Who’s to blame for losing Ukraine? China, of course

At the close of his recent trip to China, while still in Beijing, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken made a bellicose statement to the press.

Blinken’s words marked a new phase in the narrative to prepare the American and European public for more conflict with China. As Caitlin Johnstone has reminded us, “Before they drop the bombs, they drop the narrative.” What, then, is the narrative that Blinken dropped?

Blinken alleges that China’s support for Russia accounts for its success in Ukraine.

In his statement, Blinken tells us that the US has “serious concern” over “components” from China that are “powering” Russia’s war with Ukraine. He goes on to say that China is the top supplier “of dual-use items that Moscow is using to ramp up its industrial base, a defense industrial base…”

It is widely accepted that the US is losing its Ukraine proxy war. Blinken now informs us that the US-installed Ukrainian regime is losing because China is aiding Russia.

Blaming China is nothing new in the argot of the West, but here it is put to a new use, as an excuse for yet another embarrassing defeat for the US.

Blinken lists “machine tools, microelectronics, nitrocellulose” as key components that China provides to Russia. But “dual-use items” is an ill-defined and malleable category. Potentially, every item of trade can be subsumed under the term.

For example, if Russia imports Chinese machine tools to make cars, then it can readily be claimed that they are being used to build tanks. Or if Russia imports nitrocellulose to make fingernail polish, it can be charged that the chemical is being used for gunpowder or explosives.

So, when the US demands that China stop “indirect” support for Russia’s war effort, it is ultimately demanding