This is a follow-up to the last two posts, because once you zoom out far enough, the question stops being just “what the fuck is Trump doing” or “what the fuck is Mamdani going to do” and becomes something even bigger and more damning. What the fuck are Russia and China doing. Or more accurately, what the fuck are they not doing. Because as the United States barrels forward with open, mask-off imperialism, as it launches attacks, drags foreign leaders into sham proceedings, and treats international law like a suggestion, the so-called counterweights to US power are mostly just sitting there. Watching. Issuing statements. Clearing their throats. And then doing absolutely fucking nothing.
Badempanada has been hammering this point for months, even years, and the longer this goes on, the harder it is to ignore. We are constantly told that we live in a multipolar world now. That US hegemony is declining. That Russia and China represent an alternative bloc. That they will somehow balance out American imperial excess. But when the moment comes, when a country like Venezuela is openly targeted, invaded, destabilized, humiliated, and used as a geopolitical prop, the response from these “rival powers” is… strong words. Condemnations. Carefully phrased concern. Diplomatic language so sterile it might as well be written by an AI trained exclusively on press releases.
And before anyone starts frothing at the mouth, let me be clear about what I am not saying. I am not saying Russia or China should start World War III. I am not saying they should launch missiles or invade anyone. I am not saying escalation for escalation’s sake is good. That’s the lazy, bad-faith interpretation people always jump to when you criticize inaction. No. What I am saying is that there is a massive amount of space between “do nothing” and “start a global war,” and it is absolutely infuriating that Russia and China seem committed to occupying the laziest, safest, most cowardly end of that spectrum.
Because let’s be real. There is so much shit they could be doing.
They could be offering real, material support to countries facing US aggression. Economic aid. Infrastructure investment that actually helps people, not just extractive deals. Legal backing in international courts. Coordinated diplomatic pressure that goes beyond one-off statements. Humanitarian assistance that undermines the narrative that the US and its allies are the only ones who “care” about stability. They could be using their media ecosystems to aggressively counter US propaganda instead of occasionally mumbling about hypocrisy. They could be building actual coalitions of resistance rather than pretending that quiet patience is a strategy.
But they don’t. They sit back. They wait. They hedge. They calculate. And in doing so, they leave smaller countries hanging out to dry.
Let’s just say it plainly, because dancing around it hasn’t helped anyone understand the problem. China and Russia, in practice, behave like centrist fucking Democrats on the global stage. Not in aesthetics, not in ideology, not in rhetoric, but in function. In behavior. In instincts. In how they respond when power is abused in broad daylight. They posture. They scold. They issue statements. They warn about norms. And when it comes time to actually do something that might cost them comfort, stability, or leverage, they freeze. Or worse, they choose inaction and call it prudence.
If that sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve all watched this movie in American politics for decades.
Centrist Democrats are masters of condemnation without consequence. They are experts at saying the right things in the wrong moments. “This is concerning.” “This is unacceptable.” “We must defend our values.” And then they proceed to do nothing that meaningfully alters the trajectory of events. Fascism rises? They fundraise. Rights are stripped away? They hold hearings. Wars are launched? They call for restraint after the bombs have already fallen. The performance of opposition replaces opposition itself.
That is exactly how China and Russia operate when confronted with US imperialism.
They love to talk about sovereignty. They love to talk about a rules-based order, especially when the rules are broken by Washington. They love to point out hypocrisy, and to be fair, the hypocrisy is real and deserves to be called out. But calling something hypocritical is not the same thing as stopping it. And just like centrist Democrats mistake moral language for moral action, China and Russia mistake critique for resistance.
This is what makes their behavior so infuriating. Because they have power. Real power. Economic power. Diplomatic power. Institutional power. The ability to shape outcomes if they actually chose to coordinate and act. And yet, they consistently choose the safest possible response. The response least likely to disrupt their own interests. The response most likely to preserve the status quo while pretending to oppose it.
That is centrist Democrat energy to its core.
Think about how Democrats often respond to Republican authoritarianism. They warn that democracy is at stake, then refuse to abolish the filibuster. They say the Supreme Court is out of control, then insist they can’t expand it because norms. They say Trump is uniquely dangerous, then bend over backwards to treat him like a normal political actor. They are obsessed with process even when the process is being weaponized against them. They are terrified of escalation even when de-escalation has already failed.
China and Russia do the same thing internationally. The US violates international law? They urge restraint. The US launches unilateral actions? They call for dialogue. The US weaponizes sanctions, courts, and institutions? They express concern about precedent. Everything is reactive. Everything is framed as a request, never a demand. Everything assumes good faith from an empire that has spent decades proving it has none.
And just like centrist Democrats, they justify this cowardice with appeals to realism.
“We must be careful.”
