China-US Coordination Needed To Quell Ukraine Crisis
Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 21 March 2022
by Zhu Feng (link to original)
(China) on 21 March 2022
by Zhu Feng (link to original)
Translated from
by Matthew McKay.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
The Ukraine crisis has entered its fourth week. Although Russia and Ukraine have held four rounds of talks, the prospect of a rapid ceasefire and a diplomatic solution through negotiations between the two sides does not seem hopeful in the short term, due to their diametrically opposed positions. The nature of the crisis in Ukraine is not just a Russian-Ukrainian conflict, but also a collapse of the European regional security order not seen since the end of the Cold War 30 years ago.
The threats posed to Russia by the Nazification of parts of Ukraine, its anti-Russian extremism and its eager Westernization are objective facts. But just as pointed out by President Xi Jinping during a March 18 video call with U.S. President Joe Biden, “National relations cannot be taken to the point of war, and conflict and confrontation are in no one’s interest; peace and security should be the international community’s most cherished assets.” The time has come for the military conflict and confrontation of the Ukraine crisis to end as soon as possible.
According to figures released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as of March 20, the Russia-Ukraine military conflict has led to 3.2 million Ukrainians fleeing their homes, 5.5 million Ukrainians being displaced and casualties of the conflict likely numbering in excess of 10,000. The Russian military encirclement of Ukraine’s major cities started picking up speed on March 18, when a missile strike hit the urban area of the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy himself has devoted increased energy to speeches to the U.S. Congress and German Bundestag, continuing not only to petition the United States and Europe to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine that could lead to military conflict between Russia and the United States, but also to demand continued military assistance from the United States and Europe. To the U.S. strategic community, however, it is very clear that no matter how much the United States and Europe supply Ukraine with arms, funds and anti-Russian support, given that NATO is biding its time, the tactics Russia is employing in its military campaign in Ukraine today amount to a war of attrition. Even if the Russian military campaign is lacking in many areas, Ukraine is no match for Russia.
The crisis in Ukraine has created a humanitarian crisis within Ukraine’s borders and a refugee crisis that is spilling over into Europe, with the potential for fuel leaks from nuclear power stations in Ukraine and possible bioweapons leaks from various U.S. laboratories based there. Continued military conflict and confrontation could result in even more innocent civilian casualties. Furthermore, a deepening of the crisis and the continued, full-throated support of the United States and European countries for the Ukrainian military’s all-out war effort against Russian forces make it difficult to completely rule out the possibility of an escalation of the conflict.
Right now, the United States has more than 100,000 troops stationed in Europe, which is the largest U.S. military presence in Europe since 2014. Although Washington and NATO are currently both stressing that they will not directly dispatch troops to Ukraine, even an accidental cross-border military conflict and a rise in casualties among European volunteers headed for Ukraine could trigger a further escalation of the crisis there. Russia has already shown its determination to launch a nuclear strike if the United States and NATO countries intervene, so it is foreseeable that the prolongation of the war in Ukraine could leave Europe and the world enveloped in a serious and escalating war.
The safety of innocent Ukrainians and their property needs to be preserved; the Russian economy and Russian people’s livelihoods should regain stability under the extreme U.S. and Western sanctions; the commercial and security order in Europe and the world needs to be salvaged and maintained; and the geostrategic intentions of a small number of countries of provoking a confrontation between Russia and Ukraine should be curbed. Against this backdrop, Xi’s words in the U.S-China video call of March 18 ring true — namely, that the United States and China “should not only lead the relationship between the two countries to develop along a healthy track but must also shoulder their international responsibilities and make efforts for world peace and security.” Such is the “voice of China” echoing in world politics as the crisis in Ukraine continues to escalate.
Since the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis, China’s position has been consistent and coherent. On the one hand, we have firmly upheld the principles of the U.N. Charter and clearly opposed confrontation through war to resolve disputes; on the other hand, we have insisted that the rights and wrongs underlying the Ukraine crisis need to be fairly addressed. In a Feb. 26 call with President Vladimir Putin, Xi unequivocally proposed the establishment and development, through negotiations, of a “balanced, effective and sustainable European security mechanism” and “the firm upholding of the U.N.-centered international system and the international order based on international law.” China has so far provided Ukraine with three shipments of humanitarian aid supplies, reflecting its humanitarian principles of providing timely relief to the war-torn Ukrainian people.
