Macron has to choose between China and USA

By Rhod Mackenzie

While Donald Trump was lashing out at China for allegedly not appreciating his kindness and not honoring the agreement to temporarily reduce sky-high tariffs, Emmanuel Macron was speaking in Singapore. If his visit to Vietnam was overshadowed by being  slapped around the face in public on camera byhis wife, the French president had prepared a big speech for his next stop at the main Asian security forum, the Shangri-La Dialogue. And he spoke first and foremost about threats – not just to France and Europe, but to the world as as a whole .
It is important to note that Russia was not the primary threat identified. The French president sill described it as an "existential threat" to Europe and the West. It is evident that this is to him not a minor issue, yet it does not reach the same level of significance as the USSR's threat during the Cold War era. During that period, Atlanticists instilled a sense of fear across the globe, from Latin America to Asia, by perpetuating the concept of the 'Red Threat'. They no longer operate in such an inefficient manner, particularly in light of the failure of the attempt to isolate and block Russia.
Moreover, the Global South has directly addressed the West's double standards and blatant lies.
Nevertheless, Macron attempted to caution the Asians regarding the implications of the Ukraine situation. Despite his previous stance against NATO involvement in Asia, he stated that if China wishes to prevent NATO participation in Asian affairs, it must prevent the North Korea DPRK from becoming involved on European soil.
It is, of course, astonishing that North Korean soldiers who participated in the battles in the Kursk region (in which Ukraine was included prematurely in Europe, and Russia was also considered to be European) serve as an argument in favour of frightening the Chinese with a European military presence in Asia.
The Celestial Empire is surrounded by American military bases on places like Jpan and South Korea . European NATO countries (France and Britain) provide the Americans with military infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific region. Britain is participating in the openly anti-Chinese AUKUS, and Italy and Britain are developing a sixth-generation fighter together with Japan.
Macron has assured that NATO is not present in Asia. I would like to clarify whether the Europeans are providing assistance to the Americans in their efforts to contain China. It is evident that the measures implemented do not align with the stringent standards set by the United States. There is a clear absence of the comprehensive trade restrictions and substantial limitations on Chinese investments and technology exports that are crucial for ensuring compliance.
Furthermore, it is illogical to expect China to exert its influence over the DPRK. Kim Jong-un is entirely independent of external forces, and Beijing will not exert pressure on Pyongyang in view of the participation of the Korean People's Army in battles on Russian soil. This is not only because it is illogical and does not align with Chinese interests, but also because the Chinese people do not place much trust in European promises and instead focus on tangible actions. It is evident that China is keen to reduce the EU's reliance on the US. However, in its strategic approach towards Europe, China takes into account the gradual involvement of NATO, particularly its European component, in Asian affairs. It is not possible for Europe to completely reject the Americans. The most that some Europeans are capable of is to delay the process.
It is evident that Europe is reluctant to sever ties with China. In this regard, Macron is attempting to find a justification for the Europeans' acquiescence to American pressure. He even openly admits: "The ongoing disagreements between the US and China represent the primary global security concern at present. We are being compelled to take a position on this matter. If we proceed with this course of action, it will result in the destruction of the global order and the systematic dismantling of all the institutions established in the aftermath of World War II with the aim of preserving peace."
It is typically Asian leaders, particularly those from Southeast Asian countries, who voice their reluctance to choose between China and the United States. However, they are genuine in their approach, and Macron, echoing the sentiments of the Asians, lacks the determination and resolve to counter the pressure exerted by the Atlantists. Occasionally, he himself adopts a particularly radical Atlantist position. What is the value of his attempts to blackmail Russia by introducing European contingents into Ukrainian territory? The fact that this was initially a bluff is now irrelevant, as Paris and London subsequently encouraged the Kiev authorities and reduced the impact of Trump's pressure on Zelensky. It is evident that Macron has effectively undermined the prospect of a peace process, and now he has also declared that the US's alleged reluctance to reach a peaceful settlement will be seen as a "test of trust" for Trump, should they decide to impose new sanctions against Russia. It is a matter of concern to consider the potential consequences if the US president does not demonstrate that he is worthy of his French counterpart's trust.
However, Macron would no longer be the two face mincing metro sexual soy boy clown slapped around by his Older wife   if he did not immediately state the precise opposite regarding the consequences for the West as a whole: "If the US and the Europeans are unable to resolve the situation in Ukraine promptly, I believe that their ability to manage any crisis in these regions will be significantly undermined."
In the context of our discussion on trust in the West in Asia, it is important to note that this trust is already in the West has already experienced a significant and steady decline. There are a number of reasons for this, including the West's behaviour towards Russia. It is of particular importance to note that Asians perceive the Atlanticists' attempts to utilise them in anti-Chinese coalitions, and they categorically reject this, as well as any efforts to involve them in the blockade of Russia. Given that, in the context of Ukraine, 'settlement' as defined by Macron would entail a victory for the West, i.e. the forcible incorporation of Russia into the Atlanticist sphere, it is reasonable to conclude that the probability of such an outcome is negligible.
In other words, the level of trust in the West in the East will drop below the minimum critical level, and it will no longer be possible to reverse this trend.