“We must avoid escalation.”
“We must consider long-term stability.”
Sound familiar? It should. Because it’s the same language used every time someone suggests actually using power to stop abuse. It’s the language of people who understand that something is wrong but are unwilling to risk anything to fix it. It’s the language of managed decline, not transformation.
What makes this comparison even sharper is how both groups benefit from the very system they claim to oppose.
Centrist Democrats benefit from a broken American system because it keeps them relevant as the “reasonable alternative.” They don’t want fascism, but they also don’t want radical change that might threaten donors, institutions, or their own positions. So they position themselves as the adults in the room while quietly ensuring that nothing fundamental shifts.
China and Russia do the same thing globally. They complain about US dominance, but they also benefit from predictable American behavior. They know how the US operates. They know how to hedge against it. They know how to profit from instability without taking responsibility for stopping it. A truly disrupted global order would be risky. It would require commitment. It would require choosing sides in ways that can’t be walked back with a press release.
So instead, they sit in the middle. Not neutral, but not committed. Not supportive of US imperialism, but not willing to seriously obstruct it either. They want the US to weaken itself over time, not to be actively challenged in moments of crisis. That’s not opposition. That’s opportunism.
And just like centrist Democrats, this approach consistently screws over the most vulnerable.
When Democrats refuse to fight hard, it’s marginalized communities who pay the price. When voting rights are eroded, when reproductive rights are stripped away, when policing goes unchecked, it’s not the politicians who suffer first. It’s everyone else. The same dynamic plays out globally. When China and Russia choose passivity, it’s smaller nations that get crushed. It’s countries like Venezuela that are isolated, sanctioned, invaded, and delegitimized while the supposed alternatives to US power watch from the sidelines.
The message is brutally clear. You are on your own.
And that’s exactly the message centrist Democrats send domestically. Don’t expect us to save you. Don’t expect us to go too far. Don’t expect us to risk political capital for your survival. We’ll speak up for you, but only as long as it doesn’t cost us anything meaningful.
Another key similarity is how both hide behind institutions that are already compromised.
Centrist Democrats love to defer to institutions even when those institutions are captured. They insist the courts will fix it. They insist norms will hold. They insist elections will solve everything, even when elections are being actively undermined. They treat institutional legitimacy as sacred even when legitimacy has already been hollowed out.
China and Russia do the same with international institutions. They defer to the UN even when the Security Council is paralyzed. They invoke international law even when enforcement is nonexistent. They appeal to processes they know will go nowhere, because the appeal itself creates the illusion of responsibility without requiring action. It’s institutional theater, not institutional resistance.
And to be clear, this is not about purity politics. This is about outcomes. The outcome of centrist Democrat behavior has been the steady normalization of authoritarianism in the US. The outcome of China and Russia’s behavior is the normalization of US imperial aggression globally. In both cases, the refusal to act decisively doesn’t prevent disaster. It just delays it while making it worse.
There’s also a deep, shared fear of losing control.
Centrist Democrats are terrified that if they actually unleash their power, things might spiral beyond their management. Movements might grow too strong. Demands might escalate. The base might expect more next time. So they keep expectations low and action limited.
China and Russia fear the same thing on a global scale. If they start materially supporting countries resisting US imperialism, where does it stop. What obligations does that create. What alliances solidify. What conflicts become unavoidable. So they choose ambiguity. They choose selective engagement. They choose to always have an exit ramp.
But history does not reward exit ramps in moments of moral crisis.
The final, and maybe most damning, similarity is that both genuinely believe they are being responsible.
Centrist Democrats sincerely think they are the adults in the room. That their caution is wisdom. That their restraint is maturity. China and Russia see themselves the same way. They believe they are avoiding chaos, avoiding war, avoiding collapse. And in the abstract, those are understandable goals. But when restraint consistently enables the most powerful actor to do whatever it wants, restraint stops being responsible. It becomes destructive.
There is nothing inherently virtuous about moderation in the face of violence. There is nothing inherently wise about caution when the alternative is unchecked domination. Sometimes, refusing to act is the most radical act of complicity imaginable.
So when I say China and Russia are like centrist fucking Democrats, I don’t mean it as a cheap insult. I mean it as a structural critique. They occupy the role of the perpetual hand-wringer. The perpetual scolder. The perpetual bystander who insists they oppose what’s happening while ensuring it continues.
And until that changes, until they are willing to move beyond statements and symbolism, beyond hedging and half-measures, they are not counterweights to US imperialism. They are just part of the same global machinery that allows it to function.
Different flags. Same cowardice.
This is what makes the comparison to establishment Democrats in the US so painfully accurate. Russia and China talk a big game about sovereignty, non-interference, and opposition to Western imperialism. And then, when imperialism actually shows up with boots, bombs, sanctions, and sham legal processes, they respond the same way a centrist Democrat responds to Republican fascism. With stern language and an implicit hope that someone else will deal with it.
