Opinion | How the US has shifted the fulcrum on Ukraine to be 'China's Problem'

By Tom Fowdy

Starting around April 2024, the United States, backed by tactical leaks to the mainstream media, began to accuse China of extensively backing Russia in its war on Ukraine. Although the previous line the US had set from the war's outbreak in 2022 merely demanded China refrained from "direct military support," albeit always to put pressure on Moscow, this new line now began to accuse Beijing of being an "indirect supplier" in the form of critical components and other parts. In other words, the US had now moved to attacking China's trade with Russia as a general rule, and also threatening sanctions accordingly.

With it, the narrative has been effectively consolidated that Beijing, despite always being a neutral player, is effectively aligned with Moscow anyway. In line with this shift, Ukraine itself has also hardened its stance on China with Zelensky calling out Beijing directly. In addition to that, this shift also marked a new hardening of Britain's (Who we must assess as the most Anti-Russian, Pro-Ukraine player in Europe)position on China, with the government deciding to publicly scapegoat Beijing for multiple cyberattacks and then also pursue a wave of arrests and charges on espionage-related matters. Hence Rishi Sunak at G7, soon to be former Prime Minister, demanded that China "must pay."

This is an important geopolitical shift, not only because it marks a change in rhetoric from the US and UK, but also because it is marking a change in strategy too. There are several reasons behind it:

Forcing a "lose-lose" scenario for China

Throughout the course of the war, western leaders have stubbornly and perhaps delusionally, stuck to the talking point that Ukraine must completely defeat Russia, and have resisted calls for any settlement at all costs. Previous setbacks such as Ukraine's 2023 failed counteroffensive are ignored and swept under the carpet, and any doubts about aid faltering are responded to with a doubling down. Even if Ukraine cannot regain its territories, it is obvious the long-term strategy is now to make the war as costly for Russia as possible. Moscow has shown an inability to completely defeat Ukraine, with mainstream media alarmism often being exaggerated to push for continued aid. The idea of putting more pressure on China is thus designed to state, "The longer this goes on, the more this will hurt you" thus forcing China into making lose-lose choices.

Two Birds, One Stone

Recognizing of course that China is not going to give in its position on Russia, the US clearly sees geopolitical gain by tying Beijing into Moscow's war, and thus "killing two birds with one stone." China cannot abandon its strategic partnership with Russia and simply allow it to "lose" the war to suit US interests, which will weaken its own position on multiple fronts. Therefore, is happy to prolong the conflict with the goal of dragging China into the quagmire as it allows it to advance further sanctions against its critical industries and more importantly to undermine Beijing's relationship with the European Union, something it has long sought to destroy.

This, as noted above, is another reason why the US is happy to reject a compromise of peace at all costs and keep the war ticking over. Russia and China don't have a way out, save Moscow can completely defeat Ukraine, and otherwise, the US is happy to keep bleeding them in the process to draw out the costs for as long as possible. Likewise, the US continues to strengthen NATO as an institution, force European nations to adopt their own strategic objectives, shape the international context as a "battle between democracy and authoritarianism" and thus adopt support for other issues such as Taiwan and the South China Sea.

What can China do?

This whole situation is designed to put Beijing in a difficult position. If China were to step in and effectively "win" the war on behalf of Russia, this would be a strategic misstep allowing the US, forcing its allies to follow, to impose massive pre-emptive sanctions on Beijing. This is not tenable. On the other hand, if China was to step in and therefore "stop" Russia's war accordingly, the favor would not be returned, it would be geopolitically and strategically weakened, facing a new pro-west Russian state, and the US would simply advance its own containment. This means Beijing has little other option than to be geopolitically ambivalent, stand its own ground and insist on a balanced settlement. The US and UK have set traps and are using this war as a game to advance their hegemony. It must be treated with extreme caution.

The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:

Opinion | The Reuters Revelations on China's Vaccine Campaign is what I told you years ago

Opinion | The politicization of tragedy and the Jilin stabbings

Opinion | How the US uses arbitrary supply chain laws to undercut China

Opinion | The study on British media negativity pertaining to China is the tip of the iceberg