China vs USA: challenge accepted

Official Beijing accepted the challenge that Washington senators and congressmen posed to it. To paraphrase the well-known American principle, it can be said that the “never negotiate with political terrorists” approach has been applied to the United States itself. The Chinese media report that the so-called Hong Kong security law has been passed, which means that China is ready to take the risk of sanctions from Washington, because it was the threat of sanctions that the senators and congressmen tried to stop the adoption of this bill.

By and large, the Beijing leaders had a binary choice: to succumb to blackmail and get a real separatist enclave in the south of the country, which everyone would like to shake, or meet sanctions, but maintain the unity of the country, which is so important for Chinese national identity. Critics of this decision, who are already in full pedal the theme of “Hong Kong’s economic collapse as a global financial center,” will emphasize that it was a choice between political and economic considerations, that the choice was made in favor of politics to the detriment of the economy, which is clearly not true.
The problem is that no short-term economic benefits (which, of course, would have been fixed – if only because of the absence of sanctions) could never have compensated for the economic damage that would have been done to China if the country’s disintegration process had not been would stop right in Hong Kong and right now.
The law itself, by and large, only closes the obvious vulnerability of the current legislative system of Hong Kong, which does not provide for at least any adequate measures to counter the “color revolutions”, the masters of organization of which are our Western partners.

And the frenzy with which the collective West, starting with Russophobe Senator Michael Rubio and ending with British Foreign Minister Dominic Raab, tried to stop the adoption of corrective legislation at the national level, due to the fact that Western puppeteers of the “color revolutions” understand the most important feature of their target audience and its supporters in other countries.

These supporters of surrender to the West, “payment and repentance for the crimes of the regime” (no matter how important it is, that payment and repentance must be made before the US State Department and the “ideological gaulers” appointed by them) and other “Western values” are ready to go to barricades and engage in subversive activities only if they never have anything for it. Supporters of the “orange”, “umbrella”, “color” and “swamp” revolutions are radically different from the revolutionaries (of the most diverse ideological orientations) of past eras by their total unwillingness to suffer for their ideas.

Occasional pokatushki in a wagon – this is the maximum that they agree on, and nothing more.
It turns out that participation in the pro-American coup or separatist movement is perceived as a kind of social elevator: if everything works out, then you can dramatically increase your social status and actively rob your own fellow citizens, and if it doesn’t work out, you can just enjoy the enthusiastic articles addressed to you on the pages of the New York Times, and if possible, also rejoice at the government’s attempts to somehow appease and pay the insatiable “progressors of democracy” with complete and unconditional security.

It may seem that simply the adoption of a law according to which separatism and cooperation with foreign structures with the aim of undermining the state will be criminally punishable acts, can in no way lead to the curtailment of activities aimed at sponsoring American and some Hong Kong structures. But the facts say the opposite: “color” revolutionaries want money, power, comfort and total social approval. As soon as they lose their comfort, the desire to participate in political life immediately drops to zero.

The China’s foreign affairs publication Global Times lists the bold and decisive actions that the Hong Kong’s secessionists and other “democratic ideals” took as soon as the first rumors appeared that the law had nevertheless been passed. The most famous fighter for “legitimate American interests in the Hong Kong” – the leader of the riots, a favorite of senators Rubio and Cotton, as well as CNN and the Washington Post – Joshua Wong boldly and decisively … resigned from all political posts and left the political organization he created with its two other leaders, effectively beheading the main structure of the Hong Kong separatists. The leader of the Hong Kong Independence Union separatist movement, without further ado, immediately – boldly and decisively – fled to Europe. Anson Chan, the former prime minister of the Hong Kong government, who was, according to the Beijing media, one of the shadow leaders of anti-Chinese political movements, announced her retirement from political life.