The recent meeting in New Delhi between US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov — the first such high-level interaction since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine — suggests that diplomacy might no longer be a dirty word.
The 10 minute meeting on the sidelines of the G20 gathering occurred after US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan reportedly urged Ukraine to show Russia that it is open to negotiating an end to the war. Together, these developments offer a glimmer of hope that a ceasefire is within the realm of the possible.
The war in Ukraine, which has shaken the foundations of the international order, is in many ways a proxy war between the world’s two major powers, with Russia backed by China and Ukraine backed by the US.
Illustration: Louise Ting
Over the past year, the war has triggered global energy and food crises, spurred higher inflation amid slowing global growth and heightened the risk — underscored by Russia’s recent downing of a US drone over the Black Sea — of a direct Russia-NATO conflict.
However, after more than one year of fighting, it is clear that the conflict has settled into a war of attrition, with both sides struggling to make significant advances on the battlefield.
A ceasefire is the only way out of this military deadlock, but reaching an agreement could take a long time. The 1950 to 1953 Korean War, for example, was deadlocked for two years before an armistice agreement was reached.
Russian President Vladimir Putin believes that a prolonged war of attrition works in his favor, enabling his army to wreak havoc in Ukraine and testing Western resolve.
To overwhelm Ukrainian air defenses, Russia is launching more missiles simultaneously, including its Kinzhal hypersonic weapons, which are all but impossible to shoot down. Despite the flood of Western weapons systems it has received, Ukraine is in no position to thwart Russia’s intensifying aerial assaults.
However, it is also becoming increasingly clear that Russia cannot achieve its strategic objective in Ukraine. It might have occupied about one-fifth of the country’s territory, but it has created a more hostile neighbor and reinvigorated NATO, which is poised to admit Finland and most likely Sweden.
Many of the unprecedented sanctions the West has imposed on Russia would likely endure beyond the war and inflict long-lasting damage on the Russian economy.
However, US President Joe Biden’s “hybrid war” strategy, which seeks to cripple Russia through soft-power techniques and the weaponization of global finance, has failed to bring about Putin’s downfall or turn the ruble into “rubble,” as Biden vowed in the early stages of the war.
The US-led sanctions regime has severely limited Russia’s ability to resupply its forces, but has fallen short of halting the Kremlin’s war machine. While the sanctions have dented its earnings from energy exports, Russia has found willing buyers for its oil and natural gas in non-Western markets — albeit at a discount.
Short of a collapse in morale causing Russian soldiers to surrender en masse — which is a possibility, given the history of the Russian army — it is unlikely that Ukraine could force Russia to withdraw fully from the territories it has occupied in the country’s east and south.
While the US has committed to upholding Ukraine’s territorial integrity, restoring Ukrainian control over these regions seems like a distant goal at best.
Meanwhile, China is the only country that stands to benefit from a protracted conflict.
China is already the “biggest winner” from the Western sanctions on Russia, Washington-based Free Russia Foundation said.
China has become Russia’s banker and most important trade partner, using the war to implement an energy safety net by securing greater Russian oil and gas supplies that could not be disrupted even if China were to invade Taiwan.
The more the US is dragged into the war in Ukraine, the greater the likelihood that China invades Taiwan, and the US realizes its worst geopolitical nightmare: a Sino-Russian strategic axis.
The US might remain the world’s foremost military power, but taking on the combined force of China and Russia would be a herculean task.
The war has already exposed the West’s military shortcomings, such as depletion of supplies of critical munitions, the US’ struggle to scale up weapons manufacturing and the weakening of the US-European consensus on Ukraine.
All this could tempt Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) to seek to deplete Western arsenals further before invading Taiwan, by indirectly shipping arms to Russia and forcing the US and other governments to increase weapons supplies to Ukraine.
Xi is already aiding Putin’s war to a limited extent by supplying Russia and sanctioned Russian entities with drones, navigation equipment, jamming technology, jet parts and semiconductors.
While some in the West believe that a negotiated ceasefire in Ukraine would embolden China to attack Taiwan, Xi does not need Russia to show him that aggression works. China’s own cost-free expansionism, from the South China Sea to the Himalayas, is all the proof he needs.
A protracted Ukraine war is not in the US’ interest, a RAND report said. A prolonged conflict would lead to increased flows of US money and weapons into Ukraine, elevating the risk of a NATO-Russia conflict and hindering the ability of the US to respond to the China challenge.
As Biden has already acknowledged, a “negotiated settlement” is the only way to end the war — better to seek it now than after months or years of bloodshed and devastation.
Brahma Chellaney is a professor of strategic studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research and a fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS