The U.S. media outlet "National Security Journal" published an article on August 14 stating that the key to preventing the Ukraine war lies not with Russia but with China.

The article means that China is the biggest strategic beneficiary of this conflict, and Russia has become more dependent on China due to sanctions, while the West has been weakened by the war.

The article argues that if the United States wants to get China to pressure Russia to make concessions, it must make significant and unacceptable compromises in the Indo-Pacific, including issues such as the Taiwan Strait.

The article's author thus presents an extended view: China's position in this war is somewhat like that of the United States during World War II, as a low-investment, high-reward last-minute interest harvester - deciding whether the Russia-Ukraine war stops, and taking over world leadership after the war.

Ukraine-Russia Conflict

The article compares China to the United States during World War II, based on three premises.

First, in World War II, European powers first exhausted themselves, and the United States later gained control of the order at a lower cost.

Now, the U.S. and Europe bear the main burden of funding and military supplies for Ukraine, while China, without participating in the war, can reap the benefits of containing the United States.

Second, due to energy and financial sanctions, Russia's reliance on China for raw materials exports, industrial components, consumer goods, and financial settlements has increased.

Third, external observers believe that the longer the war lasts, the greater the ammunition and fiscal pressure on the U.S. and Europe, while China has more time to expand its military forces in the Indo-Pacific direction, promote key technologies and industrial upgrading, similar to the trajectory of the United States during World War II, which used others' consumption to accelerate its own development.

Under these three factors combined, the analogy of China as the United States during World War II seems plausible: others bleed and are distracted, China gains a relatively safe growth window at a low cost, and has potential influence to shape the post-war order.

This narrative is easily spread in Western public opinion because it meets a psychological assumption: artificially linking the European battlefield with the Indo-Pacific competition, and directly projecting the progress or retreat of the Ukraine situation as a variable of the U.S.-China rivalry, so as to find political explanations for the reallocation of global resources by the United States.

Chinese and American Flags

But in fact, this is all nonsense.

First, China has clearly stated from the beginning that it will advocate for peace and dialogue, emphasizing the cessation of hostilities and political solutions, having proposed a position paper on the political solution of the crisis, and repeatedly conducted shuttle communications and mediation, emphasizing not to expand the war, not to escalate the conflict, and not to allow risks to spill over.

Second, China is not a party to the war, has not provided lethal weapons to the battlefield, has not joined the conflict in an alliance manner, and has not provided continuous hard support to one side through legislative and military aid mechanisms as the United States has done.

Normal trade being interpreted as "supporting the war" is itself a rhetorical trick.

Third, it is the West that started and prolonged the war. If you think China is benefiting, then why don't you stop fighting!

Attributing all of this to China's so-called "low input, high return" calculation equals outsourcing America's foreign strategic choices to China's motives, which makes no logical sense.

Ukraine-Russia Conflict

China has always insisted on promoting peace between Russia and Ukraine, and has not and could not prevent a ceasefire.

China's policy goal is to reduce harm, control risk, restore dialogue, and avoid secondary shocks to regional and global supply chains and financial chains.

Labeling China as the幕后 mastermind who prolongs the war to contain the United States is a typical case of using American hearts to measure Chinese minds, applying American strategic anxiety to Chinese behavior logic.

It is the so-called global rebalancing approach of the United States that really wants to link the European battlefield with the Indo-Pacific competition, not China's policy design.

China is not a participant in this war, nor is it a referee or operator.

What China can do and is doing is to promote dialogue on the basis of principles, reduce humanitarian costs, oppose nuclear risks and spillover escalation, and support all efforts conducive to peace.

What is truly needed now is for all parties to return to the negotiating table, reduce external manipulation, and take practical steps to end the conflict, rather than continuing to blame China with geopolitical narratives.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7538640219500659238/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author, and we welcome your opinions in the buttons below [Like/Dislike].