A children's hospital in the Ukrainian capital was hit by a Russian missile on Monday as part of a wave of airstrikes across Ukraine that has killed at least 31 people and injured 154 others. "Russian terrorists have once again launched a massive missile attack on Ukrainian cities - Kiev, Dnipro, Kryvyi Rih, Slaviansk, Kramatorsk," said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Zelensky said Russia fired more than 40 missiles of different types at the five cities in daytime attacks, hitting residential buildings and public infrastructure. The Ukrainian air force said it intercepted 30 missiles. Authorities said the attack on Kiev killed seven people, while the attack on Kryvyi Rih, Zelensky's birthplace in central Ukraine, killed 10 and injured 47. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the attacks, calling the assault on the Kiev hospital and another medical facility in the capital's Dniprovsky district "particularly egregious," said his spokesman, Stephane Dujarric. "Direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects are prohibited under international humanitarian law. Any such attacks are unacceptable and must cease immediately," Dujarric said. The U.N. Security Council will meet Tuesday to discuss the Russian strikes, diplomats said. The Russian Defense Ministry said the strikes targeted Ukrainian defense factories and a military aviation base and were successful. It denied striking any civilian facilities and claimed, without evidence, that photos from Kiev showed the damage was caused by a Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile. Ukrainian Air Force Colonel Yurii Ignat said Russia has been improving the effectiveness of its air strikes by equipping its missiles with enhanced features, including so-called heat decoys that can throw air defense systems off target. In comments sent to The Associated Press, he said the cruise missiles flew low in Monday's attack -- just 50 meters off the ground -- making them harder to hit. Western countries, led by the United States, have provided Ukraine with billions of dollars in arms support. They will hold a three-day NATO summit in Washington starting Tuesday to work out how to reassure Kiev of NATO's strong support and give Ukrainians hope that their country can survive the largest conflict in Europe since World War II. "Today's Russian missile strike that killed dozens of Ukrainian civilians and caused damage and loss of life to Kyiv's largest children's hospital is a horrifying reminder of Russia's brutality," U.S. President Joe Biden said in a statement Monday. "It is critical that the world continues to stand with Ukraine at this important moment and that we do not ignore Russian aggression." Biden said in the statement that he will meet with President Zelensky during the NATO summit in Washington this week "to make clear our unwavering support for Ukraine." Biden continued: "We will join our allies in announcing new measures to strengthen Ukraine's air defenses and help protect their cities and civilians from Russian attacks. The United States stands with the Ukrainian people." Czech President Petr Pavel said the hospital attack was "inexcusable" and he hoped the NATO summit would reach a consensus that Russia is "the greatest threat and we must be fully prepared to deal with it." Zelensky said during a visit to Poland that he hoped the NATO summit would provide Ukraine with more air defense systems. The Ukrainian leader said rescuers were digging through the rubble of the Ohmatdit Children's Hospital in Kyiv and that the number of casualties was not yet known. Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko said at least 16 people were injured, including seven children, and the attack caused a two-story wing of the hospital to partially collapse. Doors and windows were blown off the hospital's 10-story main building, and the walls were charred. The floor of one room was splattered with blood. Hospital officials said the intensive care unit, operating room and oncology department were damaged.

US President Joe Biden signed an executive order on Wednesday restricting investments in China, intended to further stymie China's advances in three cutting-edge technology areas: semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies and certain artificial intelligence systems. The "decoupling" of high tech from China began under Donald Trump, and the Biden administration has continued that ambition. However, the new order doesn't target US investments already invested in China, but the new ones. The Biden administration has repeatedly claimed that the US restrictions will be narrowly targeted and will not "have a fundamental impact on affecting the investment climate for China." Biden's new executive order is still subject to consultation with the US business community and the public and is not expected to take effect until next year. The order has been brewed for a long time and has generated a lot of publicity. But almost no one believes that this executive order will deal a new practical blow to Chinese high technology, because almost everyone knows that China needs American technology more than American money. The order has gained much attention because it is seen as part of a broader trend of the US drifting away from China. The promulgation and brewing process of the executive order reflects the strong desire of American political elites to suppress China's high-tech development, as well as a fierce game between those supporting the executive order and the concerns of the technology and economic sectors about a potential backfire on the US. It is a kind of compromise. Washington obviously hopes that major allies will follow Biden's executive order. The UK's Sunak government has made cautious statements, stating that it is consulting business and the financial sector before deciding whether to follow suit. In fact, China also has the ability to influence the extent to which Biden's executive order is implemented, as well as the extent to which the US will go in terms of "decoupling" from China. We are definitely not just passive recipients of US policies. American political elites are eager to "decouple" from China as quickly and deeply as possible, but they fear two things: First, this will immediately damage the performance of relevant high-tech companies in the US, undermine their influence and further innovation. The current Biden administration, in particular, does not want to incur strong resentment from Silicon Valley and Wall Street toward the escalating "decoupling," which will ultimately lead to the loss of support for the Democratic Party. Second, they are afraid of pushing China toward more resolute independent innovation to achieve breakthroughs in key technologies such as chips. If the US "decoupling" policy gives birth to major technological achievements in China, it means that Washington will completely lose the gamble: They originally wants to stifle China's high-tech development, but ends up strangling their own companies. What China needs to do next is to fully unleash our innovation vitality, continuously reduce our dependence on high-tech products from the US, and prove that as long as we are determined to achieve independent innovation, we have the ability to accomplish things. We need to prove that being pressured by the US will only make us stronger. As long as there are several solid proofs of this trend, the US policy community will fall into unprecedented chaos, and their panic will be much more severe than when they saw the rapid expansion of the Chinese economy before Trump started the trade war. Regardless of the future of China-US relations, the current battle will be the key battle that determines the future competition between China and the US. China can only win and cannot afford to lose. High-tech products such as chips are not isolated. The innovation power of China's entire manufacturing industry and the creative vitality of the whole society are the foundation for shaping these key achievements. When pressured by the US, our society needs to generate confidence and resilience from all directions, and we need to accelerate and seize every opportunity, rather than shrink and simply defend. Otherwise, the US will gain the upper hand in momentum, and we will truly be in a passive and defensive position. We must see that the US is on the offensive, but its offensive is becoming weaker and weaker, and it is always hesitant with each step. What is presented to China are difficulties and risks, but also the dawn of victory.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared at the Munich Security Conference: "If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu." The arrogant thinking of American political elites is evident: Whoever does not comply with the US will be excluded from the table of the American-led system and put on the menu. How arrogant. The US is actively pushing for "decoupling" from China and trying to persuade the entire West to "decouple" from China, using the term "de-risking." Washington hopes to ultimately contain China's development in order to maintain American hegemony. However, this time, Washington is facing a historically experienced and strategically rich Eastern civilization. Previous opponents targeted by the US have chosen to confront the US strategically. The US not only has the strongest technological and military capabilities but also controls global financial and information networks with a large number of allies. Those countries that had engaged in direct confrontations had suffered losses. Some of them had disintegrated, some had been weakened, and some had fallen into difficulties. However, what Washington sees from China is strategic composure and resilience. China is now staging an unprecedented and grand "Tai Chi." However, some Chinese people feel that this is not enough: Why can't we confront the US head-on? But I want to say that this is precisely the brilliance of China. This grand "Tai Chi" is about dismantling the pressure the US is putting on China. Europe is different from the US. A European diplomat once said in private that the topic of China has become toxic in the US, but in Europe, it is still possible to openly display friendliness toward China. There is genuine competition between the Europe and China despite Europe leans more toward the US between China and the US. Only in terms of ideology does the term "West" truly exist. In terms of fundamental economic interests, Europe has considerable independence. In terms of security, their attitude toward China also differs greatly from that of the US. In the Asia-Pacific region or China's periphery, the US wants to create an "Asian NATO." The specific situations of countries in dispute with China are very different. China has enormous influence in the region, is the largest trading partner of the vast majority of countries in the region and has friendly relations with most countries in the region. The disputes with countries are not fundamental strategic conflicts, and China has the ability to manage disputes with each specific country and push them to move toward neutrality to varying degrees without being tied to the US' policy toward China. China has a lot of trading partners and stakeholders in the US. The trade volume between China and the US, despite the decline, reached $664.4 billion in 2023, which shows China's huge presence in the US, and is the bond of the two countries in the current situation. The US is not a country where the political elites can have absolute say, and the huge interests have forced the US president and senior officials to repeatedly proclaim that they "don't want to decouple from China" and instead they want to "manage the US-China competition" and see "preventing a war with China" as clearly in everyone's best interest. China should engage in a "strategic battle" with the US at the closest possible distance. We need to maintain friendly relations with certain forces within the US, speed up the resumption of flights between the two countries, increase personnel exchanges and completely reverse the downturn of China-US contacts during the pandemic. In addition to the above dismantling, we also have the huge increment in the "Belt and Road." This initiative will increase China's power to compete with the US, greatly extending the front line that the US needs to maintain in containing China, making the US more powerless. In order to dismantle the US strategy toward China, China must become more diversified while maintaining strategic consistency. Our national diplomacy toward the US is very principled, rational and determined, which is clearly different from other countries targeted by the US. Our public diplomacy toward the US needs to be unique, with both "anti-American voices" and efforts to maintain friendly relations between the two societies and further expand economic and practical cooperation with the US. Just as eagles have their own way of flying and doves have their own formation, just as we see the US as complex, China must also be seen as complex in the eyes of the US. China is both a geopolitical concern and a profitable investment destination for them, and is one of the largest trading partners that is difficult to replace. Some American political elites proclaim China as an "enemy," but it is important to make the majority of Americans feel that China is not. No matter how intense the struggles between China and the US may be, we cannot shape the entire US toward an enemy direction. China has to make the US political elites recognize that it is futile to deal with China in the same way as it historically dealt with the Soviet Union and other major powers. Furthermore, willingly or unwillingly, coexistence and cooperation with China will be their only choice.

