Posted on Mar 9, 2023
China’s strategic future may also run through Ukraine
60.1K
58
24
20
20
0
A policy debate is unfolding in Washington DC. A debate that is framed as a choice between supporting the war in Ukraine versus deterring and/or denying the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in any action it may take against Taiwan.
On the one hand, there’s no doubt the United States’ support to Ukraine has significantly depleted US stockpiles and other war reserves. On the other hand, there is equally no doubt China is the pacing actor for US national security. China is not only building its military to challenge the United States but also has the second largest economy in the world. In fact, according to a recent report by Goldman Sachs, China’s gross domestic product is poised to surpass that of the United States by 2035. We have never faced this kind of strategic challenge – even during the Cold War with Soviet Union.
This Washington debate suggests that our strategic competitors – Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin – make similar distinctions in their strategic objectives.
Well…they do not.
But don’t take my word for it. We will settle this debate through the actions that Xi and Putin are poised to jointly execute in Ukraine.
In the last couple of weeks, we have learned the Biden Administration is contemplating the release of intelligence that shows China may provide direct lethal aid to Russia in its war in Ukraine. According to an NBC News report, the lethal aid under consideration includes ammunition and artillery.
This comes as, just one-year ago, Xi and Putin entered a long-term, strategic alliance – declaring in the 5,000-word agreement “a new era in global order” and describing the two countries’ friendship as “having no limits.” Putin lauded the broad, strategic partnership with China as “unprecedented.” Xi said their joint strategy would have a “far-reaching influence on China, Russia, and the world.”
This alliance between China and Russia suggests that Xi and Putin do not adhere to distinctions in their strategic relationship.
So, why should we?
Through this strategic agreement, Xi and Putin – the world’s leading autocrats – are positioned to not only challenge the global security paradigm but also the existing political order. Robert Daly, Director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States at the Wilson Center provided an even more ominous warning: “This is a pledge to stand shoulder to shoulder against America and the West, ideologically as well as militarily…This statement might be looked back on as the beginning of Cold War Two.”
Regardless of whether we frame this new, joint challenge from China and Russia as a “new Cold War” or “great power competition” or “strategic competition,” these are just Washington DC words for a challenge that is global, risking fundamental change to the world order, and existential in nature for the United States and the West.
The war in Ukraine should be understood through this macro prism.
Indeed, through China’s potential lethal support to Russia in Ukraine, one could surmise the CCP sees its strategic future, in part, through Ukraine – by becoming the arbiter of how the Ukrainian battlefield is ultimately shaped for any future negotiations and serving as the guarantor of any negotiated outcome.
In fact, the CCP has put forward a plan for ending the war in Ukraine. And while “President Biden and other top US officials have said China’s proposal is ‘one-sided and only benefits Russia,’ President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine has said that China’s engagement on a potential peace plan ‘is not bad.’”
Outcomes in Ukraine shaped and underwritten by China would most certainly be at the expense of the United States and NATO.
We must understand that Ukraine and Taiwan are, strategically speaking, interconnected challenges because the instigators of the conflict in Ukraine – Russia and increasingly China – may well be allied in any future conflict in Taiwan.
This is because the way in which China and Russia see the world is through the prism of doing everything it takes to degrade US power and supplant it as a global leader.
Therefore, for US policy, it should not be one or the other when it comes to China and Russia.
It must be both.
Alex Gallo is the author of “Vetspective,” a RallyPoint series that discusses national security, foreign policy, politics, and society. Alex also serves as the Executive Director of the Common Mission Project, a 501c3, that delivers an innovation and entrepreneurship program, Hacking for Defense®, which brings together the government, universities, and the private sector to solve the strategic challenges. He is also a fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute, an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, and a US Army Veteran. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexGalloCMP.
