar reserves for their trade and investment with the United States can continue as it has. But what will be changed is a new basis for the international economy itself. There will not be a new BRICS currency in the sense of a dollar or euro that could become a medium for trade, investment or international speculation. There will only be a mutual "currency of settlement" of payments imbalances among central banks joining the new system. And that system itself will be based on principles opposite from the financialized neoliberal model being promoted by the Dollar/NATO bloc. That is the real context for the current discussion of BRICS+ economic reform.

President Putin was very clear when he recently talked in Valdai about a single settlement currency: "This definitely deserves our attention. It's a complex issue, and we have to solve it in one way or another." The Western press talks about how much wealth and reserves do the BRICS countries have. Naturally, you count their gold as a large part of their reserves. But where is the gold of the BRICS countries? Much of their gold is not in their own countries. It's in the New York Federal Reserve Bank, it's in the Bank of England and the gold of African countries is in the Bank of France. Right now, this gold is being held hostage. But countries can ask the US, the UK and France to give them back their gold. Germany tried to do that a few years ago and said, "Can't you begin to give us our gold back that was moved to your banks during the last seventy-five years of  US occupation? " And the US said, "Oh I'm sorry, we can't. We've already done something else with your gold. There are legal problems and we are not giving it back to you!" Now, let's say the BRICS countries would ask for their gold and if the United States and England and France will not return it, those countries could take compensation, including all of the foreign investments in their countries. They could do another thing: If, especially the African countries, say, "You've stolen our gold. You cannot expect us to pay our foreign dollar debts if you have come and seized our gold. Give us back our gold. You owe to us. And by the way, we're going to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization so you can't send your troops in and do what you did in Libya and simply grab it." This is an element of the financial future that nobody in the West has talked about.

Quoted from:

Michael Hudson (Oct 07, 2023) - A BRICS+ Bank: How would it really function?

Michael Hudson (Oct 25, 2023) - BRICS Destroys the US and EU’s Currency Monopoly. (video)

China's Preparations for Reunification With Taiwan Around 2027 | Jin Canrong

The Chinese government has consistently avoided setting a timetable for resolving the Taiwan question, emphasizing instead President Xi’s call for peaceful reunification with patience, sincerity, and effort. Despite this, American analysts frequently forecast 2027 as the likely point of resolution. Their view is shaped by China’s large strategic reserves, new industrial measures, and visible military procurement, all of which they interpret as signs of preparation for decisive conflict.

Jin Canrong (金灿荣), leading scholar of China–US relations, American politics, and foreign policy;

CCP strategist; Professor and Associate Dean at the School of International Studies, Renmin University of China.

From a military perspective, China faces few obstacles. A Taiwan operation could be carried out through blockade or direct combat, and success would likely come quickly. US intervention is not considered probable, making the true challenges economic and political rather than military or diplomatic. China’s main vulnerabilities are its dependence on imported resources, its lack of a fully unified domestic market, and the influence of elites with assets or family ties abroad. By contrast, Russia’s economy, though smaller, is buffered by its abundant resources, allowing it to withstand sanctions more effectively.

Among many other heads of states, Putin, Kim Jong Un, Park Geun-hye, ex-President of South Korea, and Masoud

Pezeshkian, President of Iran, joined Beijing’s historic victory parade on September 3, marking 80 years since

Japan’s WWII surrender, where China showcased its hypersonic missiles and nuclear triad. 
 

The government is taking steps to address these weaknesses. Grain reserves now exceed two years thanks to improved storage and expanded farmland. By 2027, new oil and gas discoveries together with Central Asian pipelines are expected to reduce import dependence. Coal-to-oil conversion and the spread of new energy vehicles will further narrow the energy gap. The more difficult issue lies in market access, as domestic circulation remains weak due to provincial barriers. Efforts to expand the Belt and Road initiative continue, though China lacks the military and cultural instruments historically used by the West to protect overseas investments.

» US intervention is not considered probable. «

Jin Canrong's complete discourse video.

 

Diplomatically, a resolution of the Taiwan issue would have far-reaching effects. ASEAN countries, seeing the United States as unreliable for security, would likely align with China, turning the South China Sea into an inland sea. Japan and South Korea, highly dependent on maritime trade and external resources, would also face strong pressure to yield. Once the Taiwan Strait and the South and East China Seas are secured, Shanghai and the eastern seaboard would be protected, creating what could be the safest period in Chinese history.

