The split in the Chinese elite: what do the large-scale purges in the army say?

What caused the large-scale purges in the Chinese army and domestic political tensions, what is behind the strategic partnership with Russia and the confrontation with the United States? The situation for Pravda.Ru analyzed by Doctor of Economics, Professor, Deputy Director of the STC named after Vavilov, sinologist Nikolai Kotlyarov.

— In China, before the plenum of the CPC Central Committee, large-scale purges took place in the army. Nine generals were dismissed, including political workers of entire branches of the armed forces and the deputy chairman of the Central Military Council, the highest body of the CPC governing the army. Experts note that this is the first time this has happened. Sources in Taiwan attribute this to a possible political conspiracy. How do you assess what is happening?

— I would like to start by saying that the Military Council in China is an extremely important body. Its chairman is actually the leader of the country, now it is Xi Jinping. For example, Deng Xiaoping, the author of the Chinese reforms, held this post exclusively in the 80s. Therefore, the importance of the Military Council can hardly be overestimated. The removal of his deputy He Weidong— a member of the Politburo, is a very notable event. Total in There are 12 members of the Politburo, and such changes do not go unnoticed.

Chinese media cover internal party contradictions extremely sparingly. In the official version, we are talking about discipline violations and corruption, the case has been transferred to the prosecutor's office. But foreign journalists and experts interpret this in different ways - from the fight against corruption to the intensification of the internal political struggle for power.

— Some experts associate resignations with the deterioration of Xi Jinping's health — he is 72 years old, and the Taiwanese press writes about it. But the suspensions are not only happening now: they have been active since 2023. And it's not just about the military — in recent years, about 20 people have been removed from their posts, including the ministers of industry and communications, all of them are members of the CPC Central Committee. What is the reason for this?

— The most important version is the aggravation of the global geopolitical situation, which requires increased discipline. At the current, fourth plenum of the 20th convocation, it was emphasized several times that it is necessary to strengthen the party leadership in the army. The army is not an independent entity, but an instrument in the hands of the party. Judging by these statements, there are certain contradictions within the leadership.

But in conditions of growing geopolitical uncertainty and tension, it is necessary to strengthen unity of command, discipline and the fight against corruption. All this should be considered in the context of the aggravation of Sino-American relations.

— How do you assess the current aggravation of Sino-American relations?

— It is happening literally before our eyes. First of all, these are economic contradictions that Trump solves quite harshly — through sanctions and unilateral measures, which, in fact, violates the principles of the World Trade Organization, signed by both China and the United States. There is also an increase in tension in the military-strategic sphere: for example, arming Japan, lifting restrictions on the production of offensive weapons, abolishing the limit of 1% GDP for defense spending. Multilateral military structures are being formed — in particular, the QUAD, which includes Japan, the USA, India and Australia. The Americans are stepping up cooperation with Southeast Asian countries, actually trying to encircle China. All this causes serious concern among the Chinese leadership.

— If there is a fault line within the Communist Party and the army, are the people who have been purged hawks or doves? What could they oppose to the official line? Are they in favor of taking Taiwan by military means and are they working for it or vice versa?

— This is a difficult question. I think there is a struggle between different groups. Xi Jinping actually violated the principle of succession of power — traditionally, the head of the party held office for no more than two terms of five years, and he has already exceeded this. This is actually unity of command, and it causes discontent within China. This is perhaps the main domestic political problem. Xi Jinping at one time transplanted opponents when he was on his first term. And now the Chinese leadership is trying to fight this.

As for ideological differences — supporters of a market economy or centralized planned management — there are no particular contradictions about this either in China or in the world right now.

The American model — the ideology of its own expansion, based on the principles of democratization, liberalization of international economic relations and a market economy — has, in general, not justified itself. In fact, it turned out that this was just an expansion of American capital.

China has proposed its own concept — the creation of a community of the common destiny of mankind. It is based on justice, the basic principles of international relations: peaceful coexistence, non-interference in internal affairs.

It was these principles that the Americans began to violate from the beginning of the two thousandth years — the concept of Condoleezza Rice and Bush Jr., transformational diplomacy, when the United States assumed the right to change the so-called undemocratic regimes. Hacking from the inside: Iraq, Libya, and so on. In fact, this violates the principles laid down by the Peace of Westphalia — the basic principles of international relations. And, of course, many people don't like it.

