It already seems like Russia is positioned to be completely subservient to China in the future.
China wants Russia to at least keep the Ukraine war going, if not eventually win the darn thing. Russia winning (or getting away with an armistice that lets them keep Crimea and Donbas) means a precedence China has for a land-grab of its own - obviously Taiwan, but other countries in its "sphere of influence" have seen hostilities for years, from land grabs [1] to overfishing [2], not to mention the border dispute with India.
And as long as we are distracted with Israel/Palestine or Ukraine/Russia, China has free rein to do whatever they want.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So...
[2] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/energy-world/chinas-overfi...
The global response would not be the same, even remotely. And what would China get from it? A tiny island of rubble and an ego boost, while losing enormous global favor? The cost of that island may well be a few trillion for China, just so they can say they defeated the nationalists.
The only one who would really care is the US. So by taking Taiwan, China blows up the US stock market and takes control of the chips.
Would the rest of the world decide to go to war with China for the political freedom of Taiwan?
"Let the food and oil in or we will burn to the ground the only bargaining chip we have"… I just don't know how to model how credible a threat this is to either party.
... which nevertheless are very important worldwide. Early in the war, there was a lot of effort to make sure grain exports could run smoothly because otherwise Africa would have been in serious trouble.
> The global response would not be the same, even remotely.
We're already at a stage where Trump doesn't give a single fuck about NATO and some of his advisors would rather have it disbanded yesterday in favor of isolationism, or even outright march into territory to annex it. I have absolutely zero faith that Trump would intervene on Taiwan's favor - an intervention does not fit into Trump's and especially Miller's world view wherein the world is to be divided into areas of influence for the super powers to act with impunity.
> And what would China get from it? A tiny island of rubble and an ego boost, while losing enormous global favor?
Never underestimate nationalist idiocy. Putin invaded Ukraine because of his dream to restore "Great Russia", it is entirely possible that the CCP wants the same for the ego of their leadership to be the ones "bringing the lost areas home". They already did so with Hongkong, and not reacting to China violating the treaty with the UK was the biggest mistake the Western nations have ever done.
I don't know what is the thinking on Ukraine now in Beijing, but they were massively pissed off when Russia invaded because it has caused a lot of disruption to belt and road and to East-West relations in general.
They correctly predicted Russia's invasion of Ukraine, while everyone using slurs like "war monger" did not. I will go with their opinion on this. Which, fortunately, is more balanced than what you're letting on. They're not saying that China will definitely invade Taiwan this decade, only that it is in the ~20% ballpark, and it's therefore prudent to prepare, because "assume the best" or "I can read the mind of their autocrat" is a terrible security doctrine.
Which is also, coincidentally why they seem like a better trade partner to me as European at this point.
https://www.economist.com/international/2025/10/28/china-is-... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyxk4ywppzo
Oh, see how well it went.
Economical co-dependency is a good tool for increasing the price of going to war and making it irrational. It’s also not a zero sum game and tends to profit both sides. However, it can suck if you do it with non-democratic regimes and autocratic rulers who trample human rights.
So between France, Germany, Poland and all the other EU members it‘s keeping the continent at peace and generally does not suck because it‘s between broadly democratic nations. It also benefits each one massively and makes things possible like a common electric grid that increases reliability in general. So nearly all upside.
I do think economic cooperation with the Soviet Union and later Russia - much, much more limited than between EU members - was helpful in cooling tensions and making the world a bit safer, sure, but Russia has clearly behaved in a way that makes that no longer a good idea.
That did not go as expected for Russia either.
A practical demonstration of how reliant Europe was on Russian gas, by switching it off.
But sadly they have a political system that doesn't reflect what is best for the ordinary person. So those incentives can be ignored by those making the decisions.
See also, Trump invading Greenland.
EU is now an unwilling dumping ground for China, hostility and paranoia are growing by the day now that China is no longer a lucrative market itself and is pursuing its interests outside commerce, the cordial days are numbered.
Russia would never be subservient to China, once the war ends Russia would be back being a geopolitical player because of its vast natural resources, and they are already import substituting even Chinese products.
Russia can turn to the west to be a real western country whenever they see fit, the eternal fear for China.
This is why China is going as far as it can to accommodate Putin, even souring it's relations with the EU which isolated itself.
In this sense, it is China being "subservient" to Russia.
It's currently selling its resources at a steep discount and that is unlikely to change because its customers are only in it for the bargain they're getting.
All these talk of cutting off Russia won't last more than a year after the war, nobody refuses cheap energy, certainly not the cash strapped Europeans.
They'll probably be the world leader in critical metals and rare earth deposits if they invested more on prospecting and the ice melts.
No. Urals blend used to closely track Brent, now it's $10-20 below that. Chart here details the discount over time:
https://energyandcleanair.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/...
Overall there's a clear trend of Russia's fossil fuel revenue declining:
https://www.russiafossiltracker.com/
> nobody refuses cheap energy
Only Russian gas was really cheap. The EU found other suppliers who don't pose such a geopolitical risk.
What would it mean for Russia to become a "real" western country? Why would China fear that?
Whatever happens, Russia needs to sell resources to stay afloat. I have a hard believing that if it came down to it, China couldn't just seize Vladivostok.