We’ve seen this movie before. How many times have Democrats said “this is unacceptable” only to do nothing meaningful afterward. How many times have they warned about norms being eroded while refusing to actually enforce consequences. That exact same dynamic is playing out on the global stage. Russia and China posture as protectors of a new world order, but when push comes to shove, they behave like risk-averse bureaucrats terrified of rocking the boat.
And here’s the part that really pisses me off. This inaction isn’t neutral. It actively benefits US imperialism.
Every time the US acts aggressively and faces no meaningful resistance beyond words, it reinforces the idea that it can do whatever the fuck it wants. Every time a country like Venezuela is isolated, criminalized, and attacked without a coordinated global response, it sends a message to every other non-aligned country. You are on your own. No one is coming to help you. The rules don’t apply equally. Power decides everything.
Russia and China love to complain about a US-dominated international system, but they keep validating it by refusing to seriously challenge it when it matters. You don’t dismantle hegemony by politely disagreeing with it. You dismantle it by making it costly, complicated, and contested. And right now, US imperialism is none of those things. It is brazen because it is comfortable.
Take Venezuela specifically. This didn’t start yesterday. The US has been meddling, sanctioning, destabilizing, and threatening regime change for years. Trump’s latest move is just the most explicit escalation. If Russia and China were serious about opposing imperialism, Venezuela would be an obvious place to draw a line. Not militarily, but materially. Make it harder for sanctions to work. Make it harder for isolation to stick. Make it clear that targeting one country triggers a collective response, not just a shrug.
Instead, what we get is diplomatic theater. Carefully worded condemnations that change nothing on the ground. Statements designed more to preserve plausible deniability than to protect people. It’s all so fucking hollow.
And yes, I understand the arguments. I’ve heard them all. Russia and China have their own interests. They don’t want to provoke escalation. They’re playing the long game. They’re waiting for the US to overextend itself. Fine. But at some point, the long game just becomes an excuse for paralysis. At some point, caution becomes complicity. At some point, waiting for the “right moment” starts to look indistinguishable from not giving a shit.
Because here’s the brutal truth. If the only thing Russia and China are willing to do in response to US imperialism is talk, then they are not counter-hegemonic forces. They are just alternative elites jockeying for position within the same fundamentally broken system. They don’t oppose domination. They just want a bigger seat at the table.
And that should deeply disappoint anyone who hoped for something better than endless great-power cynicism.
This is especially enraging when you consider how much propaganda energy goes into presenting these countries as bold challengers to Western power. We’re constantly told that the US is afraid of them, that a new era is coming, that American dominance is on the decline. And yet, when the US openly violates norms, launches attacks, and uses the legal system as a weapon, the response is timid. Reactive. Defensive. It’s all bark, no bite.
Meanwhile, the people who suffer are not abstract geopolitical actors. They are regular people in countries caught in the crosshairs. They are communities destabilized by sanctions. They are civilians dealing with the fallout of aggression. They are activists, journalists, and organizers who see the so-called alternatives to US power fail them over and over again.
And don’t get it twisted. This is not me endorsing Russia or China as moral actors. They have their own authoritarian tendencies, their own abuses, their own imperial impulses. That’s precisely why this moment matters. If you’re going to claim the mantle of opposing US imperialism, you don’t get to selectively care only when it’s convenient. You don’t get to criticize from the sidelines while doing nothing that actually changes outcomes.
What we’re seeing right now is a world full of leaders who are very good at complaining and very bad at acting. Trump is dangerous because he acts without restraint. Russia and China are dangerous in a different way, because their passivity helps normalize that restraint-free behavior. Together, they create a global environment where power is unchecked and accountability is nonexistent.
And that’s the throughline connecting everything I’ve been writing about. Trump invades and escalates because he thinks he can. Congress understands this but hesitates. Courts drag their feet. Mayors face tests of spine. And globally, the supposed counterweights watch from a safe distance, hoping the storm doesn’t hit them next.
This is not how you stop imperialism. This is how you let it metastasize.
If Russia and China actually want to live in a world where the US cannot unilaterally dominate, they need to start acting like it. Not with bombs. With solidarity. With coordination. With real consequences. With visible, material support for countries under attack. Until then, all their talk about multipolarity is just branding.
And honestly, that’s the most depressing part. We are watching the same cowardice play out at every level. Domestic, municipal, national, global. Strong words. No action. Endless hand-wringing. And the people with the most power keep choosing safety over responsibility.
So yeah. Where the fuck are Russia and China. Because if this is the best they’ve got, then the world is in far worse shape than most people want to admit.