When Parades Become Proclamations: Beijing, Bluster and the New Geopolitical Dance
Walk through central Beijing the morning after the spectacle and you will find more than confetti in the gutters. There are conversations—sharp, curious, sometimes frightened—about what the footage meant, and what it will mean for the rest of the world.
At a street stall near Qianmen, an elderly tea vendor named Mrs. Zhang sips a steaming cup and watches a looped clip of the parade on a tiny phone. “They made it look eternal,” she says, fingers stained with tea, eyes on the screen. “But power is like tea—boiling now, cooling later. Nothing stays hot forever.”
That image—the theatrical projection of state power, set against tableaux of intercontinental missiles, synchronized troops, and sleek new weapons—wasn’t just domestic pageantry. It was a diplomatic broadcast, a message to audiences at home and abroad: that the axis of influence in global affairs is shifting, and fast.
Flags, Formations and the New Coalition
In Tianjin, not far from Beijing, leaders and delegations shuffled through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit with a mixture of frank commerce and theatrical solidarity. Once dismissed as a sleepy, regional forum, the SCO now brings together a constellation of states that collectively wield serious economic and demographic weight.
Analysts estimate SCO members are responsible for roughly 30% of global GDP and together account for a sizable share of the world’s population—figures that matter in an era when geopolitical muscle increasingly follows economic heft. That numerical reality is part of why the gathering felt like more than a meet-and-greet: it was an attempt to knit alternative institutions and norms to the fabric of global governance.
“This is the attempt to show that multilateralism need not look a certain way,” says Dr. Amina Rahman, a political economist who has studied rising regional coalitions. “When powers like China and India move in concert—even if imperfectly—the calculus for Washington, Brussels and Tokyo changes.”
Not a Monolith, but Not a Sideshow
Make no mistake: the forces on display are not a lockstep alliance of identical aims. New Delhi’s handshake with Moscow—warm in photographs but transactional under the surface—illustrates that point. India buys Russian oil and refuses to be boxed entirely into any one camp. Pakistan, Central Asian republics and even some African and Middle Eastern partners watch with a mixture of interest and wariness.
“We are trading partners, not foot soldiers of anyone’s court,” says a senior Indian diplomat who asked not to be named. “Countries pursue their national interests—sometimes the map looks like alignment, sometimes like coincidence.”
Rhetoric, Reality and the Rules of the Game
Words weigh heavy in this moment. In speeches and policy papers, the language has shifted away from abstract liberal universalism toward “sovereignty,” “development cooperation,” and “non-interference”—phrases that ring differently depending on whether you sit in a small island state or a capitals’ defensive planning room.
China’s leader framed his vision as a call for a “reformed UN” and a multipolar world where the powerful institutions better represent a world that no longer mirrors the post-1945 architecture. He spoke of “rejuvenation” and warned against the “law of the jungle.”
Behind the rhetoric, Beijing has been busy building alternatives: the Belt and Road Initiative, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and a steady roll of trade deals. The aim is clear—create pathways for influence that don’t run through Washington, London, or Brussels.
But the Old Order Didn’t Retreat Without Leaving Scars
Washington’s recent turn inward—withdrawals from the Human Rights Council, reduced engagement with some multilateral bodies and a rip-and-restore approach to alliances—has left gaps. In practical terms, the U.S. remains an economic titan and security guarantor, but its selective embrace of international rules has created credibility costs in some quarters.
“If you pick and choose the rules, others will too,” notes Marco Bellini, a Brussels-based analyst. “We are already seeing a world where norms are contested and alliances are malleable.”
Between Conspiracy and Convenience: What These Partnerships Mean
It would be tempting—and comforting—to simplify the new arrangement as a neatly defined bloc poised to replace the U.S.-led system. The truth is messier. There are partnerships of convenience, points of friction and divergent long-term visions. Russia, China, North Korea: a tableau of mutual interests but also mutual suspicions.
“There is a lot of theatre,” says Dr. Mei Lin, a historian in Beijing. “But there are also real transfers of technology, trade flows and security cooperation that underpin those scenes. That is what policymakers really look at.”
Consider the case of dual-use technology transfers and energy purchases: these are not romance—they are lifelines. Russian oil sales help keep Moscow’s economy afloat; China’s purchases and shipments feed industries and military modernization. These ties complicate the calculus for European policymakers scrambling to reconcile values with strategic realities.
Local Color, Global Consequences
In Vladivostok, a ferry captain mutters about shipping routes and fuel costs more than ideology. “We sell what they buy,” he says. “Politics changes, but ships still need bunkers. People still need to eat.”
On the other side of the map, a market vendor in Karachi worries about loans and infrastructure projects jammed with strings. “They build roads,” she says. “But who owns the tolls later?”
So What Should Europe—and the Rest of Us—Do?
Europe is at a crossroads. Some leaders call for strategic autonomy: investing in defence, creating resilient supply chains, and speaking with one voice on trade and human rights. Others urge caution, reminding us that raw geopolitical rivalry will reshape economies and livelihoods in ways that hit ordinary people hardest.
“If Europe wants to be a moral and geopolitical actor, it has to be consistent,” says Kaja Müller, a policy adviser in Brussels. “You cannot credibly call for rules-based order while appearing to apply double standards.”
And the wider question hangs in the air: what kind of world do we want? One where might makes rules, or one where multilateral institutions—reformed, inclusive and effective—mediate conflicts and distribute opportunities?
Ask yourself: do you want global governance run like a club with exclusive membership, or like a city square where different voices are heard and negotiated? The answer will shape the next decades of trade, security, technology and human rights.
Closing, for Now
The banners will come down, the missiles will be returned to hangars, and the footage will feed endless commentary. But beneath the visuals, deep and durable shifts are quietly unfolding—trade lines being rerouted, institutions reimagined, and alliances that are sometimes adhesive, sometimes brittle.
History will have the final say about whether this week marked the beginning of a new, stable order or simply a particularly vivid episode in an ongoing struggle for influence. For now, citizens and leaders alike must navigate a world that refuses simple binaries—where theatre and transaction, symbolism and strategy, collide on the same stage.
How are you reading the signals? And more importantly, how will your country answer the questions being asked in capitals from Beijing to Brussels?
