“China has been following the evolution of the Ukraine issue, and the present situation is something China does not want to see,” Wang Yi said, during a phone call with EU and UK diplomats.
During the call, described by Xinhua, Wang nodded to Russia’s concerns and expressed consternation at “five consecutive rounds of eastward expansion” by NATO, but he was unequivocal about the necessity of deescalation.
“Regional security cannot be guaranteed by reinforcing and even expanding military blocs,” he told his Western counterparts. “Russia’s legitimate demands on security should be taken seriously and solved in a proper way,” he added.
What was clear, though, is that Xi doesn’t believe Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is “proper.” In fact, Wang seemed to suggest (without saying it explicitly) that China increasingly believes Putin’s actions are wholly improper.
“It is absolutely imperative that all parties prevent the situation in Ukraine from deteriorating or even getting out of control,” he said, before emphasizing (it was almost a demand) that “the safety of ordinary people’s lives and properties should be safeguarded, and in particular, large-scale humanitarian crises have to be prevented.”
Amusingly, Wang claimed that among major countries, China has “the best record.” China “has never invaded other countries, launched proxy wars, sought spheres of influence or engaged in any military bloc confrontation.”
Most of that is true — sort of. One assumes Wang is referring to recent history, but even there, his claims were somewhat dubious. China doesn’t need a “military bloc.” It’s its own bloc. And it’s absolutely seeking “spheres of influence.” Xi’s “Belt and Road” project is influence-seeking by way of economic development. And guess who’s under the influence? Putin’s Russia. “China’s largest policy banks have provided tens of billions of dollars of credit to Russia as part of Xi’s Belt-and-Road Initiative, funding everything from infrastructure to oil and gas,” Bloomberg wrote Friday, when at least two state-run lenders cut financing for the purchase of Russian physical commodities.
Read more: The X(i) Factor
Wang, who, despite being China’s top diplomat, isn’t exactly known for speaking in diplomatic terms, appeared to chide Russia, if only tacitly. “China firmly stands for respecting and safeguarding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and earnestly abiding by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter,” he told Liz Truss, Josep Borrell (the EU’s foreign affairs representative) and Emmanuel Bonne (a counselor to Emmanuel Macron). China’s position on all of that is “clear,” Wang said. “It also applies to the Ukraine issue.”
Obviously, I’m reading between the lines and try as I might, I can’t be completely objective. I, like many of you, grew up in a Western democracy during the post-War period. I’m biased against Russia. Not the historical Russia, obviously. But rather the USSR and now Putin’s Russia which, in some ways, is worse.
Let me take this opportunity to make what I believe is an important point. Human history is the story of development and progress, yes, but it’s also a tale of conflict and suffering. Over the past 500 years, the countries we now identify with rationality, democratic values, peace and prosperity have repeatedly foisted outrageous calamities upon humanity. At issue isn’t innocence or pretensions to virtue. If it was, the West should’ve been indicted and convicted a thousand times over.
The issue, rather, is that major powers have a responsibility to maintain a veneer (no matter how thin) of stability in countries and regions that “matter.” That’s cold hearted in the extreme. It effectively entails dismissing horrific humanitarian crises in Syria and Yemen as problems that don’t “count” and writing off simmering conflicts and various manifestations of instability (e.g., Libya) as hopelessly intractable, and thereby not worth troubling ourselves over. The unfortunate reality is, most of those conflicts were in some way, shape or form, facilitated by the US and its allies.
Regular readers know I don’t personally believe those conflicts (or Western culpability) should be forgotten (or forgiven). If you know anything about Syria’s ongoing civil war, for example, you know the word “horrific” isn’t just a convenient adjective tossed about to convey the scope of the tragedy. Rather, it’s a literal horror show. I was compelled to cover it extensively in one career incarnation. At the height of the fighting, it was almost unbearable. Covering it contributed to my final descent into the almost suicidal alcoholism that nearly killed me in late 2016. And I covered it from the safety of a nicely adorned New York City apartment. The idea of being there, in person, is something I couldn’t (and still can’t) fathom.
So, that’s where I stand personally. But from a dispassionate perspective that cares only about the maintenance of global stability, Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine is simply more dangerous than, for example, toppling Muammar Qaddafi or Saddam Hussein.
To be sure, the US occupation of Iraq had consequences that’ll echo for as long as humans are still keeping written records of history. Most obviously, the occupation gave rise to ISIS which, in turn, exacerbated the conflict in Syria, worsened an already acute refugee crisis and manifested in the most outlandishly brazen terrorist attack on a Western metropolis since 9/11.
That said, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is something entirely different. As I’ve repeatedly emphasized, this is a pure war of conquest. It’s not regime change for the sake of security, nation-building and the forceful imposition of one country’s idea of political and economic best practices. Indeed, it’s not even regime change for the sake of some nefarious ulterior motive. Rather, it’s an old school takeover. Putin’s war walked out of another era.
Beyond that, Ukraine is different because it runs the risk of triggering a military conflict between Russia and NATO. It’s also highly likely that any decision on Putin’s part to make good on Maria Zakharova’s threats against Finland and Sweden would force a Western military response. There’s no doubt that every US ally around the world would either send troops or, at the least, offer assistance to NATO in such a conflict. Tehran would likely offer Moscow the IRGC’s help, although it’s not obvious what that would entail in practice given their inability to project beyond the Shia crescent. And Beijing would have a decision to make: Go to war with NATO on Putin’s behalf, effectively subjugating the Chinese people’s long-term security to the whims of a madman, or refuse Moscow’s request for military assistance and accept whatever consequences the Kremlin might decide such a slight warrants.
That’s why Ukraine matters. If what you want is a completely dispassionate assessment and an answer to all the Kremlin’s “Whataboutism,” that’s it. What Putin decides to do next will determine whether the world is plunged into a global conflict between world powers, all of whom are nuclear-armed.
And that’s why the normally abrasive Wang Yi, not to mention the big man himself, seems keen to cajole Moscow into stopping before it’s too late. As much as Beijing may want to support the Kremlin (and if you read Xinhua’s account of Wang’s remarks to Western diplomats, it’s obvious they would if they could), it’s extraordinarily unlikely that Xi would risk his own grip on power, imperil the Chinese people and, perhaps, risk a scenario where the US feels compelled to preemptively bolster Taiwan’s defenses, all to secure Putin’s (now wholly dubious) place in the history books.
If Putin can’t count on Xi to unequivocally back the Ukraine “operation,” there’s virtually no chance Beijing would support additional Russian military operations against other eastern European countries.
In his remarks, Wang deftly alternated between thinly-veiled allusions to the folly of American empire and nebulous warnings to Moscow. “China will continue to reject all hegemonies and strong powers,” he said, clearly referencing the US. Then, in a remark that was both ominous and ambiguous, Wang said Beijing will “firmly safeguard the legitimate and legal rights and interests of developing countries, especially small and medium-sized countries.” Russia is a developing country. But it’s most assuredly not a “small” or a “medium-sized” country. Ukraine, by contrast, is both developing and small.
The Russian people need to replace Putin with Navalny before it is too late. The innocent people of Russia and Ukraine are bearing and will continue to bear the worst of this transgression.
Now would be the time to tell China that due to concerns over their support of Russian revanchism, the US is ending its support of the One China policy. Or at least, threaten to do so. Tell them that a repeat of Ukraine in the east would be entirely different. It would be a wasted opportunity not to.
Thank you for sharing your personal experience of exposure to “evil”, and characterizing the convoluted and deadly evil knock on effects of our Bush re-election war in Iraq. I am glad you made it through your hellish experience.
In their own greed for power and control China will obviously mute a positive response against Putin’s selfish personal desire for conquest. He is obviously not acting within their comfort level, and that is a strategic mistake.
Really great essay H…. I really agree most all of it . There is more than enough blame to go around . I do not think Biden and company are calling the shots on this however.. This whole episode could have been averted by either side had they chosen to listen to their counter party. Russia malfunctioned on this clearly . It is irrational that a potential ( but very likely missile ) base on Russia’s border would cause the consequences that it could easily cascade into. Had US honored past agreements on NATO expansion it would have set the basis for agreement . We are not dealing with a toothless Tiger in this case and that should not need constant reminders. I still think cooler heads will prevail because there is no rational alternative .. I’d better be correct this time around ..
I guess Xi forgot about Tibet.
China’s 19,202 combat casualties in the 1950 battle of Chosin Reservoir and the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War seem to have been forgotten too.
When it comes to Chinese history Yi is wanging it.
In a weird way, Putin’s revanchism has bought Taiwan some time: Xi would be crazy to move on his island neighbor while the plight of Ukraine is fresh in the world’s collective memory (potentially years). Maybe more interesting are the consequences, if any, for Lukashenko in Belarus. Seems to me that he’s not going to be given a pass by the West for his support of Vlad the Mad.
Kind of ironic that the latest hero of the western world turns out to be a Ukrainian. Who knew that Volodymyr Zelensky was made of stone and steel? I hope the citizens of Kiev manage to keep him alive. Ukrainian democracy produced a winner.
Agreed @uptownguy. I’d just humbly add “Ukrainian democracy” and stand up comedy “produced a winner.”
A comedian’s mind is a finely tuned instrument for reading and responding to what other’s find to be “funny.” No small thing. The Funny is the relief valve of a man’s, of a women’s, of a nation’s deepest anxieties and joys. Undercurrents of the psyche are often to deep for articulation without the cathartic ministrations of skilled, and often wise, comedians. I say wise because no comedian makes it close to old age without a significant dollop of innate wisdom and a talent for thinking on their feet 😉 Zelensky rapier riposte to the Allies offer to provide him safe conduct out Ukraine, “I need ammunition, not a ride”, will last The Ages. The stuff of monuments and tombstones. But, to each his own, I always thought Bonzo had more comedic talent than Reagan, so what does a worm know about men, women, and their nations?
Humorless Putin is a Great Plodder. It took him decades of single-minded unwavering focus, dutifully kneading the loaf of his half-baked shriveled imagination, to rise to where? Here! Seriously? A great mind “for a white bread world” at best I suppose. To bad for present day Putin it isn’t the 19th century.
H
Every time you pull back the curtain a bit we see a more interesting and complex individual. Clearly you have been there and back.
Machiavelli would agree with all this. He lived through the period when Italy invented the modern Western concept of balance of power. But in the end the balance of power in Italy only lasted 50 tears, 1450-1500. Then the Kings of France took on the Habsburg emperors of Germany and Austria for the next 300 years, leading to much slaughter and suffering. The recurring theme is that empires fight empires, and that’s not going to change anytime soon. Power is the only reality, as Michel Foucault pointed out a generation ago. Not only political power, but economic power as well, as we see in the sanctioning of Russia. The US economy is the underpinning of American political power, and our economic empire is what helps keep the world in balance. We need to keep it that way.
“Russia’s legitimate demands on security should be taken seriously and solved in a proper way,” he added.
NATO is already on Russia’s border (and closer to Moscow) in the Baltics. And if Russia is successful in taking over Ukraine, then there will be four more adjacent NATO members (Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland) on Russia’s effectively expanded border… so where does this logic/justification end?
One can only hope that Putin’s hubris has resulting in him biting off more than he can chew and instead he chokes. It may become the perfect time for someone on the inside (and perhaps close to Putin) to rise up and put an end Putin’s 20+ years of autocratic rule.
H, thank you for what I think is the most powerful and thoughtful piece you have written on this platform to date.
“The unfortunate reality is, most of those conflicts were in some way, shape or form, facilitated by the US and its allies.”
By default. The only choice for ALL major powers, Western or otherwise, is either not to participate in a conflict at all, or to participate in it to some extent. Both alternatives facilitate one side or the other.
But this is actually beside the point. The humanitarian crises you covered in the Middle East, and similar events that we see in SE Asia, have been initiated and committed by people born and raised in those regions. Witness Iraq (Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party and the invasion of Kuwait) and Afghanistan (The Taliban and 9/11). Witness the never-ending disaster of Burma.
Shifting blame to the supporting roles that some countries play obscures the fact that the ultimate responsibility for the atrocities rests with the people committing them, the local people who make the plans, give the orders, pull the triggers, burn the villages…. They are not mindless robots. They are humans like us who make their own choices and decisions.
The focus belongs on them and their actions. To do less is a back-handed ‘ugly Americanism’ that denies them agency and therefore humanity, and risks delaying the search for and implementation of local solutions.
Because solutions imposed by outsiders don’t work. Only local solutions are resilient. Sometimes. Nothing else has a snowball’s chance in hell.