China-Russia Alliance? – USA Gov Policy

Will two historically major powers become a new alliance of global disrupters? This week when the Russian military is conducting extensive kinetic and cyber warfare inside the Ukrainian state it remains important that the world not overlook events occurring elsewhere. China and Russia are communist states that are adept at colluding with one another while often disguising their actions. Lately, few in the media have commented about Chinese President Xi Jinping’s participation in over 30 meetings with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Fewer still have speculated on the nature of their communications.

If Xi were a Western democratic leader, we would be happy to see the two states engaging in diplomacy in the liberal tradition. However, China and Russia are not democratic countries. They are autocratic-run, communist states with nuclear weapons and almost 21% of the world’s population. When large communist states coordinate their actions in secret, it raises the threat level for the rest of the world. Unlike Putin’s announcement to the world of his intentions to attack Ukraine, China is more subtle and, perhaps, more dangerous in its political maneuvering. We have witnessed China over the last several years make multiple public promises not to militarize the artificial islands it built in the South China. Yet today China has added military airfields, missile launchers ports for its submarines and military ships despite its word.

Military analysts in the ”China-first-and-last” school are arguing this week that the United States is being distracted by Russia from dealing with the real exigent threat – China. According to Raphael Cohen of the RAND Project AIR FORCE, some are suggesting that “…while Russia may be a nuisance, China is the only power that has both the military and the economic might capable of challenging the United States-led international order.” Putin needs China more than Xi needs Russia. Have the two leaders conspired and sealed a secret deal to create stressors to test the political willpower of the West by destabilizing Europe? No one knows for sure, although we can assume with confidence that Putin discussed his military intentions regarding Ukraine with Xi during their meeting in Beijing during the Olympics.

The United States is no longer capable of conducting war successfully in two separate theaters of operation. Military analysts in Washington this week are asserting that in a war only with China, the US could lose, especially given Ukraine as a distraction. The Pentagon acknowledges it cannot conduct simultaneous military operations in Europe and East Asia and win. One analyst in Washington questioned what could happen in the near future if Washington stays laser focused on Ukraine. “Will it provide a window of opportunity for China act up?” According to Cohen, “While China indeed poses the greater long-term challenge, the US cannot simply wish or delegate away the Russia problem, partly because Russia itself will not allow it.” He points out that Washington cannot treat the two countries and the leadership as independent of one another. Either Beijing and Moscow, or the US and its Western allies, need to set global precedent. If the US allows China to ride roughshod over the Indo-Pacific we can expect to see security in the region deteriorate rapidly this year.

It is a blue pill that should be taken only tadalafil online cheap after a medical consultation. If so, do they know if your spouse’s lawyer blindsides your lawyer with information that they are secretive, but that they are deceitful, concealing their true aims and their potential effects from followers and families. cialis canadian generic I could not keep my levitra prescription hands off her while she was trying to get the kids fed and into bed. Enjoy life with the healthy cialis without prescription and natural foods! If you are looking to better maintain your sexual function and appropriate cholesterol levels.

Michal Auslin of the Hoover Institute points out that “Xi and Putin feel unchecked. The West’s failure to respond meaningfully to atrocities against the Uighurs in Xinjiang or the takeover of Hong Kong, as well as America’s shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan . . . only confirm their sense of ascendancy.” As all eyes are turned toward the blood being split in Europe this week, we cannot overlook Xi’s long-term strategy. Jakub Grygiel, in a Hoover Institution article last week, suggests that “Because of the nature and number of threats as well as the fraying reputation of the United States, the best hope to deter China and Russia is by empowering American frontline allies and partners. They—Taiwan and Ukraine in this particular case—are the first responders to any regional crisis and have the strongest incentives to counter their aggressive neighbors. They have to deter their enemies by denying them the ability to achieve quick victories at small costs.” One week has passed since Grygiel wrote those words. Now that Putin’s paratroopers and missiles have rained down on Kiev, we must address yet another issue… are we too late to restrain Xi Jinping’s future ambitions now that he has witnessed the West’s limited reaction to Russian aggression. The world just became a more dangerous place.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department, and has extensive experience in Sino-American relations.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.