Western propaganda #2

Will India Ditch Russia?
Debating the Future of an Old Friendship
By Sameer Lalwani; Happymon Jacob
January 24, 2023

New Delhi Is Not Done With the Kremlin Yet

Sameer Lalwani

After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, many of the world’s major democracies lined up to condemn Russian aggression and rally to Ukraine’s defense. India did not. It abstained on key votes at the United Nations and refused to denounce its longtime partner. The backlash that ensued was striking; numerous governments expressed frustration with India for its reluctance to condemn the indefensible.

Some observers have suggested that, as a result, India may be changing course; they see signs that it may finally be considering breaking with Russia. In September, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Russian President Vladimir Putin that “today’s era is not of war”—remarks that seemed to admonish the Russian president and which U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken described as “significant.” In Foreign Affairs, political scientist Happymon Jacob explained that New Delhi is “withdrawing from its long partnership with Russia” and aiming to hew more closely to the United States. In this reading of events, India is turning its back on Russia and concluding that it needs to strengthen its ties to the West.

But at least some of these expectations remain aspirations more than real possibilities. U.S. policymakers need to plan around the reality of enduring Indian-Russian ties, which Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar extolled as “strong and steady” during a visit to Moscow in November. India should diversify its partnerships away from Russia, given the latter’s disregard for territorial sovereignty, its growing dependence on China, and the unreliable weapons Russia supplies. But despite Russia’s bad behavior, India is not ready to jettison such an important partnership. U.S. policymakers should help India realize that Russia is a liability, but they should not penalize New Delhi for its continued relations with Moscow as long as they can count on India to play a larger and more active role in countering Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific.

FALSE DAWN

Analysts have divined evidence of India’s attempt to distance itself from Russia in the words and deeds of its officials. They point to Modi’s verbal confrontation with Putin in September, some votes opposing Russia at the United Nations, and the cancellation of billions of dollars in Russian weapons purchases, including fighter aircraft and helicopters. However intriguing, these developments do not, in truth, indicate that New Delhi has taken a definitive turn away from Moscow.

The Washington Post cast Modi’s comments to Putin in September as a “rebuke.” Yet Modi’s statement was less an admonishment of Russian policy and more an expression of concern about rising food and energy prices. Several Indian assessments have cautioned against overinterpreting Modi’s comments, pointing out their consistency with past Indian positions criticizing the war’s costly impacts on the global South. India did side with the West on some procedural votes at the UN, such as the one in September to allow Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to address the UN General Assembly. But India reverted to abstention in a more substantive October vote on Russia’s illegal annexation of four Ukrainian provinces.

It is also true that, earlier this year, India canceled several agreed purchases of Russian weapons, such as the MiG-29 fighter plane. But that decision had less to do with Russia than with trying to boost domestic arms production. The Indian government had already planned to scrap those deals (along with the purchase of Boeing P-8I aircraft from the United States) months before Russia’s invasion to instead transition to using indigenous equipment as part of its “Self-Reliant India” initiative. India has not canceled other major procurements of Russian arms, such as S-400 air defenses, stealth frigates, and nuclear submarines, which will keep New Delhi tethered to Moscow for decades. In truth, India cannot break with Russia; the latter serves too important a role in Indian geopolitical calculations, supports much of India’s military arsenal, and remains popular among Indian political elites.

STAYING POWER

India has long counted Russia an invaluable partner in its strategy of “multi-alignment,” in which New Delhi refuses to form exclusive alliances with any great power in the hope of maintaining productive strategic partnerships with several. Indian leaders believe this strategy remains sound because Western analysts have misjudged Russia in several important ways.

My research has found that despite the force of Western sanctions, Indian national security officials believe in Russian staying power. They expect Europe to buckle under the pressure of inflation and energy shortages and Russia to be buoyed by rising commodity prices. After all, Indian companies are investing in Russian energy projects, such as the extraction of oil and gas in Sakhalin, in the Russian Far East, and doubling down on future collaborative research and the development of some defense technologies, including the BrahMos cruise missile. Indian leaders also believe that the war in Ukraine will most likely become a military stalemate, ended by a negotiated cease-fire and then a future settlement that would allow Russia to reintegrate into the international community.