Welcome to the Eurasian Century.

 

Historically, China’s threats came from the north, but industrialization eliminated that danger. Today, the principal threats come from the sea, the heartland of Western industrial power. Once Taiwan is reclaimed and the maritime approaches are secure, China can focus entirely on internal development and raising living standards. The most serious obstacles to this outcome are economic fragility and political complications, not military or diplomatic resistance. The year 2027 therefore stands out as the most likely turning point, a moment that could bring short-term hardship but ultimately mark the beginning of a new and safer era for China.

Reference:
Awakening Richard (September 3, 2025) - Famous Chinese Professor on China's progress regarding war preparation. (video)

 

See also:

Samim Aktar (March 4, 2025) - Trump 2.0 and the China Containment Strategy.

89 Seconds to Midnight on the Doomsday Clock | Jeffrey Sachs

There are nine countries known to possess nuclear weapons. Perhaps more do, but nine are confirmed. Most of these countries are in geopolitical or diplomatic conflict with at least one other nuclear power. In the case of the United States and Russia, they are in open conflict—specifically in Ukraine—which is in fact a war between the US and Russia, and an extremely dangerous one. 

The world is sick of the US, Zionism, and I$raHell.

We must understand the global scene clearly in order to avoid terrible, potentially catastrophic mistakes. The US seems unable to accept a world in which it is no longer the sole superpower. But that era is over. The future is multipolar. The sooner Washington accepts this, the safer we will all be.

 

I often refer to the Doomsday Clock created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists—a US publication founded in 1947 after the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. [...] When the clock was first introduced, it was set at 7 minutes to midnight. [...] Today, the clock stands at just 89 seconds to midnight.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described Gaza’s residents as "vicious animals." 

When asked whether he would call for a ceasefire, Rubio replied, "I will not do that."

21st-century Nazism or plain and simple Zionism?

 

The US sees every conflict as a zero-sum game—one side must win, and the other must lose. There is no room for compromise, coexistence, or mutual respect. But the world doesn’t work that way. In our deeply interconnected and nuclear-armed world, we must find ways to cooperate—even with rivals.

The US needs to abandon its imperial mindset and embrace a new paradigm: one based on multipolarity, mutual respect, and the rule of international law. That is the only path to peace—not just in Ukraine or the Middle East, but globally. And I believe China has an important role to play in this transformation.

 

China has consistently advocated for a multipolar world, a peaceful international order, and respect for sovereignty. These are not just slogans; they are the foundation for a workable global system in the 21st century. China’s own development since 1980 has shown that economic progress does not require military aggression. Instead, China has focused on infrastructure, education, trade, technology, and long-term planning.

The most ambitious water resource allocation plans

in world history are currently taking shape—in China. 

The Belt and Road Initiative, launched over a decade ago, has helped dozens of countries—especially in the Global South—gain access to much-needed infrastructure. Rather than exporting war, China is exporting railways, highways, ports, and power grids. That is a model the world needs. But unfortunately, the United States sees China’s rise not as a positive development, but as a threat.

Washington policymakers talk about “decoupling,” “containment,” and even “strategic rivalry.” They send warships through the Taiwan Strait and arms to Taipei. They push military alliances in the Pacific and increase military budgets, all in the name of “competition.” But what does that competition really mean? If it’s about innovation, education, clean energy, and development—then fine. Let’s compete to build a better world. But if it’s about military encirclement, economic warfare, and ideological confrontation—then we are heading toward disaster. 

Quoted from:
Jeffrey Sachs (July 25, 2025) - US Foreign Policy and the Global Crisis: The Doomsday Clock Is Ticking. (video) 
 

See also:
Martin Armstrong (July 21, 2025)  - 100% Chance of Nuclear War as Early as August. 

Martin Armstrong (May 2, 2024)  - The Kremlin's Last Warning: Will Russia Push the Button? 

BRICS Today (March 9, 2025) - Major Infrastructure by BRICS: Projects Reshaping Geopolitics and Global Supply Chains.