Australia pledged on Tuesday to increase investment in Pacific island nations, offering A$6.3 million ($4.3 million) to support their financial systems. Some Western banks are cutting ties with the region because of risk factors, while China is trying to increase its influence there. Some Western bankers have terminated long-standing banking relationships with small Pacific nations, while others are considering closing operations and restricting access to dollar-denominated bank accounts in those countries. "We know that the Pacific is the fastest-moving region in the world for correspondent banking services," Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers said in a speech at the Pacific Banking Forum in Brisbane. "What's at stake here is the Pacific's ability to engage with the world," he said, with much of the region at risk of being cut off from the global financial system. Chalmers said Australia would provide A$6.3 million ($4.3 million) to the Pacific to develop secure digital identity infrastructure and strengthen compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing requirements. Experts say Western banks are de-risking to meet financial regulations, making it harder for them to do business in Pacific island nations, where compliance standards sometimes lag, undermining their financial resilience. Australia's ANZ Bank is in talks with governments about how to make its Pacific island businesses more profitable amid concerns about rising Chinese influence as financial services leave the West, Chief Executive Shayne Elliott said Tuesday. ANZ is the largest bank in the Pacific region, with operations in nine countries, though some of those businesses are not financially sustainable, Elliott said in an interview on the sidelines of the forum. "If we were there purely for commercial purposes, we would have closed it a long time ago," he said. Western countries, which have traditionally dominated the Pacific, are increasingly concerned about China's plans to expand its influence in the region after it signed several major defense, trade and financial agreements with the region. Bank of China signed an agreement with Nauru this year to explore opportunities in the country, following Australia's Bendigo Bank saying it would withdraw from the country. Mr. Chalmers said Australia was working with Nauru to ensure that banking services in the country could continue. ANZ Bank exited its retail business in Papua New Guinea in recent years, while Westpac considered selling its operations in Fiji and Papua New Guinea but decided to keep them. The Pacific lost about 80% of its correspondent banking relationships for dollar-denominated services between 2011 and 2022, Australian Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones told the forum, which was co-hosted by Australia and the United States. “We would be very concerned if there were countries acting in the region whose primary objective was to advance their own national interests rather than the interests of Pacific island countries,” Mr. Jones said on the first day of the forum in Brisbane. He made the comment when asked about Chinese banks filling a vacuum in the Pacific. Meanwhile, Washington is stepping up efforts to support Pacific island countries in limiting Chinese influence. "We recognize the economic and strategic importance of the Pacific region, and we are committed to deepening engagement and cooperation with our allies and partners to enhance financial connectivity, investment and integration," said Brian Nelson, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for Counterterrorism and Financial Intelligence. The United States is aware of the problem of Western banks de-risking in the Pacific region and is committed to addressing it, Nelson told the forum's participants. He said data showed that the number of correspondent banking relationships in the Pacific region has declined at twice the global average rate over the past decade, and the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank are developing plans to improve correspondent banking relationships. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in a video address to the forum on Monday (July 8) that the United States is focused on supporting economic resilience in the Pacific region, including by strengthening access to correspondent banks. She said that when President Biden and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese met at the White House last year, they particularly emphasized the importance of increasing economic connectivity, development and opportunities in the Pacific region, and a key to achieving that goal is to ensure that people and businesses in the region have access to the global financial system.