New Delhi is also convinced that the Kremlin will remain a significant geopolitical power that can help India. Russia can still provide India with diplomatic backing in the UN Security Council and command considerable influence in India’s broader continental neighborhood. India still counts on Russia for missile technology, for nuclear reactors used in submarines, and for hypersonic weapons. Moreover, Indian officials expect to be able to squeeze more out of the relationship with Russia as the Kremlin falters, just as India did after the fall of the Soviet Union when the two countries formed the joint venture of BrahMos Aerospace. And they fear few repercussions for this course of action; Western countries have balked at penalizing India’s decision to maintain ties with its old partner.

Some observers have suggested that India will back away from Russia because it is growing too close with—even dependent on—China. But in contrast to their Western counterparts, Indian officials do not think that crushing sanctions will force Russia into China’s arms because tensions persist in the Chinese-Russian relationship, including over Central Asia and the Arctic. In the view of Indian planners, India can be a wedge between Russia and China, allowing Moscow to retain some autonomy in its foreign policy and not settle for the role of junior partner to Beijing.

MUDDLING THROUGH

India’s military depends on Russia for most of its combat and strike capabilities. The invasion of Ukraine created a supply shock to the servicing of India’s largely Russian arsenal by limiting or delaying access to spare parts and upgrades. India did not, however, take any drastic measures to accelerate the gradual diversification of its military equipment by cutting its use of Russian materiel and purchasing replacements. Although India remains concerned about the poor performance of some Russian weapons platforms, as well as its ability to access spare parts, it has no plans to rapidly overhaul its Russian weapons systems by turning to alternative foreign suppliers. With India’s borders enjoying a modicum of stability after border crises in 2019 and 2020, Indian strategists can countenance lower operational readiness over the next few years, even if that means living with some vulnerability.

In the near to medium term, India plans to muddle through with existing stocks, drawing from the secondary market of Russian parts and leaning on its own domestic production of military equipment. It will work with Russia to fulfill outstanding delivery commitments and selectively pursue contracts with Western defense companies that bolster the indigenous Indian defense industry. In the long term, India wants to become largely self-sufficient in its defense needs and no longer be dependent on external suppliers.

Even as India aims to diversify its arsenal and achieve self-sufficiency over the next 20 years, it will need Russia for several critical technologies. India’s Sukhoi-30 fighter aircraft will remain the backbone of its air force for several decades but cannot be maintained or upgraded without crucial Russian contributions. India’s most significant defense export—the BrahMos antiship cruise missile currently marketed to Southeast Asian countries to deter China—uses Russian propulsion technology. As long as the Kremlin controls critical elements of India’s advanced weapons systems—most notably India’s fighter aircraft, cruise missiles, and submarines—it wields considerable leverage over New Delhi.

INDIA’S NUMBER ONE FRIEND

Beyond these material considerations, some shared ideological orientations will keep India friendly with Russia. Indian and Russian officials espouse a “polycentric” vision of global order, in which no single hegemon holds sway and great powers maintain their own spheres of influence. Both New Delhi and Moscow believe that such a basis for international order is more stable than one lorded over by one or two superpowers.

Indian political elites also maintain an affinity for Russia rooted in decades of cooperation with the Soviet Union. Two months after the Russian invasion, Yoga Jyotsna, an Indian foreign policy scholar, suggested that in the opinion of members of “the armed forces and perceptive analysts, Russia stands number one as India’s friend.” Rajeswari Rajagopalan, a director at a major Indian think tank, has argued that “the strategic sympathy for the Soviets and Russia still continues not just among the political class but also … among the larger public”  because of the romanticization of historic Russian support for India. The Indian foreign policy establishment does not condone Russia’s invasion, but seasoned officials advising the government on national security consider multiple parties—including NATO—responsible for the current crisis and will not put all the blame on Russia.

The Indian public also sympathizes with Russia. A majority of Indians surveyed in a July poll refused to describe the Russian invasion of Ukraine as wrong. A September 2022 survey of over 1,000 Indian adults found that Indians blame the Russian invasion of Ukraine as much on the West as on Russia, and most do not believe that Russian victory would make the world more dangerous. Public attitudes in India diverge sharply not only from those in European countries and Australia and Japan but also from those in emerging markets such as Brazil and South Africa.

