Obviously, on the G20 platform, face-to-face communication can help solve the problems faced by the world and alleviate tensions. However, unexpectedly, the newly appointed British Prime Minister Sunak made a big fuss during the G20 summit and targeted China.

G20 summit was held in Bali, Indonesia, and the world has also entered a diplomatic moment for the head of state. Obviously, on the G20 platform, face-to-face communication can help solve the problems faced by the world and alleviate tensions. However, unexpectedly, the newly appointed British Prime Minister Sunak made a big fuss during the G20 summit and targeted China.

First thing: The British Prime Minister makes unrelenting words, claiming that China poses a huge "threat"!

On November 15, according to the British " Times ", British Prime Minister Rich Sunak said during the Indonesian G20 summit: I honestly express my views on China. I think China clearly poses a "systemic threat" ... We are talking about a systemic challenge to our values and interests.

There is no doubt that China poses the greatest national "threat" to our economic security. Sunak also promised to support Taiwan's "resistance of China's aggression." In response, he added that Western countries "to a large extent" is "consistent" with the UK's views on China's "systemic challenges" to Western values and interests.

At the same time, Sunak pointed out that without dialogue with China, it is impossible to resolve global issues such as climate change and Ukrainian conflict .

What does British Prime Minister Sunak mean during the G20 summit? According to the British intention, will the G20 summit be held as an anti-Russia and anti-China summit? Who did Sunak say this?

It is obvious that Sunak has released very unfriendly messages to China. This seems more like Sunak gave the United States a letter of vote in person. The United Kingdom seems to want to use this to express that Britain is anti-China, and even in the presence of China, the United Kingdom will not conceal this hostility towards China.

There is no doubt that the United States is happy to see Sunak, which is actively anti-China. However, Britain regards China as a "systemic threat" and a "challenge of values" and promises the so-called to "resist China's aggression". What exactly does the UK want to do?

With the national strength and situation of the UK, does the UK have this strength? Now the status of the London financial center in the UK is being replaced by Paris. After Brexit, Britain gradually became the border of Europe. The economic development of Britain was covered in dust, and the internal Northern Ireland , and Scotland splitting forces rose.

What is the benefit of the UK's shameless opposition to China, which is thousands of miles apart? Originally, the improvement of China-UK relations helped the development of the British economy, but since British politicians have set obstacles to China-UK relations, so what if we leave Britain aside?

When the United States, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and France are actively engaging in heads of state diplomacy with China, it is obvious that Britain will have to sit on the bench, of course this is the outcome that Britain should have.

The second thing: China has made its position, and the United States cannot do whatever it wants on the stage of the United Nations!

On November 15, according to domestic media reports, UN General Assembly passed a resolution to demand compensation from Russia. Western countries led by the United States led the draft resolution on "promoting remedies and compensation for acts of aggression against Ukraine" and voted, and China firmly voted against it.

Our Ambassador Geng Shuang pointed out that the draft resolution on remedial and compensation taken by this emergency Special UN General Assembly has obvious flaws and loopholes, which does not conform to China's position and propositions. China voted against it with righteousness.

Ambassador Geng Shuang said that, first, the draft resolution intends to directly deal with international legal responsibilities through United Nations General Assembly , exceeding the powers of theUnited Nations General Assembly. " United Nations Charter " has clear provisions on the powers of major United Nations agencies. The General Assembly is not an international judicial institution and has no right to legally characterize and hold international illegal acts accountable.

Secondly, the draft resolution intends to invoke the "state's responsibility clause for international illegal acts" and lacks legal basis.

Third, our ambassador pointed out that the mechanisms such as those planned by some countries are not within the framework of the United Nations and are not regulated by the United Nations. They do not report to the United Nations, but they want the General Assembly to specifically pass resolutions for this purpose. This practice does not make sense in theory and there is no precedent in practice.

Obviously, our ambassador clearly stated that the draft resolution inspired by the United States is completely putting an issue that should not be handled at all by the United Nations for processing.

Besides, the United States has requested that the United Nations vote to demand compensation from Ukraine, so should the United States be sent to the dock first? Has the United States paid compensation to Iraqi ? Have you paid compensation to Afghanistan ? Have you paid compensation to Syria ?

It is obvious that what the United States does is completely treating the United Nations as a tool to suppress Russia. China clearly expresses its opposition. This is actually telling the United States that China will not allow the United States to do whatever it wants on the UN stage.

And if the United States sets such a precedent, then the United States will not know what name to confiscate other countries' property on the UN stage in the future.

China voted against this time to brake on the unreasonable actions of the United States. The United Nations cannot become a tool for the United States to suppress other countries. China's clear expression of position fully demonstrates China's image as a responsible major power.

The third thing: Ukraine is angry and dissatisfied with the United States' persuasion and remarks towards Russia and Ukraine!

On November 15, according to domestic media reports, Mark Mili, the highest general of the US 1st Army and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was recently exposed to persuade Ukraine to "seize the opportunity to negotiate with Russia" in an internal meeting.

The American "politician" news network broke the news on November 14 that this "peace talks" remarks really angered Ukraine, and the Biden administration is working hard to appease Ukraine's officials. It stated that negotiations do not have to start immediately, and the United States will continue to provide support to Ukraine in military terms.

On the 14th local time, Valeri Zaluzine, commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, told Mark Mili in a telephone conversation that the Ukrainian military "will not accept any negotiations" unless Russia abandons "all occupied territories."

Ukraine expressed anger at the United States, and such news does seem a bit surprising. However, this actually shows the different perceptions of the U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-

For the United States, the United States has two most basic positions on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. First, it is to make the Russian-Ukrainian conflict long-term, and neither can Russia win quickly nor can Ukraine gain a comprehensive advantage. Second, it is that the United States does not accept the escalation of war conflicts to the use of nuclear weapon .

Now Ukraine has made progress in Khlsong. If Ukraine goes further, with the current morale of the Russian army, Ukraine is very likely to continue to expand its results. If Russia is forced to force it, the conflict is very likely to be uncontrollable, which is not in the interests of the United States.

Therefore, the pace of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine that the United States hopes is to fight and stop, and stop is to continue fighting, and fight and cannot decide the winner quickly. If the Russian-Ukraine conflict ends, how can the United States intervene?

However, it is different for Ukraine. Ukraine is now eager to immediately reclaim all lost land, including Crimea . Now that Ukraine has made significant progress, why does Ukraine need to negotiate with Russia?

In fact, we should not think that Ukraine is a puppet of the United States. The United States has influence on Ukraine and does regard Ukraine as a pawn. However, Ukraine is an independent and sovereign country and has its own interests.

Ukraine dares to shy face to the United States, which shows that Ukraine has its own independent position and is not willing to act completely according to the United States' settings. Of course, the United States can indeed manipulate the process of the conflict, but it is probably not certain whether the situation in Russia and Ukraine will follow the US script completely.

(End of this article)

Statement: The picture is from the Internet. If there is any infringement, please contact us to delete it!