On the one hand, there’s no doubt the United States’ support to Ukraine has significantly depleted US stockpiles and other war reserves. On the other hand, there is equally no doubt China is the pacing actor for US national security. China is not only building its military to challenge the United States but also has the second largest economy in the world. In fact, according to a recent report by Goldman Sachs, China’s gross domestic product is poised to surpass that of the United States by 2035. We have never faced this kind of strategic challenge – even during the Cold War with Soviet Union.
This Washington debate suggests that our strategic competitors – Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin – make similar distinctions in their strategic objectives.
Well…they do not.
But don’t take my word for it. We will settle this debate through the actions that Xi and Putin are poised to jointly execute in Ukraine.
In the last couple of weeks, we have learned the Biden Administration is contemplating the release of intelligence that shows China may provide direct lethal aid to Russia in its war in Ukraine. According to an NBC News report, the lethal aid under consideration includes ammunition and artillery.
This comes as, just one-year ago, Xi and Putin entered a long-term, strategic alliance – declaring in the 5,000-word agreement “a new era in global order” and describing the two countries’ friendship as “having no limits.” Putin lauded the broad, strategic partnership with China as “unprecedented.” Xi said their joint strategy would have a “far-reaching influence on China, Russia, and the world.”
This alliance between China and Russia suggests that Xi and Putin do not adhere to distinctions in their strategic relationship.
So, why should we?
Through this strategic agreement, Xi and Putin – the world’s leading autocrats – are positioned to not only challenge the global security paradigm but also the existing political order. Robert Daly, Director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States at the Wilson Center provided an even more ominous warning: “This is a pledge to stand shoulder to shoulder against America and the West, ideologically as well as militarily…This statement might be looked back on as the beginning of Cold War Two.”
Regardless of whether we frame this new, joint challenge from China and Russia as a “new Cold War” or “great power competition” or “strategic competition,” these are just Washington DC words for a challenge that is global, risking fundamental change to the world order, and existential in nature for the United States and the West.
The war in Ukraine should be understood through this macro prism.
Indeed, through China’s potential lethal support to Russia in Ukraine, one could surmise the CCP sees its strategic future, in part, through Ukraine – by becoming the arbiter of how the Ukrainian battlefield is ultimately shaped for any future negotiations and serving as the guarantor of any negotiated outcome.
In fact, the CCP has put forward a plan for ending the war in Ukraine. And while “President Biden and other top US officials have said China’s proposal is ‘one-sided and only benefits Russia,’ President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine has said that China’s engagement on a potential peace plan ‘is not bad.’”
Outcomes in Ukraine shaped and underwritten by China would most certainly be at the expense of the United States and NATO.
We must understand that Ukraine and Taiwan are, strategically speaking, interconnected challenges because the instigators of the conflict in Ukraine – Russia and increasingly China – may well be allied in any future conflict in Taiwan.
This is because the way in which China and Russia see the world is through the prism of doing everything it takes to degrade US power and supplant it as a global leader.
Therefore, for US policy, it should not be one or the other when it comes to China and Russia.
It must be both.
Alex Gallo is the author of “Vetspective,” a RallyPoint series that discusses national security, foreign policy, politics, and society. Alex also serves as the Executive Director of the Common Mission Project, a 501c3, that delivers an innovation and entrepreneurship program, Hacking for Defense®, which brings together the government, universities, and the private sector to solve the strategic challenges. He is also a fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute, an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, and a US Army Veteran. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexGalloCMP.
China
Ukraine
Foreign Policy
Edited 1 y ago
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 13
8
8
0
You cover a lot of area very quickly sir. In my opinion we need to be able to take on 3 major actions at one time or we are toast: in my mind that is two actions worldwide and one in the Western Hemisphere at the same time.
To think of equivalent actions of the Cold War in today’s world would be a mistake in my opinion. In my mind we are currently in an area somewhere above Cold War status and below physical war. In any case we need to be 100% ready to fight in any direction. Are we?