An Uncomfortable Reality

As Jacob and other analysts have suggested, the Indian-Russian relationship is on a long-term downward trend. But the transition will be slow. India’s incremental distancing from Russia will only occur in a prolonged time frame, maybe decades, that provides little utility for U.S. policymakers to shape Russia’s near-term decision-making. (The exception may be any Russian use of nuclear weapons that could shock New Delhi’s calculus, although Indian diplomats see the likelihood of that escalation as “minimal”).

Despite India’s abiding ties to Russia, its strategic partnership with the United States retains a compelling logic. India knows the United States stands out as the most important partner for its own economic and technological developments. Washington can still gain plenty from New Delhi’s active cooperation. Western policymakers have bet big on India as the most important swing state in the international system to balance the rise of China and support a rules-based order. But India is more narrowly concerned with the Indo-Pacific balance of power. If U.S. policymakers can continue to count on India to meaningfully and visibly balance against China in its neighborhood, it will be easier for the United States to accept the costs of India’s enduring partnership with a diminishing Russia.

SAMEER LALWANI is a Senior Expert with the Asia Center at the U.S. Institute of Peace and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategy and Budgetary Assessments.

Jacob Replies

I fear Sameer Lalwani is underestimating the tectonic shift underway. Last December, I went on a weeklong visit to Russia. I returned to New Delhi with the firm belief that while Russia and India may have few bilateral disagreements and are still fond of each other, structural factors and geopolitical complexities are already diminishing the strength of the relationship. Even many Russian analysts recognize that factors beyond the control of the two governments may further complicate the ties.

Moreover, what stood out to me from all the feedback I received in India on my original piece in Foreign Affairs last September was the near-consensus that concerns about China are encouraging Indian policymakers to steer away from Russia and that the Ukraine war is only accelerating that trend. The decades-old close partnership between India and Russia is no more, replaced with a transactional relationship that will likely grow ever more distant in the coming years.

UNEXPECTED BURDENS

The Ukraine war marks perhaps the first time in recent years that India has to make an uncomfortable choice between Russia and its U.S. and Western partners. That choice places an unexpected burden on Indian diplomacy and the country’s policy of multi-alignment. New Delhi’s ambivalent position at the outset of the war actually won it a lot of attention in the shape of high-level visits from Western powers and from Russia. But the diplomatic spotlight will not rest on India for long, and the systemic implications of this war for the country may be negative and far-reaching. For one, New Delhi will have less room to maneuver in a world divided into opposing camps. Second, the war’s effect on global commodity prices is already hurting the Indian economy. This sobering reality is not lost on Indian policymakers.

Yes, New Delhi continues to purchase cheap Russian oil and has devised methods for trading  with Moscow that circumvent Western sanctions. But that is foreign policy opportunism born of sheer necessity. India will continue to maintain transactional ties with Russia and trade with the country. But it will also continue to move away from Russia in accordance with its grand strategy of hewing closer to the West to balance China.

Apart from defense-related trade, the bilateral relationship today has little ballast. As Pavan Kapoor, the Indian ambassador to Russia, pointed out last December, bilateral trade “has become too one-sided” in Russia’s favor and therefore “unsustainable.” (Russian exports account for roughly two-thirds of trade between the two countries.) Political relations without strong economic underpinnings can only go so far.

HEADING SOUTH

But larger factors than bilateral trade suggest the downward trajectory of the relationship. China tops the list of concerns. Beijing is driving a wedge between Moscow and New Delhi. The closer China and Russia get, the more India will pursue other strategic partners.

The course of the Ukraine war will definitively shape the future of Indian-Russian relations. A Russian defeat might lead to Moscow’s greater dependence on Beijing—and New Delhi’s further estrangement. Conversely, if the Ukraine war ends in the near future with an acceptable outcome for the Kremlin and the West, Russia will have to rely less on China and be able to tentatively reenter the international mainstream. In such circumstances, New Delhi would view Moscow as an important pivot for its geopolitical strategies on the Asian continent and seek to maintain a close relationship. But if the Ukraine war simply drags on and keeps taking a toll on Russia, New Delhi’s relationship with Moscow will deteriorate; India will feel compelled to find more reliable partners to replace a depleted and weakening one. At the moment, this scenario appears the most plausible, and that calculation has prompted India to initiate a gradual process of decoupling.