However, the eruption of the military conflict in Ukraine is broadly similar in nature to that of the Korean and Vietnam Wars in East Asia during the Cold War, which were geostrategic proxy wars between great powers. The Korean and Vietnam Wars of the 1950s and 1960s deepened the Cold War opposition in Asia and exacerbated hostilities, divisions and confrontations between the countries involved. Today, in the 21st century, China rejects a new Cold War and any geostrategic and geo-economic divides. We need to be highly vigilant and guard against the hostility and antagonism that could arise from any new and more comprehensive breaking of ties that a deepening Ukraine crisis could produce. This is a major strategic imperative if China is to maintain a peaceful international environment for development, accelerate its integration into the world and ensure sustainable economic growth at home.
For a long time to come, China and the United States will be in a period of difficult competition. However, the overall strategic picture — that of China-U.S. relations avoiding the mistakes of the past, of maintaining a “fighting but not breaking” dynamic and of competition and cooperation coexisting — must not change. Especially today, as the world’s top two economies and permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, preventing the situation in Ukraine from spiraling out of control, averting a deeper humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and controlling the spread of the negative geostrategic diffusion effects brought on by the crisis have become profound and unavoidable intentions in the development of China-U.S. relations.
Principles, morality and credibility have always been paramount in China’s diplomacy. As Russia is China’s comprehensive strategic partner for the new era, we cannot simply walk away from it. While we are opposed to the settling of disputes by means of war, we also firmly refuse to participate in Russian sanctions. The frenzied behavior of the United States and the West in imposing such sanctions will in fact only exacerbate confrontation within Europe; the United States’ desire to drag China into sanctioning and suppressing Russia along with it is inconsistent with the basic principles of Chinese diplomacy, running counter to China’s long-standing maintenance of its “good neighbor” policy with Russia.
However, China is unlikely to help Russia take military action against Ukraine. China and the United States can strengthen the “concert of great powers” on the Ukraine issue by pursuing reconciliation, promoting talks, expediting a cease-fire and avoiding global political fragmentation. The Biden administration needs to acknowledge China’s policy bottom lines; the easing and ending of the Ukraine crisis could provide an impetus for deepening U.S.-China cooperation and managing U.S.-China differences.
The author is executive dean of the Institute of International Relations, Nanjing University.
The threats posed to Russia by the Nazification of parts of Ukraine, its anti-Russian extremism and its eager Westernization are objective facts. But just as pointed out by President Xi Jinping during a March 18 video call with U.S. President Joe Biden, “National relations cannot be taken to the point of war, and conflict and confrontation are in no one’s interest; peace and security should be the international community’s most cherished assets.” The time has come for the military conflict and confrontation of the Ukraine crisis to end as soon as possible.
According to figures released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as of March 20, the Russia-Ukraine military conflict has led to 3.2 million Ukrainians fleeing their homes, 5.5 million Ukrainians being displaced and casualties of the conflict likely numbering in excess of 10,000. The Russian military encirclement of Ukraine’s major cities started picking up speed on March 18, when a missile strike hit the urban area of the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy himself has devoted increased energy to speeches to the U.S. Congress and German Bundestag, continuing not only to petition the United States and Europe to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine that could lead to military conflict between Russia and the United States, but also to demand continued military assistance from the United States and Europe. To the U.S. strategic community, however, it is very clear that no matter how much the United States and Europe supply Ukraine with arms, funds and anti-Russian support, given that NATO is biding its time, the tactics Russia is employing in its military campaign in Ukraine today amount to a war of attrition. Even if the Russian military campaign is lacking in many areas, Ukraine is no match for Russia.
The crisis in Ukraine has created a humanitarian crisis within Ukraine’s borders and a refugee crisis that is spilling over into Europe, with the potential for fuel leaks from nuclear power stations in Ukraine and possible bioweapons leaks from various U.S. laboratories based there. Continued military conflict and confrontation could result in even more innocent civilian casualties. Furthermore, a deepening of the crisis and the continued, full-throated support of the United States and European countries for the Ukrainian military’s all-out war effort against Russian forces make it difficult to completely rule out the possibility of an escalation of the conflict.
