I don’t know why China is so keen on helping Russia. Is this some kind of godfather deal and they want some massive ROI from Russia once things settle down a bit? Or is this some long-term strategy “against the West”?
Though perhaps they have to balance it with how it affects the world economy.
No.
Taiwan is seeing a massive increase in morale and defense interest [1]. The West has unified in a way not seen since World War II. If Xi sides with the baddies, he risks the stink rubbing off on him.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/in-taiwan-putins-war-in-ukr...
In return they get to see what the West will do and what they'd do if China would to attack Taiwan. They get the cheap resources OP mentioned above, they get another country which depends on them and posting some Ads on Facebook won't hurt them. It's not like somebody would sanction them because of it.
Realistically seen, they'll be able to get away with much more and I'm sure they'll test that in the weeks to come.
I can't imagine "the West" sanctioning both a huge source for oil and gas AND a source for cheap manufactured goods and they know it too...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAVE_PAWS#In_Taiwanese_service
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_island_chain#United_Stat...
Every time I've heard a militant Chinese unification advocate talk about Taiwanese unification, they scoff at the idea that the Taiwanese would actually resist a PLA invasion. Now that possibility can't be ignored.
"You may not be interested in war, but war is very interested in you."
Recent events in Ukraine have made the Taiwanese less likely to tolerate the formation of foreign-affiliated groups like "Right Sector" or "Azov Battalion". There is also no area or population similar to Donbas where westernized Taiwanese could e.g. kill 14,000 people or burn down a trade union hall with lots of people inside.
Assuming that war is the natural state of humanity, which is only prevented by authoritarians in the employ of Raytheon, is a character flaw.
This was the dominant opinion with respect to Russia and Ukraine, including in Ukraine, until weeks, in some cases, days, prior to the invasion.
This is such a fragile time after 2 years of COVID for the global economy. Even the Belt and Road countries being dragged down with Russia can't be worth it to them.
Not to mention they have their own economic/banking issues that they were probably hoping for a strong global recovery to help out with.
At least that's the general feeling among Russian economists whom I've been reading lately.
While the West cannot "cut off" China as too much manufacturing has moved there, supporting Russia in this already has an impact on the reception of Chinese brands in the West. Perhaps less so in the US, but so far Chinese brands are quite popular in the EU. This could change quickly. Also this encourages to reduce the dependencies on China.
Now they're basically compensating for Russia's mess (and won't ever let them forget that).
China will not get sanctioned like Russia has. The world's dependence on Chinese manufacturing is like Europe's dependence on Russian gas, times ten.
Or, more precisely, it will get sanctioned like Russia has, but like the Russian sanctions, they will include exceptions for everything the West needs to buy from China, which is nearly everything.
China will trade Russia for wheat due to bad harvests. We are driving Russia into Chinese hands with currency and transactions. Too bad they have an dictator for life. He gambled and lost.
That dependence still creates a significant political risk, which the West is in a poorer position to manage.
> Keep in mind that China can't feed itself without the world. That is a much more dangerous dependence.
That would be a serious vulnerability, except the world probably isn't united enough for it to matter. For instance, my understanding is Russia is a major food exporter. Add in a conquered Ukraine and maybe a couple other countries and you might fill that gap.
Just some examples. Those lists are for the US but of course by no means is it exclusive to the US.
- https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/americas-mos... (linked for the list, not for "Obama" - obviously it is independent of who is president)
- https://en.everybodywiki.com/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_s...
- https://www.salon.com/2014/03/08/35_countries_the_u_s_has_ba...
And not to forget
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
It's not exclusive to the US of course, it was just easier to find links quickly. Here's an example with France:
- https://www.dw.com/en/french-support-for-chad-dictator-makes...
- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-14/france...
And the West may need get more comfortable with doing that, since we've seen some of the consequences. IMHO, sanctions against Belarus were probably a significant contributing factor to this war (i.e. they put Belarus in a position to be dominated by Putin, who took full advantage to support/strengthen his invasion of Ukraine).
I wonder if some middle ground is tenable (e.g. make a deal with a dictator that he will get full support for life, as long as he agrees his successor will be a properly democratic government).
Ultimately, democracy isn't just a way of organizing politically, it requires a culture that values/expects/demands democracy. If people don't value or demand democracy, then perhaps no amount of sanctions or toppling dictators is going to result in a reasonably democratic government, but conversely sanctions and toppling dictators probably isn't worsening the democratic prospect either (contrary to anti-Western propaganda and criticism).
This assumes that we won't make moves to mitigate this dependence in response to Russia's invasion. The US Innovation and Competition Act [1] likely has a much higher chance of passing today than it did prior to Russia's invasion. It calls for $250 billion investment in high tech manufacturing [2]. It has passed the Senate and is currently waiting in the House. I wouldn't be surprised to see the bill grow in scope.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/126...
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-passes-bipa...
Nobody thought Russia would get sanctioned like Russia has.
There is no way China gets sanctioned for barely anything without years (decades ?) of re-industrialization of the west.
Well, at some point, I even think that China could make the entire west civilization collapse just by stopping their exportation.
At least it would push us to take reusing more seriously. Brutal decoupling from China could be really, probably extremely hard, but in a lot of aspects, intellectually interesting to watch.
How Europe will react to adapt the current crisis regarding fossils will also be really interesting. I'm just hoping that it will accelerate the de-carbonation of our energy sources. But it's just that, hopes.
Then the West retaliates by stopping their export to China of even more basic things like food. I'm guessing China needs food imports much more than the West needs cheap plastic wares, knock off products, and other less critical than food things.
Stopping the flow of just pork products to China may result in enormous unrest and it certainly wouldn't be a given that the CCP would be capable of quelling that.
[1]: https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/china-evolving-demand-world-s-...
[2]: https://www.worldstopexports.com/international-markets-for-i...
China still does recognise Ukraine as independent in the sense it continues to push for respect of "territorial integrity". It's a key part of Chinese foreign policy, and is what China uses to maintain its false claim over Taiwan (which it sees as Beijing territory, notwithstanding that Taiwanese people see themselves as independent).
Yet it still refuses to condemn Russian aggression on the basis that Russia has "security concerns" which China considers legitimate and the result of the US/NATO.
Confused? So am I. The stance is confused and confusing. It explains why the Beijing narrative seems to change daily as it attempts to push and balance these seemingly irreconcilable views.
It isn’t that cut and dry. Most Taiwanese people prefer the status quo, surely by no small measure due to the fact that an outright declaration of independence would provoke China, but still, people who paint the picture as black and white like you have are either advancing an agenda or simply ignorant of the facts on the ground in Taiwan.
The status quo is that they are independent, see themselves as independent, but simply haven't made some outright declaration.
It can both be true that they see themselves as already being independent, and also that they don't want to make an outright declaration.
Specifically, the ruling party has said that they don't need to make an outright declaration, because they are already independent.
It is not the position of the opposition party, nor does it align with historical precedents. Treating it as the official policy of Taiwan without a higher level of support such as a popular referendum, proclamation, or amendment to the ROC constitution doesn’t pass the smell test (what happens if the KMT comes back into power? Is Taiwan no longer independent?). No major country outside of Taiwan recognizes it as an independent nation for a reason.
I should note that I am personally supportive of the idea of an independent Taiwan, but I’m also able to check my western bias.
I think you're conflating whether Taiwanese people see themselves as independent, on the one hand, and whether they wish to formally declare that, on the other.
"The majority of Taiwanese believe that Taiwan is already an independent country called the Republic of China. ... more than 70 percent of Taiwanese agree with this statement." [0]
Note that I never said the people of Taiwan want to formally declare independence, which may risk starting a war. I'm prepared to accept that many Taiwanese are content with a "status quo" of diplomatic ambiguity, but I never suggested otherwise.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/0...
Taiwan, the island, was once a part of territory claimed by Imperial China. Eventually, Taiwan was given to Japan in some war back in the day.
Right before WWII, civil war broke out. The Chinese Communist party wanted to overthrow the ROC and reform the government in their image. Then WWII happened and they agreed to pause the civil war to deal with the Japanese coming in from East.
WWII ended with the defeat of Japan and as part of the terms of surrender, Taiwan was given back to the ROC.
After WWII, the civil war was back on, but with the ROC having been significantly weakened by WWII. Eventually, the CCP overthrew the ROC on the mainland and formed the People's Republic of China (PRC), while the ROC fled to the island of Taiwan.
The PRC sees Taiwan as part of China thanks to the Japanese terms of surrender. Taiwan was ceded to the government of China, they are the government of China. QED, Taiwan is theirs.
The ROC sees themselves as the rightful government of China in exile. Yes, Taiwan belongs to China, but they are China. The PRC needs to give the mainland back to them.
Things have progressed since then. There are some on the island with different opinions these days.
The policy of the PRC and some factions in the ROC is the One-China policy. There is only one China, it includes the mainland and Taiwan. The only disagreement is about which government is legitimate.
Some in the ROC advocate a two-state solution, in which you'd have the PRC and ROC, each with their territories and that's that.
Then there are people in Taiwan who feel that they should be their own independent nation and not "Chinese" at all.
So basically, with regards to your question, the answer is every answer possible. I think the official position is One-China though. I think there's enough of that faction to make winning elections impossible if you explicitly reject it.
I think it’s important to add that Taiwan, like China, was an authoritarian state up until the 90s. The shift to democracy since then has given room for a lot of these different factions to take hold and develop on the island.
Like, I said, things have progressed. There's "One China", "Two Chinas", and "China and Taiwan".
I think the longer things remain as they are, the more likely it'll settle into a "China and Taiwan" situation as both sides just kind of tire of fighting an issue their great grandparents started.
And in any case the treaty doesn't allow for invasion upon the government being perceived as illegitimate. This is an aggressive war, considered since the end of WW2 to be the supreme international crime.
The problem still so far is everything done to hold Putin accountable is viewed by Russians as the West vs Russia. This invasion is viewed not as aggressive war, but liberating Ukraine from Nazis. Exactly what Putin says domestically.
And yes, most of the rest of the world recognizes Taiwan as a sovereign country, except formally they use language consistent with One China to avoid a row with China
From China's point of view, Taiwan is purely a question of Chinese sovereignty. They've never recognized the Taipei government and they try to sanction countries that do recognize Taiwan. The idea is that this "recognition limbo" leaves Taiwan under Chinese sovereignty by default.
Yet China has formally recognized Ukraine and its original post-Soviet borders. It's hard for them to now make the argument that Ukrainian sovereignty is meaningless but other countries must not interfere with Chinese sovereignty.
He was a blundering fool and his weakness contributed directly to the current situation in Ukraine, who he was willing to throw under the bus.
I think "the west" (if we can speak of that still, though maybe we can even more after this latest crisis in Ukraine) will likely need an internally coherent trading bloc to counteract the situation in the east.
That probably means a radical shift away from the China-Pacific trade push of the last 20-30 years and back towards a north-south and transatlantic route. My own country, Canada used to be a net food exporter, but now is a net importer, with large quantities of produce coming from China. It's going to have to change.
Billions have been spent trying (and mostly failing) to build pipelines to Pacific tidewater to export Canadian oil and gas (LNG) to China. We should have been sending it east. Germany could do with copious amounts of LNG right now, and the US and Canada could be providing it, but the planning wasn't there.
I can only hope the current crisis accelerates decarbonization in response -- but I fear the opposite will happen. All the "green energy" stocks I own are down, while oil and gas is up.
The Cold War has returned. Western politicians may refuse to see it, but reality has a way of making itself felt.
The USSR fell apart, but the US kept building bases, toppling regimes, and expanding.
They are ancient neighbors and have a vested interest in helping maintain global geopolitical harmony, just like all other globalized nations.
Plenty of other things, I’m sure.
That depends on where you sit, doesn't it? Balance of power. The West constantly talking about spreading democracy around the globe isn't appealing to non-democratic governments.
Arguably, the level of pro-democracy proselytizing could be construed as an act of war through clandestine psychological operations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split
Making Russia completely dependent on China economically will put a leash on Russia, effectively establishing it as a Chinese protectorate much like the Li–Lobanov Treaty made China a Russian protectorate.
This. Both Xi and Putin chafe against the liberal order and see it as something in decline that stands in the way of their own goals.
Personally, I think Putin is screwing over his own people almost as badly as people in Ukraine - in the long run. Ukraine will get a lot of love from the west, when the fighting is over.
You're mentioning China/India/Russia like they might be some minions, but taken together they have a population of about 3 billion people (out of ~8 billion the Earth now has) and a giant land surface (thanks to Russia, mostly).
Probably the Western US and Canada will also get dragged into this, economically speaking, for its own benefit.
What was the correct decision for Obama and its foreign policy advisers (they were the first ones to brand the "pivot to Asia" thing) in the early 2010s is also the right decision to take for today's Russia.
Without exports to Europa, Russia would be completely at the mercy of China. Russia only has a tiny economy compared to China, so if China decides to play games, there is not much Russia can do.
Given China's recent behavior, it is extremely likely that Russia will get deals to mainly benefit China.
> Russia only has a tiny economy compared to China, so if China decides to play games,
From Putin's perspective, or whomever will take his place, it's better to be at China's mercy compared to being at the West's mercy (as present economic sanctions demonstrate it was the case), as in China and Russia are a lot more close, ideologically speaking, compared with how Russia and the West compare. And Russia still has and will have nukes, there's no way for China to take some piece of Russia's Far East (which I know you didn't mention but is a point often made when it comes to the Russia-China relation).
For now that works for them.
But also, the lines used by both regimes bear aesthetic resemblance to "anti-colonialist" and "anti-imperialist" narratives propagated by both the Stalinist and Maoist regimes in the past. Lots of "we're counteracting western aggression" [somewhat questionable here, Russia has never been under explicit military threat in this century] and "but the west does it too" [whataboutism, a diversion tactic]
They were hypocritical arguments back in the Soviet era, with the way the Soviets treated Poland or Afghanistan, etc. but are way more threadbare now, hollowed of any "substance" at all.
So I don't know how much of what is going on in China in regards to this is actually based on any geo-political strategy or how much of it is just reflexive fall-back to classic Maoist views of the west, a position against western imperialism.
Like, we want to see some global strategy here, but it's also quite likely that the people at the heads of these regimes are much more incompetent than we give them credit for, and playing a game infused with ideological grudges which are only partially understood in the west.
Clearly what is long-term good for China is continued peaceful trade with the west. Yes, there's tension around the basis of that, and how it is formulated. And "the west" certainly has its own aggressive colonialist and imperialist dominance which China feels compelled to counteract. But it seems to me there is no reason for China to toss the table over and stir up this level of chaos. It feels extremely ideological.
Putin's rambling speech before the invasion -- justifying it -- referenced old debates within the Soviet past... he directly referenced and attacked Lenin and Lenin's positions (and Trotsky's -- a Ukrainian Jew) on the "national question" and national self-determination. Essentially from his POV Ukraine "only existed" because of the early Bolshevik positions on ethnicities etc.
Classical Leninism, pre-Stalin, was concerned with granting federal independence to various Soviet ethnicities, to explicitly take apart Tsarist imperialism, and establish what they saw as a socialist federalism and this went along with an internationalist focus as well, as they hoped their revolution would spread to the west (and it did, sort of, in Germany and Hungary, but fizzled out.)
After the failure of revolution in the west, and after Lenin died, Stalin came to power, brutally purged most of the old Bolsheviks, and instituted a kind of revanchist policy and restored major aspects of the old Tsarist pre-revolutionary Russian bureaucracy and internal policies. He paid some lip service to Lenin's position on the national question but basically committed internal genocide (and forced relocations) on various minority populations in the USSR, and was responsible for millions of deaths in Ukraine. Sort of ironic given he himself was of a minority ethnicity (Georgian) origin.
Anyways, in Putin's speech he said explicitly that Lenin's position on national self-determination was incompatible with a functional state. And he's right. Lenin's position was explicitly against the kind of (authoritarian, Russo-supremacist) state Putin wants, and Stalin wanted, which is why Stalin had to murder all the old guard Bolsheviks while committing genocide against Ukrainians (and others) and Putin has to invade Ukraine and god knows who else next. Their image/fantasy of what Russia is or has to be, requires it. And given China's behaviour in Tibet and Xinjiang, they have similar perspectives.