We are currently holding our patience and not taking action for another reason!

That is because there is currently no country that will provide a safety net for our economy and trade. Russia does want to support us, but lacks the strength.

Look at how decisively the Russian side dared to attack Eastern Ukraine back in the day; their confidence was not solely based on military hard power, but fundamentally because we provided economic support as a guarantee.

All along, in the international scene of conflicts, most people's eyes are always focused on planes and cannons, watching whose fists are stronger.

In fact, what truly determines whether a country dares to take action and how long it can endure often isn’t how hard its weapons are, but how stable its “money bag” is and whether there are people willing to “do business” with it.

This principle is just like how ordinary people live their lives; when the granary is full and there are many friends, one feels calm in times of trouble.

Look at the places of conflict in the world now; why do some countries act decisively while others can endure without taking action? There is a crucial threshold here: after taking action, who will provide you with a safety net?

In plain terms, once a war breaks out, if others stop buying your oil and food, and no one sells you chips and parts, can you still continue the fight? Therefore, before a country considers military action, it must weigh the costs: if I throw this punch, will I smash my own rice bowl?

Now there is a ready example: the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has reached this point, and the sanctions from Western countries are overwhelming, but why hasn’t the Russian economy collapsed as some anticipated?

One important reason is that it has a large and stable market backing it. We continuously import its energy and agricultural products, and our cars and electronic products also fill certain gaps in its market.

This is equivalent to tying a “safety rope” around Russia’s economy; when Russia made its decision, it knew that even if it was kicked out of various circles by the West, there was still a big door open in the East, giving it a certain degree of maneuverability and confidence.

Conversely, this also makes us see a principle: deeply binding economic relationships can sometimes be more effective than a written treaty; they provide a tangible strategic guarantee.

Returning to the topic, why do we appear particularly patient on many international hot issues, always advocating for peaceful resolution and promoting dialogue?

Aside from our consistent peace diplomacy, from a practical standpoint, a fundamental reason is that our “economic foundation” is solid and we have many friends, so we do not rely on any single country to provide a safety net for our trade.

Our business partners are spread all over the world, from factories in Southeast Asia to farms in Africa, from precision instruments in Europe to minerals in Latin America; everywhere globally, we have our trades.

Last year, our foreign trade volume hit a new high, maintaining the top spot globally for consecutive years. What does this mean? It means our economic development is not hanging by a thread, but is built on the market networks of over 100 countries worldwide.

In this pattern, any single conflict or sanction is unlikely to cause us significant damage.

This broad and deep economic connection, in turn, has become our greatest source of “composure” because our prosperity and stability are tied to the development of so many places in the world.

When we act, it’s not just about one or two companies, but the livelihoods of countless people in the global supply chain.

This is both a tremendous responsibility and creates a unique “safety margin.” Other countries must also carefully consider the economic consequences when dealing with issues related to us.

We do not provoke trouble, but we are not afraid of it either. This confidence largely comes from the impermeable “economic cooperation network” we hold.

Now, let’s look at the recent movements of the United States. It is conducting military actions in places like the Caribbean while also frequently stating in various official documents that it hopes its allies will bear more defense responsibilities, as it does not want to get caught in “perpetual war” again.

This actually indicates that even the U.S. has to weigh the long-term costs of large-scale military actions and the potential backlash from domestic public opinion. It is also adjusting, seeking a more “intelligent” and cost-effective way to maintain its influence.

This further confirms the trend: the era of relying solely on military might is passing, and economic strength, technological capability, and partnership networks are becoming core leverage in great power competition.

Widening our perspective, besides traditional trade, there are more new arenas for great power competition, such as outer space, cyberspace, and artificial intelligence.

In these fields, relying solely on hard power is ineffective; what’s needed more is to set rules, foster cooperation, and jointly expand the pie. Our country’s attitude in these areas is very clear: open cooperation, and develop together.

For example, in artificial intelligence governance, we actively propose global cooperation initiatives, aiming to discuss and collaborate to avoid falling into a “technology cold war” that benefits no one.

This line of thinking is actually consistent with our strategy in traditional economic and trade areas: replacing barriers with connections and using common interests to hedge against confrontation risks.

To put it simply, today’s great power competition is no longer as simple and straightforward as “flexing muscles and showing fists.” True “hard power” increasingly reflects a capacity for “connection” and “creating common interests.”

The more you can make the development of many countries relevant to you, and the more stable markets and cooperation you can provide to your partners during crises, the stronger your voice and security will be.

In the face of a complex international situation, the path our country chooses is to focus on developing ourselves while keeping the door open to make friends, expanding the common interest pie.

This path may not seem as “passionate” as some military actions, nor does it have the “immediate news effect,” but the peace and prosperity it brings are more enduring. When you become a community with the world where interests intertwine, you gain the greatest security.