Right now, the United States has more than 100,000 troops stationed in Europe, which is the largest U.S. military presence in Europe since 2014. Although Washington and NATO are currently both stressing that they will not directly dispatch troops to Ukraine, even an accidental cross-border military conflict and a rise in casualties among European volunteers headed for Ukraine could trigger a further escalation of the crisis there. Russia has already shown its determination to launch a nuclear strike if the United States and NATO countries intervene, so it is foreseeable that the prolongation of the war in Ukraine could leave Europe and the world enveloped in a serious and escalating war.
The safety of innocent Ukrainians and their property needs to be preserved; the Russian economy and Russian people’s livelihoods should regain stability under the extreme U.S. and Western sanctions; the commercial and security order in Europe and the world needs to be salvaged and maintained; and the geostrategic intentions of a small number of countries of provoking a confrontation between Russia and Ukraine should be curbed. Against this backdrop, Xi’s words in the U.S-China video call of March 18 ring true — namely, that the United States and China “should not only lead the relationship between the two countries to develop along a healthy track but must also shoulder their international responsibilities and make efforts for world peace and security.” Such is the “voice of China” echoing in world politics as the crisis in Ukraine continues to escalate.
Since the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis, China’s position has been consistent and coherent. On the one hand, we have firmly upheld the principles of the U.N. Charter and clearly opposed confrontation through war to resolve disputes; on the other hand, we have insisted that the rights and wrongs underlying the Ukraine crisis need to be fairly addressed. In a Feb. 26 call with President Vladimir Putin, Xi unequivocally proposed the establishment and development, through negotiations, of a “balanced, effective and sustainable European security mechanism” and “the firm upholding of the U.N.-centered international system and the international order based on international law.” China has so far provided Ukraine with three shipments of humanitarian aid supplies, reflecting its humanitarian principles of providing timely relief to the war-torn Ukrainian people.
However, the eruption of the military conflict in Ukraine is broadly similar in nature to that of the Korean and Vietnam Wars in East Asia during the Cold War, which were geostrategic proxy wars between great powers. The Korean and Vietnam Wars of the 1950s and 1960s deepened the Cold War opposition in Asia and exacerbated hostilities, divisions and confrontations between the countries involved. Today, in the 21st century, China rejects a new Cold War and any geostrategic and geo-economic divides. We need to be highly vigilant and guard against the hostility and antagonism that could arise from any new and more comprehensive breaking of ties that a deepening Ukraine crisis could produce. This is a major strategic imperative if China is to maintain a peaceful international environment for development, accelerate its integration into the world and ensure sustainable economic growth at home.
For a long time to come, China and the United States will be in a period of difficult competition. However, the overall strategic picture — that of China-U.S. relations avoiding the mistakes of the past, of maintaining a “fighting but not breaking” dynamic and of competition and cooperation coexisting — must not change. Especially today, as the world’s top two economies and permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, preventing the situation in Ukraine from spiraling out of control, averting a deeper humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and controlling the spread of the negative geostrategic diffusion effects brought on by the crisis have become profound and unavoidable intentions in the development of China-U.S. relations.
Principles, morality and credibility have always been paramount in China’s diplomacy. As Russia is China’s comprehensive strategic partner for the new era, we cannot simply walk away from it. While we are opposed to the settling of disputes by means of war, we also firmly refuse to participate in Russian sanctions. The frenzied behavior of the United States and the West in imposing such sanctions will in fact only exacerbate confrontation within Europe; the United States’ desire to drag China into sanctioning and suppressing Russia along with it is inconsistent with the basic principles of Chinese diplomacy, running counter to China’s long-standing maintenance of its “good neighbor” policy with Russia.
However, China is unlikely to help Russia take military action against Ukraine. China and the United States can strengthen the “concert of great powers” on the Ukraine issue by pursuing reconciliation, promoting talks, expediting a cease-fire and avoiding global political fragmentation. The Biden administration needs to acknowledge China’s policy bottom lines; the easing and ending of the Ukraine crisis could provide an impetus for deepening U.S.-China cooperation and managing U.S.-China differences.
The author is executive dean of the Institute of International Relations, Nanjing University.
Previous article![]( "US May Have Found a Way To Topple Vladimir Putin")
Next article![]( "Mission Impossible")