Another factor that will determine India’s relationship with Russia is the reliability of Russian weapons supplies. For one, India will reduce its dependence on Russia as it cultivates other sources of advanced defense equipment. Thanks to the war in Ukraine and sanctions on the export of semiconductors to Russia, Moscow has been unable to deliver certain weapons systems to India, a shortcoming that will dampen New Delhi’s enthusiasm for Russian arms. Russia is already behind in the shipment of promised supplies including S-400 air defense systems and Talwar-class stealth frigates. Another factor to consider is the prospect of a semiconductor-starved Russia entirely reliant on Chinese chips in its weapon systems. It is fair to assume that India will be very wary of importing arms powered by Chinese chips.

END OF THE ROAD

Lalwani writes, “As long as the Kremlin controls critical elements of India’s advanced weapons systems,” it “wields considerable leverage over New Delhi.” But that is not the case. India’s current dependence on Russian weapons does not really curtail its freedom to make autonomous strategic decisions.

In recent years, New Delhi has sharply reduced its dependence on Russian arms without triggering any adverse reactions from Moscow. With the war raging and other external markets shrinking, the Kremlin just wants to generate much-needed revenue from India, not influence the country’s strategic position. In other words, Russia needs India’s money as much as (maybe even more than) India needs Russia’s weapons.

Lalwani refers to how the Indian foreign minister, S. Jaishankar, “extolled” India’s “strong and steady” ties with Russia during the foreign minister’s visit to Moscow in November. Let’s look at the visit closely. Whereas Russia was eager to highlight “multipolarity” and “special” and “privileged” ties, Jaishankar struck a more pragmatic note, emphasizing economic cooperation, calling for “more balanced” and “sustainable” ties, and raising the issue of the bilateral trade imbalance and “impediments” on the Russian side. Jaishankar also stated that the world was too interdependent for conflict in one region to not have “major consequences in other regions.” Noticeably, neither side mentioned any future military cooperation.

Consider also Jaishankar’s latest statement in Vienna earlier this month: “Nobody really needs this war. We don’t need wars at all.” The message from New Delhi is clear. It does not condone Russian actions in Ukraine, and in many ways, it has clarified that it disapproves of the invasion.

The longstanding Indian-Russian partnership has become a transactional one steeped in uncertainty. Yes, it may continue this way for some time yet, but should Russia fail to deliver on its defense promises to India, and should India officials grow increasingly alarmed by Russia’s ties with China, expect New Delhi to only push Moscow further away.

HAPPYMON JACOB is an Associate Professor of Diplomacy and Disarmament at Jawaharlal Nehru University and the founder of the Council for Strategic and Defense Research, a New Delhi–based think tank.

The dissolution of the Russian Federation is a far less dangerous than leaving it ruled by criminals

By Anna Fotyga | ECR Group

27 Jan 2023

The invasion of Ukraine is a direct continuation of Russia’s imperial and colonial policies; policies that never disappeared. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has been coupled with a propaganda campaign denying the very existence of a Ukrainian nation, genocide being actively committed against Ukrainians, all completed with the colonisation of occupied territories by ethnic Russians. This is what is happening in Mariupol, Donbas or Bakhchysarai. Russia’s policy in these instances has been copy-pasted from Krasnaya Polyana or Kamchatka in the 19th Century, writes Anna Fotyga, ECR MEP and former foreign minister of Poland.

Anna Fotyga is a Polish Member of the European Parliament and the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland.

Whether it was Tsarist, Soviet or led by Putin, Russia has not changed over the centuries. It is driven by the same imperial instincts, repeating the same scheme: conquest, genocide, colonisation, and then seeking a silent acceptance of the status quo, bribing the international community through a mirage of economic cooperation or the illusion of a vast Russian market. We cannot be misled into thinking that Moscow is a part of the solution to any global problems. We should remember that even when Russia was falsely seen as a stabilising force in Europe, it was at the expense of nations of my region, with my country being partitioned and occupied by Russia. Even then, Moscow planned to further “go West”, to export its “stabilisation” in the 19th century or its revolution in the 20th. Moscow has no shame in openly repeating this imperialist scheme in Ukraine in the 21st century. This is why Moscow’s imperialism must end forever.

