Since Russia invaded Ukraine, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has chosen to side with Russia, pushing its former partner Ukraine to the same side as Taiwan. According to the BBC’s Ukrainian version of November 12, Oleksandr Merezhko, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Ukrainian Parliament and Chairman of the Taiwan Friendship Group, revealed that the Ukraine-based Chinese ambassador had recently invited him to visit the embassy to discuss matters related to Taiwan, but Merezhko flatly refused. In addition, the case of Dugin—a used-to-be Putin’s best ally openly betraying Putin is also a warning for Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
The BBC’s report focuses on the triangular relationship between Ukraine, Taiwan, and China after a delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians visited Taiwan.
In the report, Merezhko revealed that in March, after the Russian invasion, members of the Ukrainian parliament had hoped to meet the Ukraine-based Chinese ambassador to ask for help from the CCP, but the CCP refused.
Merezhko initially took an amicable stance towards the CCP, though Beijing’s attitude in the Russia-Ukraine war changed it drastically. That’s why when the Chinese ambassador offered to meet with him to discuss the Taiwan issue; he refused without hesitation.
Merezhko said that some people advocate not developing relations with Taiwan and not raising human rights issues in Xinjiang to avoid angering the CCP, which is entirely wrong. The only reason that stops the CCP from giving Russia military aid is they fear U.S. sanctions and losing the European market. Merezhko said that Russia, China, and Iran are all trying to undermine the world’s democratic order; therefore, “we need to design our response.”
The Russian-Ukrainian war changed the international political landscape. In addition, the Chinese ambassador refused to meet with Ukrainian officials in March. Still, they were looking forward to meeting Merezhko—Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Ukrainian Parliament—in November. Such change is related to a series of defeats of Russian troops in Ukraine.
Especially recently, Russian troops withdrew from the city of Kherson. This is another major landmark event since the Russo-Ukrainian war. Kherson is the only capital Russia has controlled since the outbreak of war.
Currently, the Russian military is suffering many losses. Kherson was almost the only “gain” Russia had from the war, which angered Russian political theorist Alexander Dugin, who has been dubbed the “brain of the Putin.”
According to some British media reports, Dugin posted a message in the telegram group saying that the Russian army had abandoned Kherson and that every “real Russian” now felt “grieved” and “had to grind his teeth” before the war situation.
Dugin even wrote that a ruler in absolute power must take responsibility for saving his country. Otherwise, he will face an unenviable fate.
Political theorist Dugin cites a story recorded in British anthropologist James Fraser’s book “The Golden Bough” about a king who wouldn’t pray for rain during a severe drought. As a result, that king was killed by his people. Dugin’s comments seem to imply that Putin will be held accountable for the defeat in the war.
Commentator Zhou Xiaohui wrote in The Epoch Times that, after Russian servicemen and Putin became increasingly divided, Dugin was also visibly angry.
Zhou analyzed that Dugin was a close friend of Putin, who had a direct influence on Putin’s decision to annex Crimea and wage war with Ukraine. The fact that Alexander Dugin openly “betrayed” Putin surprised the outside world, and whether Putin can continue to control power despite the opposition is worth watching. Zhou Xiaohui believes that Dugin’s betrayal also warns Beijing that no absolute loyalty exists around any leaders, even with centralized power, and any loyalist today can turn into a traitor tomorrow. Xi Jinping and his so-called “loyal” people have only an exchange of interests. When their interests are harmed, Xi’s “loyal followers” may not betray as openly as Dugin but are more likely to rebel secretly or defect directly, which is the fate of authoritarian leaders.