US diplomacy, the outflow of Chinese capital and the “interregnum” hypothesis in global geopolitics


In the last two months we have witnessed a real “diplomatic ferment” on the part of the US establishment. Particularly regarding relations with China. In the space of just a few days we witnessed four separate diplomatic missions of high-ranking representatives of the US government to Beijing. The last one, more than the others, reveals all the problems of the three previous missions (which do not seem to have achieved any softening of the Dragon either on the Ukrainian or Taiwan question) since it was directed by architect of the so-called Ping Pong diplomacy, which matured in the early seventies of the twentieth century (with the aim of exploiting the deep divisions that were taking shape, in that particular historical juncture, in the geopolitical direction of the two red giants) or by Henri Kissinger in person. We are talking about a figure of fundamental importance in US diplomacy who, despite his one hundred years of age, still enjoys great prestige at an international level. Kissinger was, in many respects, the great “strategist” of US geopolitics in the period following the Second World War and the one who managed to apply (once again) the divide and conquer strategy against its most dangerous rivals. Washington during the Cold War. Kissinger’s diplomatic masterpiece was able not only to resolve the impasse of the Vietnam War (in which the USA was bogged down without any possibility of success) but also to exploit, to the advantage of the USA, the rivalries between Moscow and Beijing. The rapprochement between communist China and the USA entailed a major geopolitical and geostrategic defeat for the Kremlin whose position in Asia was profoundly weakened (to the full advantage of the USA, despite the Vietnamese debacle). What we do not understand, however, is how Kissinger’s mission could influence the relationship between Beijing and Washington, given today’s well-known geopolitical developments, and how it could attempt to revive a “diplomatic and geopolitical coup” like that of 1971. For in fact, as much as Kissinger may be seen in Beijing, the relations between the two largest economies in the world now appear too compromised and too distant in terms of geopolitical visions and economic interests. Hoping that China can abandon Russia to allow the West to concentrate fully on the economic and military fight against the dragon is not realistic. And this simply will not happen despite all the reassurances that Washington can give to Beijing and all the economic concessions that the USA and Europe can make to the Chinese establishment. We have already explained why the alliance with Moscow is fundamental for Beijing and why Russia represents the best tool to counter the military aggressiveness and world domination plans of the Anglo-Saxon establishment ( and we believe that there is no possibility that the Dragon will be able to retrace its steps and ally itself with the West in the fight against Russia. The question then arises spontaneously. What did the representatives of the US government go to Beijing to ask? The answer, in our opinion, has to do with the dynamics of the Chinese economy and the outflow of Chinese capital from Western markets which, in great secrecy, is proceeding at a rapid pace and which could lead to a destabilization of Western economies and markets . But let’s try to understand what we mean by these statements.


Chinese capital has been the great protagonist of the world economy in the last twenty years of world history. The Chinese have literally bought half the world with the proceeds accumulated thanks to their massive trade surplus. And they have invested massively in infrastructure projects (the New Silk Road is one of these projects) to bring global trade to unprecedented levels. Such an economic strategy has led to unprecedented development of trade and wealth of the Chinese nation. This wealth has allowed Beijing to become a relevant geopolitical entity and to aspire to undermine the Anglo-Saxon-led global power system. But since 2020, the latter’s action to combat the expansion of Chinese capital and influence in the world has grown unabated. The confiscation of Russian currency reserves and assets in the West as a result of the war in Ukraine was also a clear warning for Beijing. Which has fully realized that its assets in the West are no longer safe and that, in the event of war, they could be confiscated by the US and European authorities, causing disastrous economic damage to Beijing. Therefore, in great silence, an economic and financial disengagement of the Dragon from Western economies began. The problem is that China holds a significant part of the US debt (estimated, to date, at just under 900 billion dollars) which, if liquidated quickly, could lead to the bankruptcy of the US in a very short time. Is this what worries the US establishment and what pushed it to carry out an intense diplomatic campaign with the Chinese authorities? We believe so. The sale of Chinese real estate assets in the West could then cause the sector’s bubble to burst early and create an economic crisis from which we risk never recovering. More generally, the outflow of Chinese capital from the West could cause an economic depression with unpredictable implications and consequences. This process is already in full swing and the fact that Europe is deciding to cancel the agreements made regarding the new Silk Road demonstrates this unequivocally. Who will replace the fleeing Chinese capital? Will the FED and the ECB create further billions of dollars and euros ex nihilo to deal with such a situation (with obvious consequences on the inflationary dynamics of the Western economy)? The US establishment has every reason to be seriously concerned since the US public debt dynamic also seems to be spiraling in on itself. The issues of US government bonds are growing at an exponential rate (and so, consequently, the interest to be paid on them) and in these circumstances it is obvious that the crash is only a matter of time. At the same time, it appears increasingly clear that the geopolitical and geostrategic error committed in Eastern Europe imposes on us an economic expense that in fact the West, in these economic and financial conditions, cannot afford. The prospect of a rapid NATO military victory in Eastern Europe collided with an unfavorable reality, militarily and economically speaking. And the war of attrition waged by Moscow consumes us more every day. Will the Chinese, in the end, provide “a lifesaver” to the geopolitics of Washington, London and Brussels (which suddenly revealed themselves as paper tigers compared to their geopolitical rivals)? We believe that both Moscow and Beijing want to offer a way out of the cul de sac into which the West has gotten itself. But to do this the Anglo-Saxon empire must abandon its hegemonic claims over the entire world and guarantee a long-term agreement that involves Moscow and Beijing in the architecture of the world’s geopolitical and geoeconomic power system. In the absence of concrete steps in this direction, it is highly probable that in the coming years the world will plunge into a sort of “geopolitical interregnum” in which there is a lack of guidance in the processes of profound change that the course of history now forcefully imposes on the balance of power. power existing today. Which could “stud” the geopolitics of the years to come with an indefinite series of conflicts capable of shaking the entire world.


The geopolitical and geoeconomic tsunami that is preparing for the years to come will be a harbinger of epochal changes in the balance of power existing between the major geopolitical realities of the planet. Such developments could cause, as already mentioned, a sort of vacancy in world power which would prevent these processes from being guided (in an orderly manner) towards a new balance between the parties.This scenario could lead to serious global upheavals (of which today’s events would only be precursors) whose impact and consequences cannot now be the subject of discussion. We hope that reasonableness will prevail on both sides so that the process of transferring power from West to East (translatio imperii) occurs in the most “soft” way possible. Otherwise we will only be left to witness a scenario very similar to that of the two world wars of the 20th century with all the destruction and tragedy they caused to humanity. The feeling leads us to consider the hypothesis (or rather the necessity) of compromise. Reason, alas, lies in a condition of “geopolitical interregnum” and struggle, to the extreme, for world power. History teaches us that man is dominated by the desire for power and domination. And that this desire does not abandon him until he is put in a position to abandon it (by force). Let’s hope we’re wrong. And to experience a new “golden age” in the West. May God protect the West. And that enlightens him on the right path to follow.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *