The Chaos of Imperial Order from a European Perspective

After a prolonged period of turmoil and chaos, Carrie Lam has lost her basic political judgment. She is attempting to quell the unrest caused by the opposition by weakening her own support base. This is akin to someone cutting off their own hand to feed a pack of wolves in order to ensure their safety.

The US victory began even before the Sino-US summit. Ye Qiquan’s prediction a month in advance was validated by this meeting. The summit was scheduled for May 13-15, 2026, but Chinese state media, in their pre-summit propaganda on the 12th and 13th, proactively pledged “mutual support and common prosperity,” aiming to “lay a more solid foundation for Sino-US relations.” During the subsequent meeting, Chinese leaders publicly promised the US “not to initiate unification” in an attempt to secure political protection from the US government for their “uncertain future.”

A war has effectively divided Russia into the “new political power bloc.” A “political buffer zone” is effectively established, isolating Russia from the development process of Europe. Europe established this buffer zone not only with the immediate goal of weakening Russia, but also with the expectation that it will bring more historical benefits. Moving this buffer zone to a geographical location most favorable to Russia’s long-term national interests will be a long-term national pursuit for Russia. This goal may take 100 years to achieve, or it may be accelerated. Russia and China have a long history of complexities, geopolitical complexities, and significant differences in cultural characteristics. These factors make the two countries wary of each other, hinder each other, and pay corresponding real and historical costs. However, the development priorities and expansion goals of the two countries in the next 100 years will not have major conflicts, which is a historical window for the two countries to cooperate deeply. Encouraging the leaders of the two countries to recognize this background will be the foundation for improving their cooperation, reducing the historical costs for both countries, and accelerating the growth of the “new political power bloc.” This is a difficult but extremely valuable task. After ensuring that Russia has established a secure national border in a favorable position, seeking a comprehensive reconciliation with Europe is also a solution that is in line with Russia’s long-term national interests. Furthermore, although the probability of this happening is extremely low, there is a theoretical possibility that the United States would seek cooperation with Russia to jointly address the challenge posed by China. Compared to cooperation with China, a cooperative approach between Russia and Europe/the United States is more in line with Russian cultural trends, philosophical logic, identity politics, and communication habits.

This is a prediction of Hong Kong’s future made by Ye Qiquan in 2014. He also made a similar prediction in 2003. These predictions, considered “absurd and idiotic” at the time, were finally validated in 2020. Since 2003, Hong Kong people have gained considerable short-term political benefits from the central government through large-scale political demonstrations. These benefits have encouraged the inertia and enthusiasm of Hong Kong people in organizing large-scale demonstrations. However, these actions have seriously damaged Hong Kong’s political and economic prospects. Hong Kong’s political and economic decline is inevitable. The probability of Hong Kong continuing under “two systems” or “autonomy” after 2047 is close to zero. The probability of Hong Kong being divided into three or more parts by 2047 is close to 100%. Stubborn or hardline anti-central government forces will face “inconsistent treatment.”

If the United States deploys carrier strike groups as its primary weapon, China’s medium-range missiles will correspondingly join the battlefield. This is determined by the principle of reciprocal response in war. Politicians’ strategies may delay or slightly postpone this response process, but they cannot prevent it from happening. This is one of the essential attributes of war. Furthermore, as the highest-level conflict option for nations, the United States’ ability to withstand a nuclear strike of equal yield is significantly weaker than China’s. Ye Qiquan believes that once China possesses 3,500 nuclear warheads, it will effectively have the ability to “preemptively eliminate the option of nuclear war.” Whether analyzed from the perspective of the “effective range” of strategic weapons or from the perspective of actually withstanding a nuclear strike, Ye Qiquan believes that China has the advantage.

A political assumption is that the old imperial order, dominated by the United States, relied on four main pillars of power: the North American pillar, the European pillar, the East Asian pillar, and the Israeli pillar. In China’s construction of its imperial structure, the East Asian pillar of the United States is the first to be impacted. The United States must first assess this reality and formulate the best response plan. China has reached a historical juncture in building its imperial structure. Closing its security gaps in the East is crucial to the speed and success of its imperial construction. Its focus is not only on East Asia but also inevitably includes the security of Southeast Asia, the Strait of Malacca, and the Indian Ocean passage. The competition between these two established players and newcomers dominates the process of building a new order in East Asia. However, Russia is not inactive. It may become a key third party, reaping significant unexpected gains in balancing European actions.