Edited by Editorial Spectrum.

«--[¡¤ Preface ¡¤]--»

At the annual meeting of the Russian Vardy Club, a shocking global proposal was put forward, the formation of a new "Group of Ten Countries (G10)", led by China, Russia and India, this idea immediately sparked media attention, Bloomberg, Reuters and others have.

Even more striking is the reaction of the G7 (i.e. the traditional group of great powers such as the United States, Japan, Germany) who chose complete silence without any official response or refutation, as if the proposal did not exist at all.

It is this ¡°silence¡± that makes the world¡¯s political atmosphere even more tense, and many people can¡¯t help but ask: is this contempt, or deep inner distress?

It should be understood that the idea of G10 is not just as simple as adding a few more members. Its subversiveness lies not in the change of the number of people, but in completely rewriting the rules of global governance.

Its core goal is to fundamentally change the existing rules of the game, take away the dominance of global governance from western countries, and make countries in the global south, especially China, Russia, India and other powers with rising economies, become new "group owners".

At present, the rules of global governance are dominated by G7 and G20. The G7 is regarded as a product of the post-Cold War, which gradually becomes outdated and powerless. Its legitimacy and representativeness have long been questioned by many people. Although the G20 is more inclusive than the G7 and has joined more countries, the West still firmly controls the core decision-making power.

The reality is that more than half of the world¡¯s economic growth comes from non-Western countries, where 70% of the world¡¯s population lives, where the focus of the economy and population has long shifted to these emerging markets, but where the power of speech is very limited at the decision-making table of global governance.

This status quo of "big contributions, little words" is the most fundamental reason for the G10 concept, which is not a simple adjustment of the existing G7 structure, but a complete decentralization and multipolarization, seeking to change the core mentality of the global power structure.

It represents the awakening of the countries of the "Global South" and is a strong response to the current unfair situation. If China, Russia and India can really form a cooperation model, the impact on the existing global discourse system will be far-reaching and unprecedented.

Even more interesting is the fact that this shocking global ¡°G10¡± concept was not proposed by an official representative of a country, but by the founder of the Global Thinking Group (CCG), which is not a simple background, and its remarks immediately attracted high attention in the Western world.

As a governing unit of the "Belt and Road" think tank alliance, CCG also maintains long-term stable cooperation with many government departments and policy research institutions in China, and the research reports it publishes are always officially recognized and adopted.

When the CCG spoke on a third-party platform like Russia, Western media immediately smelled a different flavor, the proposal apparently more than an academic exploration, it was more like a ¡°fuzzy diplomacy¡± operation behind China.

Its brilliance lies in the fact that this ¡°ambiguity¡± neither directly represents the government nor constitutes a clear official position, leaving enough strategic spin-off space to both ¡°attack¡± and ¡°retreat¡±.

This ambiguity just hurts the heads of Western policymakers, and in the face of official Chinese statements, the West can refute according to practice, but this suggestion initiated by the think tank, on the other hand, makes it more difficult to respond.

It doesn¡¯t speak directly, but it conveys a clear direction: China is trying to reshape the global governance pattern, and on the complex table of international politics, every idea put forward by the think tank or unofficial channels is often seen as a potential prequel to action.

Western media are obviously aware that the proposal may mean some upcoming change. It is not only a challenge to the status quo, but also a "test of the water." Is China prepared to change the global governance system through this indirect approach?

Faced with the great challenge of G10's conception in the global political field, why didn't G7 choose to fight back publicly, but instead chose silence?

The answer may be troubling: it¡¯s not about not wanting to counteract, it¡¯s about not being able to counteract, and the G7¡¯s collective silence is more of a defensive strategy caused by internal cracks and strategic passivity.

A senior European diplomat said, ¡°Open refutation of this idea will only be counterproductive, giving it more exposure and legitimacy,¡± so being silent and not empowering each other became their cautious defense tactic.

This seemingly calm reaction actually exposes the deep cracks and strategic difficulties within the G7, and if the G7 is to jointly counteract, it must first unite its stance, but the fact is that the G7 has long ceased to be a piece of iron.

The tariff war under Trump¡¯s rule, as well as the industrial subsidy policies launched, have completely put the economic contradiction between the United States and Europe into the spotlight.

Today, the unity of the G7 is like a crack, full of cracks: Germany is concerned about the outflow of industry, France is calling for ¡°strategic autonomy¡± between China and the United States, while Japan is unstable in key high-tech areas, a division that makes any tough unified expression almost impossible.

The ¡°G10 Concept¡± as a mirror depicts the rising strength and confidence of the global South, but also clearly reveals the weakness and profound cracks of the old system dominated by the West, and the ¡°silent diplomacy¡± of the West may be able to temporarily avoid positive conflict, but it is only a tactical delay.

Whether or not the G10 concept eventually falls to the ground, the debate and competition for the new paradigm of global governance it has triggered has been quietly opened up.

This contest around the global governance order is destined to become an irreversible core trend in future international relations, and the silence of G7 will only make this trend more and more obvious.