The End of Western Dominance—US Lives in Mortal Fear | John Mearsheimer

Since 2017, when Trump entered the White House, the balance of power has shifted in China’s favor, though the United States remains the world’s most powerful state. China is rapidly closing the gap, particularly in cutting-edge technologies, which Washington fears could tilt global economic and military power. As China converts its economic strength into military might, it builds not just regional forces but also blue-water naval power and global projection capabilities linked to its Belt and Road Initiative. This imitation of US strategy alarms Washington and drives a bipartisan policy of containment.

John J. Mearsheimer, American political scientist and professor at the University of Chicago, best known for his work

on international relations theory, offensive realism, the US Zionist lobby, US–China rivalry and great power politics.

Initially, Chinese leaders argued that economic interdependence would prevent conflict, since prosperity required cooperation. However, survival—not prosperity—is the primary goal of states in an anarchic international system with no higher authority. As China’s economic rise translated into growing military capacity, American fear replaced optimism, triggering security competition in East Asia. Prosperity enriched both sides, but balance-of-power politics and survival imperatives outweighed economic interdependence theory.

» Great powers are ruthless, exploiting weaker rivals to secure survival and expand influence. «

John J. Mearsheimer's complete discourse video. 

Historical lessons reinforce this logic. Weak states like China during its “century of humiliation” (1840s–1940s) and Russia during NATO expansion in the 1990s suffered because they lacked power. Great powers are ruthless, exploiting weaker rivals to secure survival and expand influence. In this system, the optimal strategy is regional hegemony, dominating one’s neighborhood while preventing rivals from doing the same. The US has long acted this way, blocking Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union from achieving dominance in Europe or Asia, while securing its own supremacy in the Western Hemisphere.

China’s trajectory fits this pattern. As its power has grown since the 1990s, Beijing naturally seeks to dominate East Asia. Yet the US cannot tolerate another regional hegemon, making containment inevitable. From Washington’s perspective, preventing Chinese hegemony is about survival, not choice. From Beijing’s perspective, seeking hegemony is equally rational. The result is a structural clash: both sides are locked in an intensifying security competition driven by the anarchic nature of the international system.

» The United States lives in mortal fear that the Chinese are going to dominate. «

China’s path to hegemony is more difficult than America’s was because regional powers like Japan, Australia, South Korea, and the Philippines—backed by the US—resist Chinese dominance. India participates in the Quad but is geographically and strategically less central to East Asian balance. Russia, meanwhile, has been pushed into China’s camp by the Ukraine war, eliminating a potential counterweight. This complicates US strategy: instead of balancing China together, Washington and Moscow are now aligned against each other.

 

The Ukraine war creates two major problems for the US: it prevents a full pivot to Asia and deepens the Sino-Russian partnership. Trump recognized this dynamic and sought rapprochement with Moscow to peel Russia away from China, but his chances of success are slim. Russia deeply distrusts the US, and Trump underestimated the difficulty of ending the Ukraine conflict. His instincts—to improve ties with Russia and focus on China—align with realist logic, but his reliance on instincts over experts undermines effective execution.

» It's only recently that Putin has brought the Russians back 

from the dead and we now consider Russia to be a great power. «

Since 2017, US policy has shifted decisively from engagement to containment of China, first under Trump and then reinforced, even hardened, under Biden. Yet American forces remain tied down in Ukraine and the Middle East. Deployments against the Houthis in the Red Sea and the prospect of war with Iran divert vital resources away from East Asia, just as China grows militarily stronger. Past US experiments in social engineering—in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya—ended in failure, raising doubts about new entanglements that sap the capacity to counter China.

Facing escalating global uncertainties, Chinese President Xi Jinping said the SCO is increasingly

responsible for regional peace, stability, and member-state development, August 31, 2025.

 

Ultimately, the US–China rivalry reflects structural realities of power politics. Both states seek survival through maximizing power, and both see regional hegemony as the path to security. The United States, the sole global hegemon since 1900, refuses to share that status, while China, closing the gap, sees dominance in East Asia as essential. The result is an enduring, intensifying contest that economic interdependence or diplomatic optimism cannot erase.

Reference:
John J. Mearsheimer (September 2, 2025) - Lecture on the SCO Summit 2025: Why China is acting this way. (video)

 

See also:

Tecnología Futura (August 31, 2025) - China's new weapon that could destroy the US in seconds. (video)
 John J. Mearsheimer (2001) - The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

Jin Canrong  (September 3, 2025) - China's Preparations for Reunification With Taiwan Around 2027.

Jin Canrong (September 1, 2025) - Hybrid Warfare & Strategic Stalemate in China–US Competition.

TPR (September 01, 2025) - SCO Summit Ushers in New Global Security Order and Development.

Ray Dalio (April 12, 2025) - Don't Think That What's Now Happening Is Mostly About Tariffs. 

Serge Bernard (2015)  - From Conquest to Affluence to Collapse: The 250 Year Empire Life Cycle. 

The Civilization-State | Alexander Dugin

The special military operation (SMO) is unanimously agreed by competent experts in International Relations to be the final and decisive chord in the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world. The main actor of a multipolar world order is neither a nation-state (as in the realist theory of International Relations), nor a unified World Government (as in the liberal theory of International Relations). It is the Civilization-State. Other names for it are Great Space, Empire, Ecumenism.

 

 » Your aim must be to take All-under-Heaven intact.
Thus your troops are not worn out and your gains will be complete.
This is the art of offensive strategy. «
Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

The term Civilization-State is most often applied to China. Both ancient and modern China. As early as ancient times, the Chinese developed the theory of 'Tianxia' (天下), the Celestial Empire, according to which China is the center of the world, being the meeting place of the unifying Heaven and the dividing Earth. And the Celestial Empire may be a single state, or it may be broken up into its components and then reassembled. In addition, Han China itself acts as a culture-forming element for neighboring nations that are not directly part of China - primarily Korea, Vietnam, the Indochina countries and even Japan, which is quite independent.

The nation-state is a product of the European New Age and, in some cases, a post-colonial construct. The Civilization-State has ancient roots and uncertain shifting boundaries. The Civilization-State sometimes pulsates, expanding and contracting, but always remaining a constant phenomenon. Contemporary China behaves strictly according to the principle of Tianxia in international politics. The One Belt, One Road Initiative is a prime example of how this looks like in practice. And China's Internet, which cuts off any networks and resources that might weaken the civilizational identity at the entrance to China, demonstrates how the defense mechanisms are built. The Civilization-State may interact with the outside world, but it never becomes dependent on it and always maintains self-sufficiency, autonomy and autarchy. Civilization-State is always more than just a state in both spatial and temporal (historical) terms.

Russia is increasingly gravitating toward the same status. After the beginning of the SMO this is no longer a mere wishful thinking, but an urgent necessity. As in the case of China, Russia has every reason to claim to be a civilization. This theory was most fully developed by the Russian Eurasians, who introduced the notion of a 'state-world' or — which is the same thing — a 'Russian world'. Actually, the concept of Russia-Eurasia is a direct indication of the civilizational status of Russia. Russia is more than a nation-state (which the Russian Federation is). Russia is a distinct world.

» The Civilization-State always maintains self-sufficiency, autonomy and autarchy. «

 

[…] A multipolar world consists of states-civilizations. This is a kind of world of worlds, a mega-cosmos that includes entire galaxies. And here it is important to determine how many such States-Civilizations can even theoretically exist? Undoubtedly, this type includes India, a typical Civilization-State, which even today has enough potential to become a full-fledged actor in international politics. Then there is the Islamic world, from Indonesia to Morocco. Here the fragmentation into states and different ethno-cultural enclaves does not yet allow us to speak of political unity. Islamic civilization exists, but the question of its assembly into a Civilization-State is rather problematic. Moreover, the history of Islam knows several types of Civilization-States — from the Caliphate (the First, Umayyad, Abbasid, etc.) to the three components of Genghis Khan's Empire converted to Islam (the Golden Horde, the Ilkhan and Chagatai ulus), the Persian Safavid Empire, the Great Mogul state, and finally, the Ottoman Empire. The borders once drawn are still relevant today in many respects. But the process of gathering them into a single structure requires considerable time and effort. The same situation is also true for Latin America and Africa, two macro-civilizations that remain rather divided. But a multipolar world will somehow push integration processes in all these zones.