I believe one of the biggest mistakes we made was putting ourselves at a disadvantage of implementing economic war against Russia. I see desirability of it to our weak politicians who can say “I will not put boots on the ground”. That’s sort of amusing because all of us here understand that most of our politicians (especially Democrats) don’t really care about us. In reality, what we did in starting economic war against Russia is to put all our people through economic pain. To my understanding even through the World Wars we never waged economic war like this. Why did I say we put ourselves at disadvantage? Because Communists care nothing for their people so they don’t have to worry about keeping them happy, we do.
I agree that we must be ready, not just with military and weapons, but also with energy. What are our emergency reserves at these days? If it’s not at 100% we are in trouble. MHO
To think of equivalent actions of the Cold War in today’s world would be a mistake in my opinion. In my mind we are currently in an area somewhere above Cold War status and below physical war. In any case we need to be 100% ready to fight in any direction. Are we?
I believe one of the biggest mistakes we made was putting ourselves at a disadvantage of implementing economic war against Russia. I see desirability of it to our weak politicians who can say “I will not put boots on the ground”. That’s sort of amusing because all of us here understand that most of our politicians (especially Democrats) don’t really care about us. In reality, what we did in starting economic war against Russia is to put all our people through economic pain. To my understanding even through the World Wars we never waged economic war like this. Why did I say we put ourselves at disadvantage? Because Communists care nothing for their people so they don’t have to worry about keeping them happy, we do.
I agree that we must be ready, not just with military and weapons, but also with energy. What are our emergency reserves at these days? If it’s not at 100% we are in trouble. MHO
(8)
(0)
7
7
0
4
4
0
It is a mistake for Russia to trust China or China to trust Russia. It is a mistake for any of the free world to trust either one of them
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
They are Communist family. They won't trust one another but they will work together.
(1)
(0)
SPC Suzie Clary
The US dark ops had over 30 bioweapons labs on Russian border in Ukraine.
NATO has broken treaty w Russia by encroaching on their borders.
Taiwan has over 200 US dark ops bioweapons labs and sites.
Things have changed. Do not believe what we've been taught.
Russia was an ally until Project Paperclip... what happened?
What was Xi (not CCP), Putin (not KGB types), and Trump (not CIA)
all working on together?
What was JFK working on when he was brought down?
All of them, the same thing. The next 3.5 months are going to be hairy. But it must happen for our freedom, to see the true American blueprint come to fruition.
NATO has broken treaty w Russia by encroaching on their borders.
Taiwan has over 200 US dark ops bioweapons labs and sites.
Things have changed. Do not believe what we've been taught.
Russia was an ally until Project Paperclip... what happened?
What was Xi (not CCP), Putin (not KGB types), and Trump (not CIA)
all working on together?
What was JFK working on when he was brought down?
All of them, the same thing. The next 3.5 months are going to be hairy. But it must happen for our freedom, to see the true American blueprint come to fruition.
(0)
(0)
SPC Gary C.
SP5 Dennis Loberger I'm sorry if this is off the topic of your post.
I can remember when the Soviet Union was the "Big Brother" and China was the "Little Brother". In your opinion when was the switch made ? When Gorbachev came to power, or when the USSR/Warsaw Pact broke up ?
SFC (Join to see) I feel that what you said is right, they are just like any family, or like has been said about the Military/Civilian, we can fight or mess with each other, but when someone from the outside comes around trying to start something we band together, ie like right after 9/11 the whole country came together (and I felt that 99% of the world knew that, and knew not to try anything), I think that's how it is with them now.
I can remember when the Soviet Union was the "Big Brother" and China was the "Little Brother". In your opinion when was the switch made ? When Gorbachev came to power, or when the USSR/Warsaw Pact broke up ?
SFC (Join to see) I feel that what you said is right, they are just like any family, or like has been said about the Military/Civilian, we can fight or mess with each other, but when someone from the outside comes around trying to start something we band together, ie like right after 9/11 the whole country came together (and I felt that 99% of the world knew that, and knew not to try anything), I think that's how it is with them now.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google