I have had time to contemplate the meaning behind Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) recent “peacemaking visit” to his “friend with no limits,” Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The Beijing-facilitated Iran-Saudi Arabia agreement was a major propaganda success for China to project itself as a great power that is not only sincere politically, but skilled diplomatically in mediating international conflicts.
Riding on this narrative, Xi flew to Russia with the apparent prospect of ending a war started by his Russian ally.
Propaganda punchlines and news headlines aside, nothing substantial emerged from Xi’s visit as far as the Ukraine war is concerned. Even before Xi’s Moscow flight, the same narrative buoyancy had begun to deflate because of the strange nature of Beijing’s stance on the Ukraine war from the beginning.
In this age of short memories and shallow sensational media, remember that Russia invaded Ukraine in February last year, in the same month that Xi and Putin declared a “friendship without limits” in Beijing.
Whether China could have prevented Russia’s aggression is debatable, but Beijing’s claims of ignorance about such a development is simply indefensible. An emperor knows when a czar is about to start a war. This means that he had the intelligence and, most probably, the time to move some of his pebbles on the strategic chessboard.
China has over the course of the war aligned more with Moscow. It has not only been unequivocal in criticizing international sanctions against Russia, it has been minimizing the effects of the sanctions, as demonstrated by the increased volume of trade between the countries since the war began, raising as much as 30 percent.
In addition to importing Russian oil and gas, China has also exported dual-use technologies such as semiconductors necessary for the production of weapons. Put bluntly, Chinese money and materials have been crucial in keeping Putin’s war machine running.
A case could be made that China cannot afford to stop trading with Russia, as it has a huge population to look after. That would not preclude it from parroting and amplifying Russia’s war propaganda at home and abroad, even if it does not want to condemn Russia’s aggression.
By doing so, China is, albeit indirectly, complicit in contravening the UN Charter regarding respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, which also happens to be the very principles Beijing often deploys to shield itself from international criticism of its gross human rights violations, including genocide in Tibet and Xinjiang.
Even Beijing’s 12-point proposal meant to bring peace for Ukraine fails not only to call Russia’s invasion an invasion, it is also skewed in Moscow’s favor. Furthermore, the joint statement signed by Putin and Xi made it clear that the main goal of the Chinese president’s visit was less about ending the Ukraine war and more about preparing for a war over Taiwan.
Xi’s three-day-visit to the Kremlin was meant to show support for an internationally isolated Russia and a criminally charged Putin on the account of Moscow’s aggression and war crimes. At the same time, Beijing has also capitalized on that isolation to access raw materials, including oil, at cheaper prices in the short term, while also courting Moscow’s support in the event China invades Taiwan.
In the joint statement, Russia expressed its opposition to Taiwanese independence, as well as its firm “support for China’s measures to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
“China’s measures” include military aggression on Taiwan as it is evident today by Chinese threats and war games around the democratic nation whenever Beijing finds an excuse.
Stripping away the political illusion of a benevolent China embarking on an international peacemaking mission, reveals the naked reality of realpolitik. The crux of the matter is that in the geopolitics of power games, it is often not easy to gauge where war begins and peace ends and vice versa. Sometimes, peace is made for another war and a war is fought supposedly for another peace. The question is, who starts war or peace and for whom?
Leaving aside the rhetoric of a peacemaking visit, Xi’s trip to Russia has more to do with establishing a war plan over Taiwan than a strategy for peace in Ukraine. In simple language, although China has presented peace as the goal, in reality, it is the pretext, not the purpose.
What is concerning is that Beijing, especially under Xi, appears to be preparing for war over Taiwan in the name of national rejuvenation. The world must do everything to prevent it. It is not only about Taiwanese life and liberty, but given the colossal challenge of climate emergencies, the world cannot afford to be dragged into one fossil-fueled expansionist war after another anymore.
Palden Sonam is a visiting fellow at the Tibet Policy Institute in Dharamsala, India.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS