The Russo-Chinese Strategic Relationship

Every four years, following a presidential election, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) publishes a report “to help policymakers… see what may lie beyond the horizon and [to] prepare for an array of possible futures.” It typically contains good indications and analysis on how the intelligence community (IC) views future concerns and major challenges the US may face in the coming decades.

Given China’s fast rise to power, and the complex challenges its foreign and military policies present, one would expect the ODNI to give it critical attention and assign its most experienced analysts to the project. In the interest of “inclusion,” the 156-page, 7^th edition of the “Global Trends: A More Contested World 2040” report published in March states that it sought input from DC high school students, civil society organizations in Africa, and environmental groups in South America. Perhaps, it is time Washington and the American public recognize that the Russo-Chinese strategic relationship may be one of the greatest tests for the Biden Administration and one of the greatest risks to US national interests.

Aggressive Chinese moves in the South China Sea toward Taiwan are happening while simultaneously Russian President Putin is “racheting up” tensions with the Ukraine by forward positioning large numbers of Russian troops along their shared border. China and Russia both are escalating their state of military readiness and making provocative moves in sensitive areas over the last week. Whether this will result in outright invasions, small border incursions, or little more than a small border skirmish remains an unknown. It looks like something is going to happen. The significant question that Washington needs to address is if these moves do represent a coordinated effort by Moscow and Beijing, what is the potential impact for US national interests.

William J. Burns, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified before the US Senate Intelligence Committee last week “That [Russian] buildup has reached the point that it could provide the basis for a limited military incursion,” and “It is something not only the United States, but our allies have to take very seriously.” The Biden Administration does not have a strategy in place today to handle a simultaneous conflict. It should not come as surprise to American military planners. Last October when questioned about a possible joint military effort President Putin responded to a reporter: “Theoretically it is quite possible.” At the end of December, on the same day Chinese President Xi signed a comprehensive European Union trade deal seven years in the making, he responded to Putin by calling him his “best friend” and stated that he will work “unswervingly” to develop stronger “strategic cooperation between China and Russia [that] can effectively resist any attempt to suppress and divide the two countries.”

Impotence is basically an issue that makes the person feel exhausted and tense. cialis line order Online Availability of Sildenafil Made Treatment cialis prices Convenient According to a recent survey in US most of divorce cases are filed by females who are unsatisfied with their relation as their partners fail to give any time to their personal life. Some people just choose to live with the problem and also viagra store for a better life. A common symptom of this condition is headaches but it can also involve infection or tumors. viagra in australia

Gabriel Gavin, writing in “The Diplomat” earlier this year suggested: “As convenient as friendly relations between the Kremlin and Zhongnanhai are, the threat that ties could run deeper in the face of political and economic conflict is their powerful attribute. If Moscow is forced to export less gas to Europe, it will export more to China. If Beijing feels naval tensions with the United States are rising in the South China Sea, greater coordination with the Russian fleet in the Sea of Japan is always an option.

During the last two weeks Putin has amassed over 40,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border. In the past week alone China flew 25 warplanes into Taiwan’s airspace. In total in 2020 China flew more than 250 sorties over Taiwan. Twenty-five planes in seven days represents an escalation on Beijing’s part. What is next? President Biden’s response was to call President Putin to say he doesn’t want to escalate tensions and get into a conflict with the communist giants. Without Biden’s full foreign policy leadership team in place, Putin and Xi Jinping have the advantage on the global chess board. The final question is, will the communist partners make the move and declare checkmate on the United States.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. Each Friday, she presents key updates on China.

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.