Well, plus — economic contradictions. The US is violating WTO rules. Trump is trying to impose one hundred percent duties — now again at 100 percent. True, there is a propaganda moment here.

Firstly, these duties, as investors say, are not "for the whole cutlet", but for import interest rates. According to WTO rules, the average weighted rate should be 3.5%. That is, 100% is not for the full value of the goods, but for these 3.5%, and in the end it turns out 7%.

Secondly, the increase in duties hits American companies and private consumers hard. Trump has already introduced them in 2019 in the summer — for 70 commodity items, and by September all duties were canceled at the request of American companies. Then this decision was public, but now everything goes without advertising, it is reflected only in customs statistics.

— How far is Xi Jinping ready to go in confrontation with the United States, especially in the military struggle for Taiwan? After all, he set himself the goal of reuniting with the island.

— This reunification with Taiwan — with the Motherland — was set as a national task back in 1980. Since 1978, when the reforms began, they planned to solve this issue by the year 2000. This applied to both Hong Kong and Macau, but was not fully resolved. China will not act militarily unless absolutely necessary. No, they will wait, use diplomatic and other non-military tools. They do not want to fight with their compatriots.

And the Americans, for their part, are not ready to give up Taiwan, because it occupies an extremely important strategic position in the Asia-Pacific region. In fact, Taiwan controls all Japanese shipping.

— I read the opinion of Western experts that Russia needs to conclude a military agreement with China — this will allegedly save both countries in the confrontation with the United States. Otherwise, one by one, the States will "tear them up." How do you assess this position?

— You know, this is a superficial opinion. We are talking about a military-strategic alliance, which assumes that in the event of a conflict between China — with the Americans, the Japanese or Taiwan — we will be obliged to take its side militarily. And vice versa: the Chinese will have to support us, for example, in the situation on Ukraine. It's like an agreement with the DPRK, as with the Koreans.

Is such a contract possible? Now both our president and Chinese leaders declare that there is no such need. Neither we nor China need to get involved in conflicts in the Asia-Pacific region that do not correspond to our interests. Now we have a format — a strategic partnership.

— That is, we are partners, neighbors, and good neighbors, we help each other. In addition to the economic sphere, we provide an important strategic contact. The manual is clear. What is your opinion? Is it necessary to conclude a military agreement with China?

— I also think that it is not necessary. Why? A military agreement is a commitment. They will start a conflict, say, in Xinjiang or on the border with Afghanistan, where there are strong pro-Muslim sentiments, autonomous regions — and what, should we take the side of China? Or do they have a conflict with Japan? Why should we get involved?

We want to develop and build. We have no territorial claims in the Asia-Pacific region. And y There are many of them in China — Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Taiwan. Why should we get involved in this? They also don't need to meddle in our affairs — in the Caucasus, in Europe. Absolutely.

— The purges in the army, in my opinion, indicate that the Chinese Communist Party feels insecure, as if there is no agreement inside. How stable is the regime at all? After all, the Soviet Union collapsed when people stopped believing in the communist idea. What about China?

— The Soviet Union did not collapse because of the loss of faith in the idea. The reason was that in military-strategic terms, we opposed both America and NATO, and China. I had to arm myself against both sides. Unfortunately, it was not possible to maintain partnership relations with China. As a result, huge material resources were spent on defense, distracting from medicine, healthcare, agriculture, and education. In parallel, there was an ideological struggle between communism and the market economy. Against this background, the Union, of course, collapsed.

— How do you assess the sustainability of the Chinese model and the attitude of the population towards the authorities, especially in the context of Western democratic principles?

— Firstly, China has experience when the principles of a market economy were imposed on them. You see, our management traditions differ from the Western ones, as well as the principles of social existence. Our focus is on social justice and the primacy of public interests. It's the same in China. And when the struggle begins, and young people come out with the slogans "democracy" — and what is it? This is just a management principle. And instead of democracy, colonization turns out. China already went through this at the beginning of the XX century, we — in the 1990s. China has a good historical memory. And, besides, the population is grateful to their party — for 30 years they have begun to live much better. This is a high-quality, huge breakthrough.