China Doesn’t Want Russia to Win—Just to Bleed, Obey, and Keep US Distracted, The Hill Writes

7 comments

1. Snippet from this article:”Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi recently told EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas that Beijing “can’t accept Russia losing its war against Ukraine as this could allow the United States to turn its full attention to China.”

   However, this statement may reveal less about China’s genuine concerns and more about its diplomatic posturing.

   According to The Hill on July 25, Wang’s remarks should be viewed through the lens of strategic ambiguity — a common feature in diplomatic communication, particularly from authoritarian regimes with strong propaganda infrastructures.

   His framing of the United States as China’s primary threat appears to downplay a more immediate and complex challenge: Russia.

   While China indeed seeks to reduce American pressure, the US is distant and not engaged in a destructive war. In contrast, Russia—a bordering state embroiled in a prolonged war—presents both security risks and long-term complications for Beijing.

   Three possible outcomes of the war in Ukraine illustrate China’s strategic calculations.

   If Russia achieves a form of victory, it could embolden Vladimir Putin, validate his imperial ambitions, and potentially lead to further aggressive actions — such as confronting NATO or annexing parts of Kazakhstan.

2. They are following a very obvious Balance of Power strategy. Support the weaker side of every conflict, just enough to not lose, to bleed both competitors.

   It’s ironic that the Chinese are playing by the rules of the game the West perfected for 500 years, while the former masters of that game have apparently forgot how to play entirely, to the point that they empowered China to become their main competitor at their own expense.

3. I mean; the us doesn’t want Ukraine to win either…just to bleed Russia. Seems like we are on the same page here.

4. China has sworen to get all the land back that they lost during the hundred years of shame.
      Russia currently occupies millions of hectares of land that was once a part of china.

5. Well no duh, a weak Russia a benefit to China, a discount on materials at a week Russia to influence.

   Russia used to do this with Eastern Europe and weaker countries, eventually the Chinese state will have a little puppet and get all the raw materials in Siberia, which is a very big threat to the US.

6. A weak Russia, a weak EU, an overstretched US and China coming out looking like the only non war crazy big country is a pretty big win for them. This conflict has been a big boon for China’s soft power

7. An interesting analysis, and I agree in most parts, but I think if we go with the assumption of the two-front strategy in mind, China would not put Ukraine as the limit and would actually rather have Russia win this and start another conflict in Europe.

   If Russia fights until exhaustion against Ukraine, then it largely diminish the distraction it can be to the West. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Europe is slowly rearming and thus can become a bigger threat to China all the while not being exhausted in any capacity by Russia. Meanwhile the US is able to disengage from Ukraine to pivot to Asia. If the war lasts in Ukraine, then Europe will become stronger and the US will still not be pinned in Ukraine. This does not benefit China.

   To be a proper distraction, Russia needs to actually win in Ukraine and then attacks another European country (Finland or the Baltics would be good target in this scenario) where Europe would be more directly involved and thus would actually spend resources and exhaust itself against Russia and the US would be incentivized to go back to Europe to contain Russia.

   If the Chinese strategy was simply a forever war in Ukraine, I think China would have reduced the aid sent to Russia and be vocal about it, especially in the weeks before the NATO conferences which increased the spending to 5% of the GDP, in order to slow down Russia (which is currently making gains in Ukraine), encourage the European countries to not increase their defense spending and not posture itself against Europe.

   That said, I think this idea that China is pushing for a two-front strategy is questionable. Practically, it is doubtful whether China can truly divide the attention of the US, considering the US army is made to fight a war on two fronts and the forces needed against Russia and China would be quite different. As for Europe, China would gain more in dividing the NATO alliance and disengage Europe from the US than supporting Russia to try to distract Europe as this will certainly antagonize Europe and make it more likely to intervene against China. Especially as in recent years, there has been more links between the Asiatic enemies of China and Europe (such as the South Korean support for Ukraine and Poland and the jointer fighter program between Japan and some European countries). Moreover, it is questionable whether a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is possible, especially if the US is involved but also maybe even on its own as it would be a considerably difficult operation and Taiwan is certainly ready to make China pay a high price for it, making the question of European support for Taiwan a bit less relevant. I think this idea of China pushing for a two-front strategy is mostly invented by people trying to get the US to stay in Europe and involved against Russia by making the two conflicts more intertwined than they really are.

Comments are closed.