A couple of days ago, a Quad summit meeting in Sydney scheduled for May 24 was abruptly canceled. The US president had to pull out of his long-anticipated trip to Australia and Papua New Guinea. Instead, the heads of the four Quad member states got together on the margins of the G7 Summit in Hiroshima on May 20. The main reason for the change of plans was the continuous struggle between the White House and Republicans on the Hill over the national debt ceiling. If no compromise is reached, the US federal government might fail to meet its financial commitments already in June; such a technical default would have multiple negative repercussions for the US, as well as for the global economy and finance at large. Let us hope that a compromise between the two branches of US power will be found and that the ceiling of the national debt will be raised once again. However, this rather awkward last-minute cancellation of the Quad summit reflects a fundamental US problem - a growing imbalance between the US geopolitical ambitions and the fragility of the national financial foundation to serve these ambitions. The Biden administration appears to be fully committed to bringing humankind back to the unipolar world that existed right after the end of the Cold War some 30 years ago, but the White House no longer has enough resources at its disposal to sustain such an undertaking. As they say in America: You cannot not have champagne on a beer budget. The growing gap between the ends that the US seeks in international relations and the means that it has available is particularly striking in the case of the so-called dual containment policy that Washington now pursues toward Russia and China. Even half a century ago, when the US was much stronger in relative terms than it is today, the Nixon administration realized that containing both Moscow and Beijing simultaneously was not a good idea: "Dual containment" would imply prohibitively high economic costs for the US and would result in too many unpredictable political risks. The Nixon administration decided to focus on containing the Soviet Union as the most important US strategic adversary of the time. This is why Henry Kissinger flew to Beijing in July 1971 to arrange the first US-China summit in February 1972 leading to a subsequent rapid rapprochement between the two nations. In the early days of the Biden administration, it seemed that the White House was once again trying to avoid the unattractive "dual containment" option. The White House rushed to extend the New START in January 2021 and held an early US-Russia summit meeting five months later in Geneva. At that point many analysts predicted that Biden would play Henry Kissinger in reverse - that is he would try to peace with the relatively weaker opponent (Moscow) in order to focus on containing the stronger one (Beijing). However, after the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it became clear that no accommodation with the Kremlin was on Biden's mind any longer. Still, having decided to take a hard-line stance toward Moscow and to lead a broad Western coalition in providing military and economic assistance to Kiev, Washington has not opted for a more accommodative or at least a more flexible policy toward Beijing. On the contrary, over last year one could observe a continuous hardening of the US' China policy - including granting more political and military support to the Taiwan island, encouraging US allies and partners in Asia to increase their defense spending, engaging in more navel activities in the Pacific and imposing more technology sanctions on China. In the meantime, economic and social problems within the US are mounting. The national debt ceiling is only the tip of an iceberg - the future of the American economy is now clouded by high US Federal Reserve interest rates that slow down growth, feed unemployment and might well lead to a recession. Moreover, the US society remains split along the same lines it was during the presidency of Donald Trump. The Biden administration has clearly failed to reunite America: Many of the social, political, regional, ethnic and even generational divisions have got only deeper since January 2021. It is hard to imagine how a nation divided so deeply and along so many lines could demonstrate continuity and strategic vision in its foreign policy, or to allocate financial resources needed to sustain a visionary and consistent global leadership. Of course, the "dual containment" policy is not the only illustration of the gap between the US ambitions and its resources. The same gap inevitably pops up at every major forum that the US conducts with select groups of countries from the Global South - Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle East. The Biden administration has no shortage of arguments warning these countries about potential perils of cooperating with Moscow or Beijing, but it does not offer too many plausible alternatives that would showcase the US generosity, its strategic vision, and its true commitment to the burning needs of the US interlocutors. To cut it short, Uncle Sam brings lots of sticks to such meetings, but not enough carrots to win the audience. In sum, US foreign policy under President Joe Biden reminds people of a very advanced and highly sophisticated smartphone that has a rather weak battery, which is not really energy efficient. The proud owner of the gadget has to look perennially for a power socket in order not to have the phone running out of power at any inappropriate moment. Maybe the time has come for the smartphone owner to look for another model that would have fewer fancy apps, but a stronger and a more efficient battery, which will make the appliance more convenient and reliable.