 

[March 31, 2023]
Russia's New Foreign Policy Doctrine:
(1.) Free from ambiguity and understatement.
(2.) No more compromise.
(3.) Carthage must be destroyed.

 

Now the most important thing: what to do with the West? The Theory of a Multipolar World in the nomenclature of theories of International Relations in the modern West is absent. Today the dominant paradigm is liberalism, which denies any sovereignty and autonomy at all, abolishes civilizations and religions, ethnicities and cultures, replacing them by a forced liberal ideology, the concept of 'human rights', individualism (in the limit leading to gender and transgender politics), materialism and technical progress elevated to the highest value (Artificial Intelligence). The goal of liberalism is to abolish nation-states and establish a World Government based on Western norms and rules. This is the line pursued by Biden and the modern Democrat Party in the US, as well as most European rulers. This is what globalism is all about. It categorically rejects the Civilization-State and any hint of multipolarity. That is why the West is ready for war with Russia and China. In a sense, this war is already going on in Ukraine and in the Pacific (the problem of Taiwan), but so far with the support of proxy-actors. 

Ejaz Akram, Zhang Weiwei & Alexander Dugin:
» The Westphalian system of the sovereignty of nation-states has long since become obsolete and ceased to function.
In its place will be erected a continental system of ' large spaces' (in the Schmittian sense), where individuals
are integrated in the social whole based on the insoluble bond of kinship and common tradition. « (HERE)

 

In the West there is another influential school—realism in International Relations. Here the nation-state is considered a necessary element of the world order, but only those who have achieved a high level of economic, military-strategic and technological development—almost always at the expense of others—have sovereignty. While liberals see the future in a World Government, realists see it in an alliance of major Western powers setting global rules in their own interests. Again, in theory and practice, a Civilization-State and a multipolar world are categorically rejected. This creates a fundamental conflict already at the level of theory. And the lack of mutual understanding here leads to the most radical consequences at the level of direct collision.

In the eyes of multipolarity supporters, the West is also a Civilization-State or even two—North American and European. But Western intellectuals do not agree with this: they have no theoretical frame for this—they know either liberalism or realism, and no multipolarity. However, there are exceptions among Western theorists, such as Samuel Huntington or Fabio Petito. They—unlike the vast majority—recognize multipolarity and the emergence of new actors in the form of civilizations. This is gratifying because through such ideas it is possible to build a bridge from supporters of multipolarity (Russia, China, etc.) to the West. Such a bridge would at least make negotiations possible. 

 

Want more war? Have it. The Rest Against The West.
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, June 20, 2023: » Let NATO fight. Russia is prepared. «

As long as the West categorically rejects multipolarity and the very notion of the Civilization-State, the conversation will be conducted only at the level of a clash of rough power—from military operations to economic blockade, information and sanction wars, etc.

Quoted from:
Alexander Dugin (2022) - The Civilization-State.

 

 

See also:

Alexander Dugin (April 07, 2023) - Russia's New Foreign Policy Doctrine. The Concept of Foreign Policy As The Apotheosis Of Multipolarism And The Catechism Of Sovereignty.
Zhang Weiwei, Alexander Dugin & Ejaz Akram (2022) - What is a Civilizational State? (video)

Martin Jacques (2022) - Civilisation-State versus Nation-State (video).

Matthew Kroenig (2022) - Washington Must Prepare for War With Both Russia and China. 
Alexander Dugin (2021) - The Theory of a Multipolar World.

Alexander Dugin (2009) - The Fourth Political Theory.

Alexander Dugin (2005) - Eurasian Mission: An Introduction to Neo-Eurasianism.
Alexander Dugin (1997) - Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia. 

Bruno Maçães (2020) - The Attack of the Civilization-State.

 Bernard-Henri Lévy (2019) - The Empire and the Five Kings. America's Abdication and the Fate of the World.

TPR (2016) - One Belt, One Road — Eurasian Century Unstoppable.

Zhang Weiwei (2011) - The China Wave: Rise of a Civilizational State.

Ejaz Akram (2009) - Ideals and Realities of Regional Integration in the Muslim World. 

John Mearsheimer (2001) - The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. 

Samuel P. Huntington (1992) - Clash of Civilizations.  

Carl Schmitt (1950) - The nomos of the earth in the international law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum.