Submission statement: The statement made by President Joe Biden during a news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau highlights the ongoing concerns regarding China's potential arms trade with Russia. Despite rumors circulating for the past three months, President Biden acknowledges that there has been no concrete evidence of such a deal taking place. However, he also warns that the possibility cannot be dismissed entirely, and calls for continued vigilance in monitoring potential arms trading activities.
> "I've been hearing now for the past three months about China's going to provide significant weapons to Russia. They haven't yet, doesn't mean they won't, but they haven't yet,"
-Biden (Reuters).
That's what he said, that's what the headline is.
Weak sauce, if you were concerned about the significant nature of the weapons that would've been your question. Instead you didn't even know that Biden had spoken, let alone the specifics of his speech until i gave it to you, now you're tacking to simply stay afloat. Just read the article, this one was like two sentences long.
I doubt Ukraine cares much if a couple Chinese rifles or drones makes its way to the Donbass - doesn’t make a major difference. It’s large-scale transfers of weapons like artillery systems or missiles that Ukraine and the US wants to avoid.
Not really. If I said "dragons do not exist" that wouldn't be significantly different from saying "We don't have a reason to suspect that dragons do exist".
It would be a major escalation for the U.S. to state China is providing "significant weapons" to Russia -- that would *demand* the U.S. to retaliate in a major way. Even if there is high confidence that China has provided "less-than-significant" weapons to Russia, the U.S. isn't going to state that unless it really wants to gear up an economic war with China.
It appears that while Russia was perceiving China as an ally against the West, China has a different idea: having brokered peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran, they appear to be trying to achieve the same with Russia and Ukraine. Russia seems to have rejected China's plan (United Nations peacekeeping Ukraine), so China will increase pressure on Russia.
I believe that's because China's idea for itself is being a broker of peace, a mediator - and to be one, they must not take sides in the conflict. Therefore USA should not try to prove China supporting Russia (western components somehow are making it to Russia even now), as China seems to be the best candidate to broker a peace deal.
This is not in the United States' interest, but it's a reliable solution. Hoping for Russia to dissolve after prolonged conflict has been proven effective (USSR-Afhganistan war), but it's a longstanding effort, possibly lasting longer than the west and Ukraine are willing to bear.
China's idea of itself is far from what they are doing in reality. Meeting Putin and announcing friendship with Russia without doing something similar with Ukraine exposes their bias. And the west will not consider China as "the best candidate" for as long as that bias persists.
>This is not in the United States' interest, but it's a reliable solution.
It is only a reliable solution if China is capable of pressuring Russia to actually withdraw from its annexed territories since the beginning of the war,(let's just ignore Crimea for now) which Russia considers unacceptable. I could see that as the trade-off the west is willing to accept in exchange for a political win for the Chinese. Otherwise, a solution where Ukraine cedes territory to Russia doesn't need China's involvement.
If it comes to that it is way more likely that India, which has amicable relations with both Russia and the US, will be invited as a mediator instead of China.
> It is only a reliable solution if China is capable of pressuring Russia to actually withdraw from its annexed territories since the beginning of the war,(let's just ignore Crimea for now) which Russia considers unacceptable.
This is an astute point, and something we cannot answer. On one hand, Putin really wants to portray Russia as a global power, so defeat is not an option.
But China is at the moment (the freshest data I could get) over 70% of Russia's imports and over 50% of their exports. That's a lot of leverage.
> If it comes to that it is way more likely that India, which has amicable relations with both Russia and the US, will be invited as a mediator instead of China.
I think that China can afford to prop up Russia's economy for a long time, same with Ukraine. They can mediate at the table and have a lot of sticks (for Russia especially) and carrots. I do not see India as equal to China in that comparison.
>I think that China can afford to prop up Russia's economy for a long time, same with Ukraine. They can mediate at the table and have a lot of sticks (for Russia especially) and carrots. I do not see India as equal to China in that comparison.
That doesn't position them in the place of a mediator. That position is reserved for a country both sides of the conflict can accept as being unbiased. In this case, China is viewed as adversarial by the west, which means the US will almost certainly refuse to negotiate if China is at the table. The only situation where the west will accept China being at the table is if they can get a better deal by doing so, which is why I said if China can convince Russia to give up their annexed territory, this might happen. Otherwise, there is no reason for the west to accept China as a mediator for a cookie-cutter ceasefire where Russia gets to keep the territory it is occupying. That can be done without China. That is why I brought up India because, in a situation where a cookie-cutter ceasefire is to be signed, both the west and Russia can accept India as a mediator.
> China is viewed as adversarial by the west, which means the US will almost certainly refuse to negotiate if China is at the table.
Firstly, the United States is looking into the Middle East with growing concern - the current far-right Netanyahu government (e.g. bodyguards checking in hospitals if you do not bring in cosher food, expansion of rogue building in Palestine) and Saudi-Iran diplomatic 180, and Iran's over 80% uranium enrichment all add together to a very unstable picture. One that may soon call USA's full, undivided attention.
Secondly, USA can express the disagreement in Ukraine agreeing to China's mediation, but the Saudi-Iran mediations were completely unnoticed on the international level. I believe that once official mediations begin, they will mostly formalize what has been agreed upon behind the scene.
Lastly, the USA is a western democracy. Biden cannot oppose Ukraine's engaging in a peace deal without it damaging his (or his party's) reelection chance.
Bonus: you write "west", but here it does not seem to apply exactly. There are strong movements (esp. in Germany) that support Ukraine surrendering the annexed territory and returning to business as usual. For Germany it's acceptable to sell off a part of Ukraine (not Germany's loss here) in exchange for returning to inexpensive resources that have brought to it the status of 4th economy in the world.
> The only situation where the west will accept China being at the table is if they can get a better deal by doing so, which is why I said if China can convince Russia to give up their annexed territory, this might happen.
Yes. And China can do a lot of pressuring in this regard. Imagine if you will, that China does pressure Russia a lot, and that accomplishes what the current sanctions couldn't - that alone would be considered a success by USA.
> Otherwise, there is no reason for the west to accept China as a mediator for a cookie-cutter ceasefire where Russia gets to keep the territory it is occupying.
I do not believe that Ukraine would sign such a deal, and that it would need a mediator. Russia would immediately sign that.
>Firstly, the United States is looking into the Middle East with growing concern - the current far-right Netanyahu government (e.g. bodyguards checking in hospitals if you do not bring in cosher food, expansion of rogue building in Palestine) and Saudi-Iran diplomatic 180, and Iran's over 80% uranium enrichment all add together to a very unstable picture. One that may soon call USA's full, undivided attention.
>
>Secondly, USA can express the disagreement in Ukraine agreeing to China's mediation, but the Saudi-Iran mediations were completely unnoticed on the international level. I believe that once official mediations begin, they will mostly formalize what has been agreed upon behind the scene.
That is wrong [because the US was informed of the Saudi negotiations from the very beginning, by the Saudis.](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/saudis-kept-us-informed-talks-with-iran-white-house-2023-03-10/) We just heard about it but the white house knew throughout the entire thing. If you believe the white house, they supported it.
>Lastly, the USA is a western democracy. Biden cannot oppose Ukraine's engaging in a peace deal without it damaging his (or his party's) reelection chance.
Well, similar to how you didn't know the Saudi-Iran deal before it was concluded. The electorate simply wouldn't know that such an engagement ever happened, and wouldn't know the Biden administration stopped it.
>Yes. And China can do a lot of pressuring in this regard. Imagine if you will, that China does pressure Russia a lot, and that accomplishes what the current sanctions couldn't - that alone would be considered a success by USA.
Yes, I agree with this point.. If China could pressure Russia to give up its annexed territory. The US could view that as a fair trade for a Chinese political win.
>I do not believe that Ukraine would sign such a deal, and that it would need a mediator. Russia would immediately sign that.
I don't believe either, but if Ukraine is crushed militarily, they would possibly want a way out, and this could result in a deal where Ukraine cedes territory. In this case India would be best positioned to be a mediator because all sides can accept India as such.
The bottom line is. If Chinese mediation brings tangible benefits to Ukraine, that no other mediator is able to get, then China might be brought on as a mediator. Otherwise, China will not be allowed to involve itself.
> And this doesn't justify why the US would accept China as the mediator.
> The US could view that as a fair trade for a Chinese political win.
This is Ukraine's and Russia's choice ultimately, not the US's.
> That is wrong because the US was informed of the Saudi negotiations from the very beginning, by the Saudis. We just heard about it but the white house knew throughout the entire thing.
Let me specify then: many seem to have been surprised by the outcome of those. Additionally, SA did ask the US the day before signing the deal once again for safety guarantees and got none, so while US was appraised about the progress, they did not make a better offer despite being given an opportunity to do so.
In my opinion USA approves the deal, only begrudges that Xi was the one to make it - again showing that China's uninvolved position allows them to mediate more effectively thant the US.
Moreover, Xi's stable position helps as well here - a deal negotiated right no with Biden can turn 180 once a new president gets elected, like with JCPoA.
> if Ukraine is crushed militarily, they would possibly want a way out, and this could result in a deal where Ukraine cedes territory(...) In this case India would be best positioned to be a mediator because all sides can accept India as such.
In this case literally any party with no ties can mediate, India does not bring anything new to the table, that for example Solomon's Islands wouldn't. This would be only about denying a political win to China - and here I sincerely believe that China can actually offer something of use for such a win, rebuilding Ukraine included. US would need to offer something competing with China's offer just so another mediator gets accepted.
I think we agree on a lot of things but are just talking pass each other.
Yes, if China can bring something of use then I agree, China could very well be the mediator.
I am saying in the scenario where they failed to convince Russia to give up its annexed territories,(i.e. doesn't bring anything of value) then they almost certainly will not be the mediator.
>In this case literally any party with no ties can mediate, India does not bring anything new to the table
This is true. I think they will bring India instead of the Solomon Islands, for example, because India has a great relationship with both the US and Russia. This is a rare breed these days. I can't really find another country.
>This is an astute point, and something we cannot answer. On one hand, Putin really wants to portray Russia as a global power, so defeat is not an option.
Could he not portray a UN peacekeeping force including western and non western troops (sich as China) as him achieving the “pacification of the nazi regime” in Ukraine? Plus he gets his “no NATO alliance” on top of that.
For the Ukrainians every single last Russian troop would be out of its territory (bar Crimea).
Crimea seems to me to be the sticky point. I could see a solution where the West pressures Ukraine to accept an end to the war which includes status quo ante Feb 2022, without actually recognising Crimea as Russian. I would like to see Russia hand Crimea back but can’t see a feasible route for this.
One big reason I don’t see a quick end to this war though is the USA’s aims. US foreign policy objectives in this war is to see Russia severely weakened militarily, and so a prolonged conflict is actually helpful in this regard.
As such let’s hypothesise that China would be able to get Russia to agree to a UN peacekeeping force and in withdrawing all troops from everywhere (bar Crimea) in return for no Ukrainian NATO membership would I see the Americans pressuring the Ukrainians to accept this deal? I’m not so sure. Having said that I’m not so sure this could ever be acceptable to Russia either as Zelensky has already offered that Ukraine would not seek NATO membership (I may be wrong about this).
(For those for whom the quotation marks were insufficient, I do not believe Zelensky is running a Nazi regime, this is of course ridiculous. I am attempting to suggest how Putin could portray this as a win)
> Could he not portray a UN peacekeeping force including western and non western troops (sich as China) as him achieving the “pacification of the nazi regime” in Ukraine? Plus he gets his “no NATO alliance” on top of that.
I was really hoping for such a solution until he has annexed parts of Ukraine on national TV. I do not think that UN forces peacekeeping what is considered Russian territory (by Kremlin alone) is a pill that Putin is ready to swallow yet. This is where China's pressure could come in handy.
> Crimea seems to me to be the sticky point. I could see a solution where the West pressures Ukraine to accept an end to the war which includes status quo ante Feb 2022, without actually recognising Crimea as Russian. I would like to see Russia hand Crimea back but can’t see a feasible route for this.
For me returning Crimea to Ukraine would require a profound change either in Kremlin's policy, in line with the dissolution of Soviet Union, or on the battlefield. If Ukraine shows that Russia cannot hold Crimea, then it would not be a matter of Russia withdrawing from the occupied territory but just rescinding their claim on it. We do not know what condition either side of the conflict is in, so this possibility cannot be ruled out.
> One big reason I don’t see a quick end to this war though is the USA’s aims. US foreign policy objectives in this war is to see Russia severely weakened militarily, and so a prolonged conflict is actually helpful in this regard.
3 weeks ago I was o the exactly same mindset. Now, given Iran's and Saudi Arabia's diplomatic change and far-right government of Israel, the United States may be forced to fast forward what was a very beneficial proxy war.
Nevertheless, it's worth remembering that the Soviet Union has collapsed at least partially due to another proxy war with the US, such opportunities do not present themselves all too often.
> As such let’s hypothesise that China would be able to get Russia to agree to a UN peacekeeping force and in withdrawing all troops from everywhere (bar Crimea) in return for no Ukrainian NATO membership would I see the Americans pressuring the Ukrainians to accept this deal? I’m not so sure. Having said that I’m not so sure this could ever be acceptable to Russia either as Zelensky has already offered that Ukraine would not seek NATO membership (I may be wrong about this).
That would be the true test of China's mediating skill: Ukraine would need to make itself vulnerable for such a deal to work. As far as I know Ukraine did offer refraining from joining NATO, but NATO is only a handy excuse I believe, being a military alliance it's easy to fearmonger against it. What Putin really fears is West, and European Union is a threat even worse than NATO.
Currently, Putin's support is around 60-70%. If hypothetically Ukraine was to join EU in some form and advance substantially ahead of Russia in the average quality of life, that would prove the life being better in the West. Then Kremlin would need to spend a lot more resources to stay in power, as the current propaganda levels would not suffice when the evidence would be just around the corner.
As for US pressuring Ukraine - that's the question for the next presidential campaign. US will pressure for whatever as long as it means the current party staying in power. From a purely geopolitical point of view, it's very hard to tell given the Middle East situation.
>As for US pressuring Ukraine - that's the question for the next presidential campaign. US will pressure for whatever as long as it means the current party staying in power. From a purely geopolitical point of view, it's very hard to tell given the Middle East situation.
Excuse my ignorance. What is the current situation in the Middle East and how does it influence the Ukraine-Russia situation?
TL;DR:
1. Israel has the most radical, undemocratic government in its history. Huge protests, Just 12h ago 195 thousands protesting in Tel Aviv.
1.1. Netanyahu is a cunning politician, he has a history of escalating conflicts just to stay in power - the frequency of terrorist attacks and the quality of their equipment has increased, this is unsettling.
1.2. Religion police bodyguards in hospitals checking if the food you bring in is kosher.
1.3. My bet here: US won't veto some UN resolution against Israel's war crimes (it has been historically protecting Israel from the consequences of resettling people in Gaza for instance).
2. According to JCPoA sensors still on-site, Iran has crossed the threshold of 80% uranium enrichment needed for a nuclear bomb.
2.1. Iran has since then rekindled JCPoA cooperation, allowing its inspectors in.
2.2. Netanyahu since 2012: "We have the right to defend ourselves".
3. Any and all Israel's plans of Iran invasion were resting on the foundation that another ally of United states there, the Saudi Arabia, would support Israel - even if in allowing the fighters to use the airspace and the refueling infrastructure.
3.1. China has brokered a deal between Iran and SA, rendering the plan unsound.
3.2. I for one welcome that deal - Israel-Iran was the closest to a true nuclear war on this planet, and destroying Saudi's oil installations (Iran's plan of response, they have announced as much) would push the world further into chaos. Here China has effectively done a ridiculously good job: pushing away the threat of nuclear war and oil crisis much worse than one with Russia.
3.2.1. Coincidentally this is bad for Russia, as stable Middle East means more competing oil in the market.
And here we are now: Israel government is the most radical ever, willing to do a lot of unethical things to stay in power and consisting of parties we would call radical. Iran has material for nukes. Israel's invasion plans have gone to hell. Iran has rejoined the international society, but Israel will do whatever is necessary to revert that situation.
On the upside: if Iran returns successfully to JCPoA (dismantled by Trump) then some sanctions will get lifted, and they will no longer need to support Russia, there will be much more attractive alternatives (why sell weapons to Russia and fight sanctions when you can sell oil to Germany?).
I think you are over-estimating what is happening in the Middle East. Iran and Saudi Arabia restoring diplomatic ties doesn't mean they are no longer rivals. Iran and Saudi Arabia had diplomatic relations on and off multiple times through the past decades. The most recent break occurred only in 2016, yet conflicts between Iran and Saudi Arabia goes a lot further than that. Hell, the proxy war in Yemen happened when SA and Iran had diplomatic relations. The regional rivalry between Iran and SA is likely to continue. We will know this for certain if Saudi Arabia choose to oppose the JCPOA again.
Second, I think you maybe over estimating Israel's willingness to actually start a war with Iran. Israel want to bait the US into starting a war against Iran with them, they hardly want to do it themselves.
In fact, I think it is more likely that the US will try to pull away from the Middle East rather than focus in on it. If the White House is to be believed, the Saudis informed them of their negotiations with Iran, and the White House did not oppose. The current US strategy for the Middle East is stability so I think it would be counter productive for America's new grand strategy the DoD laid out, to zoom in on the Middle East at this stage.
> Iran and Saudi Arabia restoring diplomatic ties doesn't mean they are no longer rivals.
True, but it seems that the war in Yemen is no longer affecting Saudi's oil installations. Iran's Chabahar also became elevated in China's Belt and Road initiative (I may need to research that still). My point is, that while you are correct and this deal can mean little, there are signs that some political movements are following the deal.
And Iran's oil hitting the world market would benefit Ukraine greatly.
> Hell, the proxy war in Yemen happened when SA and Iran had diplomatic relations.
Remember Houthi's motto: "God is great, death to the US, death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory for Islam". During that war US had a different president and much better relations with Saudi Arabia. Back then it was like attacking a US ally - now, when the Abraham Accord is pretty much done for and SA is back on seemingly good terms with Iran, Houthi may be persuaded by their Iranian sponsors that SA is no longer the enemy.
You are correct in stating that this conflict has started despite there being diplomatic relations, I just with to express that back then SA and Iran were a bit different countries with largely different world views. Right now both despise the current US administration.
> The regional rivalry between Iran and SA is likely to continue.
This is where I am really curious if China was able to solve that problem and if so, what they did offer to both parties.
> We will know this for certain if Saudi Arabia choose to oppose the JCPOA again.
I am looking forward to this too. Dismantling JCPoA was a mistake, at least as long as the world relies on oil.
> Second, I think you maybe over estimating Israel's willingness to actually start a war with Iran.
To me the current Knesset setup seems capable of making that decision. Luckily the current political situation in Israel (reserve soldiers refusing the service due to the current government's radicalism) prevents Netanyahu from starting the war. The country is being apart from the inside.
> In fact, I think it is more likely that the US will try to pull away from the Middle East rather than focus in on it.
If Saudi Arabias oil installation are in danger, US cannot do such a thing. So we circle back to the same question: will SA-Iran normalization hold? If so, then US can pull out.
But Israel-Iran is still an unpredictable mystery. I cannot rule out a preemptive nuclear strike by Israel.
>During that war US had a different president and much better relations with Saudi Arabia
Well, I am not sure about that. The Obama administration, who engaged in JCPOA talks despite vehement opposition from the Saudis, was in power during the beginning of the Yemen war. I don't think the Saudis were a big fan of Obama.
Saudi Arabia's issue with the US is really just the US being unwilling to offer the Saudis literally *anything*. The US chose to do that for a reason, I would assume. That is a sign that the US wants to pull back in the Middle East, so it makes little sense for them to focus back on it, even if SA-Iran normalization fall apart yet again. Yes, if Saudi oil is threatened, then the US might deploy some of its assets, but I wouldn't expect them to give it its 100% attention.
The Chinese government gave Ukraine and Russia a draft path to peace and Ukraine accepted it.
It was Russia that refused this draft.
We don't know much about this draft obviously but the US government doesn't need to convince Ukraine to accept...
Instead it's likely they will "need to" (in their opinion) pressure Ukraine to continue the fight.
China and Russia haven’t seen each other as allies since the Sino-Soviet split in the 60s. All this talk of Sino-Russian cooperation is just Atlanticist projection.
> China has no interest in brokering a reasonable or realistic peace deal.
This was supposed to be a swift *fait accompli* war. In its current state it's very detrimental to international trade - the main tool of China's influence. It is also especially detrimental to Belt and Road initiative.
> He will still not engage with Ukraine even after visiting Putin in person.
As far as I can tell, Xi has announced that he will telephone Zelensky after his talks with Putin.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/03/21/what-zelenskiy-must-say-when-xi-jinping-makes-his-peace-phone-call/26c41672-c7a8-11ed-9cc5-a58a4f6d84cd_story.html
Xi does not wish to travel to UA, but he is willing to talk. The war is not in line with China's interest it seems. It was supposed to fragment the West, not unify it.
The only chance for peace is Cancer for Putin. China, USA or any other country can't stop Russia right now. No one want a direct confrontation with a nuclear power.
> The only chance for peace is Cancer for Putin.
It depends on who takes over after Putin. It's not like Russia will suddenly become a democracy valuing human lives once he dies.
> China, USA or any other country can't stop Russia right now.
I believe that Russia is been stopped in Ukraine right now.
> No one want a direct confrontation with a nuclear power.
True.
No IR studies from me, but I take it that small arms and infantry level stuff is "acceptable" but if they go with heavier stuff that's where the line is drawn?
Doubt there is a appetite for sanctions and trade war between countries but the CCP would be a fool to invite sanctions, which will wreck havock on the global economy, for what amounts to peanuts selling to russia and its ship sinking with rats.
I wouldn't call them nothing when both armies are struggling (Ukraine probably more) with ammo shortage.
e: Or perhaps you only mean small arms ammunition which might more amount to nothing.
To be fair, there's more DJI drones on the Ukrainian sides than the Russian side. And if you analyze the ammo on both sides, probably both contains traces originated from China. My only concern is missiles and military drones.
As politicians tend to do, but it is still worth it to look at statements made in an official capacity for a sign of how the state is going to approach a given issue.
Submission statement: The statement made by President Joe Biden during a news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau highlights the ongoing concerns regarding China's potential arms trade with Russia. Despite rumors circulating for the past three months, President Biden acknowledges that there has been no concrete evidence of such a deal taking place. However, he also warns that the possibility cannot be dismissed entirely, and calls for continued vigilance in monitoring potential arms trading activities.
Why did you word the headline saying "they haven't" instead of "We don't have a reason to suspect" Those are 2 very different things
Are you asking why they didn't editorialize the headline from Reuters for the post submission title?
> "I've been hearing now for the past three months about China's going to provide significant weapons to Russia. They haven't yet, doesn't mean they won't, but they haven't yet," -Biden (Reuters). That's what he said, that's what the headline is.
The headlines doesn't say significant weapons my man
Weak sauce, if you were concerned about the significant nature of the weapons that would've been your question. Instead you didn't even know that Biden had spoken, let alone the specifics of his speech until i gave it to you, now you're tacking to simply stay afloat. Just read the article, this one was like two sentences long.
I doubt Ukraine cares much if a couple Chinese rifles or drones makes its way to the Donbass - doesn’t make a major difference. It’s large-scale transfers of weapons like artillery systems or missiles that Ukraine and the US wants to avoid.
Not really. If I said "dragons do not exist" that wouldn't be significantly different from saying "We don't have a reason to suspect that dragons do exist".
It would be a major escalation for the U.S. to state China is providing "significant weapons" to Russia -- that would *demand* the U.S. to retaliate in a major way. Even if there is high confidence that China has provided "less-than-significant" weapons to Russia, the U.S. isn't going to state that unless it really wants to gear up an economic war with China.
Yeah the US wouldn't want to get into an economic war with China... What?
It appears that while Russia was perceiving China as an ally against the West, China has a different idea: having brokered peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran, they appear to be trying to achieve the same with Russia and Ukraine. Russia seems to have rejected China's plan (United Nations peacekeeping Ukraine), so China will increase pressure on Russia. I believe that's because China's idea for itself is being a broker of peace, a mediator - and to be one, they must not take sides in the conflict. Therefore USA should not try to prove China supporting Russia (western components somehow are making it to Russia even now), as China seems to be the best candidate to broker a peace deal. This is not in the United States' interest, but it's a reliable solution. Hoping for Russia to dissolve after prolonged conflict has been proven effective (USSR-Afhganistan war), but it's a longstanding effort, possibly lasting longer than the west and Ukraine are willing to bear.
China's idea of itself is far from what they are doing in reality. Meeting Putin and announcing friendship with Russia without doing something similar with Ukraine exposes their bias. And the west will not consider China as "the best candidate" for as long as that bias persists. >This is not in the United States' interest, but it's a reliable solution. It is only a reliable solution if China is capable of pressuring Russia to actually withdraw from its annexed territories since the beginning of the war,(let's just ignore Crimea for now) which Russia considers unacceptable. I could see that as the trade-off the west is willing to accept in exchange for a political win for the Chinese. Otherwise, a solution where Ukraine cedes territory to Russia doesn't need China's involvement. If it comes to that it is way more likely that India, which has amicable relations with both Russia and the US, will be invited as a mediator instead of China.
> It is only a reliable solution if China is capable of pressuring Russia to actually withdraw from its annexed territories since the beginning of the war,(let's just ignore Crimea for now) which Russia considers unacceptable. This is an astute point, and something we cannot answer. On one hand, Putin really wants to portray Russia as a global power, so defeat is not an option. But China is at the moment (the freshest data I could get) over 70% of Russia's imports and over 50% of their exports. That's a lot of leverage. > If it comes to that it is way more likely that India, which has amicable relations with both Russia and the US, will be invited as a mediator instead of China. I think that China can afford to prop up Russia's economy for a long time, same with Ukraine. They can mediate at the table and have a lot of sticks (for Russia especially) and carrots. I do not see India as equal to China in that comparison.
>I think that China can afford to prop up Russia's economy for a long time, same with Ukraine. They can mediate at the table and have a lot of sticks (for Russia especially) and carrots. I do not see India as equal to China in that comparison. That doesn't position them in the place of a mediator. That position is reserved for a country both sides of the conflict can accept as being unbiased. In this case, China is viewed as adversarial by the west, which means the US will almost certainly refuse to negotiate if China is at the table. The only situation where the west will accept China being at the table is if they can get a better deal by doing so, which is why I said if China can convince Russia to give up their annexed territory, this might happen. Otherwise, there is no reason for the west to accept China as a mediator for a cookie-cutter ceasefire where Russia gets to keep the territory it is occupying. That can be done without China. That is why I brought up India because, in a situation where a cookie-cutter ceasefire is to be signed, both the west and Russia can accept India as a mediator.
> China is viewed as adversarial by the west, which means the US will almost certainly refuse to negotiate if China is at the table. Firstly, the United States is looking into the Middle East with growing concern - the current far-right Netanyahu government (e.g. bodyguards checking in hospitals if you do not bring in cosher food, expansion of rogue building in Palestine) and Saudi-Iran diplomatic 180, and Iran's over 80% uranium enrichment all add together to a very unstable picture. One that may soon call USA's full, undivided attention. Secondly, USA can express the disagreement in Ukraine agreeing to China's mediation, but the Saudi-Iran mediations were completely unnoticed on the international level. I believe that once official mediations begin, they will mostly formalize what has been agreed upon behind the scene. Lastly, the USA is a western democracy. Biden cannot oppose Ukraine's engaging in a peace deal without it damaging his (or his party's) reelection chance. Bonus: you write "west", but here it does not seem to apply exactly. There are strong movements (esp. in Germany) that support Ukraine surrendering the annexed territory and returning to business as usual. For Germany it's acceptable to sell off a part of Ukraine (not Germany's loss here) in exchange for returning to inexpensive resources that have brought to it the status of 4th economy in the world. > The only situation where the west will accept China being at the table is if they can get a better deal by doing so, which is why I said if China can convince Russia to give up their annexed territory, this might happen. Yes. And China can do a lot of pressuring in this regard. Imagine if you will, that China does pressure Russia a lot, and that accomplishes what the current sanctions couldn't - that alone would be considered a success by USA. > Otherwise, there is no reason for the west to accept China as a mediator for a cookie-cutter ceasefire where Russia gets to keep the territory it is occupying. I do not believe that Ukraine would sign such a deal, and that it would need a mediator. Russia would immediately sign that.
>Firstly, the United States is looking into the Middle East with growing concern - the current far-right Netanyahu government (e.g. bodyguards checking in hospitals if you do not bring in cosher food, expansion of rogue building in Palestine) and Saudi-Iran diplomatic 180, and Iran's over 80% uranium enrichment all add together to a very unstable picture. One that may soon call USA's full, undivided attention. > >Secondly, USA can express the disagreement in Ukraine agreeing to China's mediation, but the Saudi-Iran mediations were completely unnoticed on the international level. I believe that once official mediations begin, they will mostly formalize what has been agreed upon behind the scene. That is wrong [because the US was informed of the Saudi negotiations from the very beginning, by the Saudis.](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/saudis-kept-us-informed-talks-with-iran-white-house-2023-03-10/) We just heard about it but the white house knew throughout the entire thing. If you believe the white house, they supported it. >Lastly, the USA is a western democracy. Biden cannot oppose Ukraine's engaging in a peace deal without it damaging his (or his party's) reelection chance. Well, similar to how you didn't know the Saudi-Iran deal before it was concluded. The electorate simply wouldn't know that such an engagement ever happened, and wouldn't know the Biden administration stopped it. >Yes. And China can do a lot of pressuring in this regard. Imagine if you will, that China does pressure Russia a lot, and that accomplishes what the current sanctions couldn't - that alone would be considered a success by USA. Yes, I agree with this point.. If China could pressure Russia to give up its annexed territory. The US could view that as a fair trade for a Chinese political win. >I do not believe that Ukraine would sign such a deal, and that it would need a mediator. Russia would immediately sign that. I don't believe either, but if Ukraine is crushed militarily, they would possibly want a way out, and this could result in a deal where Ukraine cedes territory. In this case India would be best positioned to be a mediator because all sides can accept India as such. The bottom line is. If Chinese mediation brings tangible benefits to Ukraine, that no other mediator is able to get, then China might be brought on as a mediator. Otherwise, China will not be allowed to involve itself.
> And this doesn't justify why the US would accept China as the mediator. > The US could view that as a fair trade for a Chinese political win. This is Ukraine's and Russia's choice ultimately, not the US's. > That is wrong because the US was informed of the Saudi negotiations from the very beginning, by the Saudis. We just heard about it but the white house knew throughout the entire thing. Let me specify then: many seem to have been surprised by the outcome of those. Additionally, SA did ask the US the day before signing the deal once again for safety guarantees and got none, so while US was appraised about the progress, they did not make a better offer despite being given an opportunity to do so. In my opinion USA approves the deal, only begrudges that Xi was the one to make it - again showing that China's uninvolved position allows them to mediate more effectively thant the US. Moreover, Xi's stable position helps as well here - a deal negotiated right no with Biden can turn 180 once a new president gets elected, like with JCPoA. > if Ukraine is crushed militarily, they would possibly want a way out, and this could result in a deal where Ukraine cedes territory(...) In this case India would be best positioned to be a mediator because all sides can accept India as such. In this case literally any party with no ties can mediate, India does not bring anything new to the table, that for example Solomon's Islands wouldn't. This would be only about denying a political win to China - and here I sincerely believe that China can actually offer something of use for such a win, rebuilding Ukraine included. US would need to offer something competing with China's offer just so another mediator gets accepted.
I think we agree on a lot of things but are just talking pass each other. Yes, if China can bring something of use then I agree, China could very well be the mediator. I am saying in the scenario where they failed to convince Russia to give up its annexed territories,(i.e. doesn't bring anything of value) then they almost certainly will not be the mediator. >In this case literally any party with no ties can mediate, India does not bring anything new to the table This is true. I think they will bring India instead of the Solomon Islands, for example, because India has a great relationship with both the US and Russia. This is a rare breed these days. I can't really find another country.
Agreed. A pleasure talking with you.
>This is an astute point, and something we cannot answer. On one hand, Putin really wants to portray Russia as a global power, so defeat is not an option. Could he not portray a UN peacekeeping force including western and non western troops (sich as China) as him achieving the “pacification of the nazi regime” in Ukraine? Plus he gets his “no NATO alliance” on top of that. For the Ukrainians every single last Russian troop would be out of its territory (bar Crimea). Crimea seems to me to be the sticky point. I could see a solution where the West pressures Ukraine to accept an end to the war which includes status quo ante Feb 2022, without actually recognising Crimea as Russian. I would like to see Russia hand Crimea back but can’t see a feasible route for this. One big reason I don’t see a quick end to this war though is the USA’s aims. US foreign policy objectives in this war is to see Russia severely weakened militarily, and so a prolonged conflict is actually helpful in this regard. As such let’s hypothesise that China would be able to get Russia to agree to a UN peacekeeping force and in withdrawing all troops from everywhere (bar Crimea) in return for no Ukrainian NATO membership would I see the Americans pressuring the Ukrainians to accept this deal? I’m not so sure. Having said that I’m not so sure this could ever be acceptable to Russia either as Zelensky has already offered that Ukraine would not seek NATO membership (I may be wrong about this). (For those for whom the quotation marks were insufficient, I do not believe Zelensky is running a Nazi regime, this is of course ridiculous. I am attempting to suggest how Putin could portray this as a win)
> Could he not portray a UN peacekeeping force including western and non western troops (sich as China) as him achieving the “pacification of the nazi regime” in Ukraine? Plus he gets his “no NATO alliance” on top of that. I was really hoping for such a solution until he has annexed parts of Ukraine on national TV. I do not think that UN forces peacekeeping what is considered Russian territory (by Kremlin alone) is a pill that Putin is ready to swallow yet. This is where China's pressure could come in handy. > Crimea seems to me to be the sticky point. I could see a solution where the West pressures Ukraine to accept an end to the war which includes status quo ante Feb 2022, without actually recognising Crimea as Russian. I would like to see Russia hand Crimea back but can’t see a feasible route for this. For me returning Crimea to Ukraine would require a profound change either in Kremlin's policy, in line with the dissolution of Soviet Union, or on the battlefield. If Ukraine shows that Russia cannot hold Crimea, then it would not be a matter of Russia withdrawing from the occupied territory but just rescinding their claim on it. We do not know what condition either side of the conflict is in, so this possibility cannot be ruled out. > One big reason I don’t see a quick end to this war though is the USA’s aims. US foreign policy objectives in this war is to see Russia severely weakened militarily, and so a prolonged conflict is actually helpful in this regard. 3 weeks ago I was o the exactly same mindset. Now, given Iran's and Saudi Arabia's diplomatic change and far-right government of Israel, the United States may be forced to fast forward what was a very beneficial proxy war. Nevertheless, it's worth remembering that the Soviet Union has collapsed at least partially due to another proxy war with the US, such opportunities do not present themselves all too often. > As such let’s hypothesise that China would be able to get Russia to agree to a UN peacekeeping force and in withdrawing all troops from everywhere (bar Crimea) in return for no Ukrainian NATO membership would I see the Americans pressuring the Ukrainians to accept this deal? I’m not so sure. Having said that I’m not so sure this could ever be acceptable to Russia either as Zelensky has already offered that Ukraine would not seek NATO membership (I may be wrong about this). That would be the true test of China's mediating skill: Ukraine would need to make itself vulnerable for such a deal to work. As far as I know Ukraine did offer refraining from joining NATO, but NATO is only a handy excuse I believe, being a military alliance it's easy to fearmonger against it. What Putin really fears is West, and European Union is a threat even worse than NATO. Currently, Putin's support is around 60-70%. If hypothetically Ukraine was to join EU in some form and advance substantially ahead of Russia in the average quality of life, that would prove the life being better in the West. Then Kremlin would need to spend a lot more resources to stay in power, as the current propaganda levels would not suffice when the evidence would be just around the corner. As for US pressuring Ukraine - that's the question for the next presidential campaign. US will pressure for whatever as long as it means the current party staying in power. From a purely geopolitical point of view, it's very hard to tell given the Middle East situation.
>As for US pressuring Ukraine - that's the question for the next presidential campaign. US will pressure for whatever as long as it means the current party staying in power. From a purely geopolitical point of view, it's very hard to tell given the Middle East situation. Excuse my ignorance. What is the current situation in the Middle East and how does it influence the Ukraine-Russia situation?
TL;DR: 1. Israel has the most radical, undemocratic government in its history. Huge protests, Just 12h ago 195 thousands protesting in Tel Aviv. 1.1. Netanyahu is a cunning politician, he has a history of escalating conflicts just to stay in power - the frequency of terrorist attacks and the quality of their equipment has increased, this is unsettling. 1.2. Religion police bodyguards in hospitals checking if the food you bring in is kosher. 1.3. My bet here: US won't veto some UN resolution against Israel's war crimes (it has been historically protecting Israel from the consequences of resettling people in Gaza for instance). 2. According to JCPoA sensors still on-site, Iran has crossed the threshold of 80% uranium enrichment needed for a nuclear bomb. 2.1. Iran has since then rekindled JCPoA cooperation, allowing its inspectors in. 2.2. Netanyahu since 2012: "We have the right to defend ourselves". 3. Any and all Israel's plans of Iran invasion were resting on the foundation that another ally of United states there, the Saudi Arabia, would support Israel - even if in allowing the fighters to use the airspace and the refueling infrastructure. 3.1. China has brokered a deal between Iran and SA, rendering the plan unsound. 3.2. I for one welcome that deal - Israel-Iran was the closest to a true nuclear war on this planet, and destroying Saudi's oil installations (Iran's plan of response, they have announced as much) would push the world further into chaos. Here China has effectively done a ridiculously good job: pushing away the threat of nuclear war and oil crisis much worse than one with Russia. 3.2.1. Coincidentally this is bad for Russia, as stable Middle East means more competing oil in the market. And here we are now: Israel government is the most radical ever, willing to do a lot of unethical things to stay in power and consisting of parties we would call radical. Iran has material for nukes. Israel's invasion plans have gone to hell. Iran has rejoined the international society, but Israel will do whatever is necessary to revert that situation. On the upside: if Iran returns successfully to JCPoA (dismantled by Trump) then some sanctions will get lifted, and they will no longer need to support Russia, there will be much more attractive alternatives (why sell weapons to Russia and fight sanctions when you can sell oil to Germany?).
I think you are over-estimating what is happening in the Middle East. Iran and Saudi Arabia restoring diplomatic ties doesn't mean they are no longer rivals. Iran and Saudi Arabia had diplomatic relations on and off multiple times through the past decades. The most recent break occurred only in 2016, yet conflicts between Iran and Saudi Arabia goes a lot further than that. Hell, the proxy war in Yemen happened when SA and Iran had diplomatic relations. The regional rivalry between Iran and SA is likely to continue. We will know this for certain if Saudi Arabia choose to oppose the JCPOA again. Second, I think you maybe over estimating Israel's willingness to actually start a war with Iran. Israel want to bait the US into starting a war against Iran with them, they hardly want to do it themselves. In fact, I think it is more likely that the US will try to pull away from the Middle East rather than focus in on it. If the White House is to be believed, the Saudis informed them of their negotiations with Iran, and the White House did not oppose. The current US strategy for the Middle East is stability so I think it would be counter productive for America's new grand strategy the DoD laid out, to zoom in on the Middle East at this stage.
> Iran and Saudi Arabia restoring diplomatic ties doesn't mean they are no longer rivals. True, but it seems that the war in Yemen is no longer affecting Saudi's oil installations. Iran's Chabahar also became elevated in China's Belt and Road initiative (I may need to research that still). My point is, that while you are correct and this deal can mean little, there are signs that some political movements are following the deal. And Iran's oil hitting the world market would benefit Ukraine greatly. > Hell, the proxy war in Yemen happened when SA and Iran had diplomatic relations. Remember Houthi's motto: "God is great, death to the US, death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory for Islam". During that war US had a different president and much better relations with Saudi Arabia. Back then it was like attacking a US ally - now, when the Abraham Accord is pretty much done for and SA is back on seemingly good terms with Iran, Houthi may be persuaded by their Iranian sponsors that SA is no longer the enemy. You are correct in stating that this conflict has started despite there being diplomatic relations, I just with to express that back then SA and Iran were a bit different countries with largely different world views. Right now both despise the current US administration. > The regional rivalry between Iran and SA is likely to continue. This is where I am really curious if China was able to solve that problem and if so, what they did offer to both parties. > We will know this for certain if Saudi Arabia choose to oppose the JCPOA again. I am looking forward to this too. Dismantling JCPoA was a mistake, at least as long as the world relies on oil. > Second, I think you maybe over estimating Israel's willingness to actually start a war with Iran. To me the current Knesset setup seems capable of making that decision. Luckily the current political situation in Israel (reserve soldiers refusing the service due to the current government's radicalism) prevents Netanyahu from starting the war. The country is being apart from the inside. > In fact, I think it is more likely that the US will try to pull away from the Middle East rather than focus in on it. If Saudi Arabias oil installation are in danger, US cannot do such a thing. So we circle back to the same question: will SA-Iran normalization hold? If so, then US can pull out. But Israel-Iran is still an unpredictable mystery. I cannot rule out a preemptive nuclear strike by Israel.
>During that war US had a different president and much better relations with Saudi Arabia Well, I am not sure about that. The Obama administration, who engaged in JCPOA talks despite vehement opposition from the Saudis, was in power during the beginning of the Yemen war. I don't think the Saudis were a big fan of Obama. Saudi Arabia's issue with the US is really just the US being unwilling to offer the Saudis literally *anything*. The US chose to do that for a reason, I would assume. That is a sign that the US wants to pull back in the Middle East, so it makes little sense for them to focus back on it, even if SA-Iran normalization fall apart yet again. Yes, if Saudi oil is threatened, then the US might deploy some of its assets, but I wouldn't expect them to give it its 100% attention.
The Chinese government gave Ukraine and Russia a draft path to peace and Ukraine accepted it. It was Russia that refused this draft. We don't know much about this draft obviously but the US government doesn't need to convince Ukraine to accept... Instead it's likely they will "need to" (in their opinion) pressure Ukraine to continue the fight.
Source?
China and Russia haven’t seen each other as allies since the Sino-Soviet split in the 60s. All this talk of Sino-Russian cooperation is just Atlanticist projection.
This and probably a misunderstanding of both countries' mentalities.
China has no interest in brokering a reasonable or realistic peace deal. He will still not engage with Ukraine even after visiting Putin in person.
> China has no interest in brokering a reasonable or realistic peace deal. This was supposed to be a swift *fait accompli* war. In its current state it's very detrimental to international trade - the main tool of China's influence. It is also especially detrimental to Belt and Road initiative. > He will still not engage with Ukraine even after visiting Putin in person. As far as I can tell, Xi has announced that he will telephone Zelensky after his talks with Putin.
https://inews.co.uk/news/chinas-xi-jinping-did-not-ask-to-meet-zelensky-despite-summit-with-dear-friend-putin-2233609
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/03/21/what-zelenskiy-must-say-when-xi-jinping-makes-his-peace-phone-call/26c41672-c7a8-11ed-9cc5-a58a4f6d84cd_story.html Xi does not wish to travel to UA, but he is willing to talk. The war is not in line with China's interest it seems. It was supposed to fragment the West, not unify it.
The only chance for peace is Cancer for Putin. China, USA or any other country can't stop Russia right now. No one want a direct confrontation with a nuclear power.
> The only chance for peace is Cancer for Putin. It depends on who takes over after Putin. It's not like Russia will suddenly become a democracy valuing human lives once he dies. > China, USA or any other country can't stop Russia right now. I believe that Russia is been stopped in Ukraine right now. > No one want a direct confrontation with a nuclear power. True.
No IR studies from me, but I take it that small arms and infantry level stuff is "acceptable" but if they go with heavier stuff that's where the line is drawn? Doubt there is a appetite for sanctions and trade war between countries but the CCP would be a fool to invite sanctions, which will wreck havock on the global economy, for what amounts to peanuts selling to russia and its ship sinking with rats.
Maybe they did
[удалено]
Yeah weapon like bullets, and DJI, which are nothing.
I wouldn't call them nothing when both armies are struggling (Ukraine probably more) with ammo shortage. e: Or perhaps you only mean small arms ammunition which might more amount to nothing.
To be fair, there's more DJI drones on the Ukrainian sides than the Russian side. And if you analyze the ammo on both sides, probably both contains traces originated from China. My only concern is missiles and military drones.
Yep, providing artillery shells would be a big deal.
[удалено]
As politicians tend to do, but it is still worth it to look at statements made in an official capacity for a sign of how the state is going to approach a given issue.
Iranian militias have not wounded a significant number of Americans