We should be aware that Putin and his gang of war criminals are not the cause, but the consequence of the problem, the root of which is the authoritarian and imperial essence of Moscow and the phobias of the Okhrana, KGB or FSB, which captured the Russian state long ago. Russian imperialism has very deep roots. However, today we find ourselves not in the 16th century of Ivan the Terrible or the 18th of Catherine II, but in the 21st century of international law, common organisations and shared values. The European Parliament and many other parliaments around the globe have labelled the Russian Federation a terrorist state. Such an acknowledgment has certain consequences. This terrorist organisation, even if it is seen by many as an empire, should be dismantled. Otherwise, we should have no doubts that in a blind desire to maintain ‘the empire’, other criminals in its leadership will continue to create constant threats, destabilisation, hybrid attacks and wars for its neighbours and other countries, and enslave and oppress its own citizens. Therefore, as it was the case of the German Third Reich, as an existential threat to humanity and international order, the Russian Federation should undergo drastic changes. It is naive to think that the Russian Federation, after being ultimately defeated, will remain within the same constitutional and territorial frames. It never happened in history that such centralised empires, subjugating so many nations, remained unchanged after being defeated in a crucial war. Therefore, the international community cannot take a comfortable position on the side lines, waiting for developments, but must undertake a brave initiative that supports re-federalisation of the Russian state, taking into account the history of Russian imperialism, and the respect for the rights and desires of its nations. The victims of Russian imperialism should be able to rebuild their own statehoods, exercise their right to celebrate their heritage, and determine their own future.

Unfortunately, we cannot draw any positive conclusions from anti-war demonstrations organised by Russian society in the country or outside, because there are no such protests. However, we should learn a lesson from mass protests against subjugations to Moscow in the regions of the Federation, such as those in Ingushetia or in the Far-Eastern city of Khabarovsk.

There are no such things as Russian gas, oil, aluminium, coal, uranium, diamonds, grain, forests, gold, etc. All such resources are Tatar, Bashkir, Siberian, Karelian, Oirat, Circassian, Buryat, Sakha, Ural, Kuban, Nogai, etc.  For most of the inhabitants of the regions — be they ethnic Russians or indigenous people — Moscow represents only war, repression, exploitation and hopelessness. Harassment and discrimination against ethnic minorities in Russia is commonplace. Hyper-centralisation has exposed the country’s multiple weaknesses, but foremost, subjugated theoretically autonomous regions and republics to the will of the Kremlin. Moreover, with its odious war of aggression, Moscow is sending ethnic minorities to the meat grinder, implementing a real ethnic policy by further harming both the Ukrainian and already conquered nations of the Far East.

Taking into account the national and ethnic map of the territories of the Russian Federation, we should discuss the prospects for the creation of free and independent states in the post-Russian space, as well as the prospects for their stability and prosperity. The international community has the obligation to support the rights of indigenous nations that, due to Russian conquest and colonisation, now exist also within the borders of the Russian Federation. We cannot only focus on the preservation of some indigenous people and not others. The same rights must belong to Khakas, Tuvans, Sakha or Evenks. We cannot neglect the fact that ethnic Russians, while being the biggest nation of the Russian Federation, are just one of many. We should put more focus on the regions and nations of the Russian Federation, their capacities, and their perspectives for sovereignty. We should get to know their leaders, their histories, and their strengths. We should be aware that the Russian Empire denied the very existence of a culture of subdued nations, often stealing their heritage. The Western term ‘cultural appropriation’, has many examples in Russia, be it Mikhail Lermontov stealing the legends of conquered Circassians, or Russians trying to separate ethnic Ukrainian Nikolay Gogol from his Ukrainian national identity.

We should be aware that the dissolution of the Russian Federation might bring certain difficulties and risks, as with any transition period. However, those risks will be far less dangerous than leaving this aggressive empire unchanged. After a period of sleep, it will return with further aggressions as it has done throughout centuries. There are many possible solutions and strategies for a controlled, constructive, and non-violent dismantling of the last colonial empire in Europe. The rupture of the Russian Federation will bring unquestionable benefits in the security, including energy security, and in the economy of Europe and Central Asia. I agree with Janusz Bugajski that new pro-Western states can emerge from within the Russian Federation, enhancing stability in several regions of Europe and Eurasia.

The dismantling of the last colonial empire in Europe is inevitable. Therefore, it must be controlled and constructive, solving the problem of the imperial policies of “United Russia”. Dissolution of the Soviet Union was a catastrophe for Putin and his KGB colleagues. For the Baltics, Ukrainians and Georgians, but also for Kazakh or Kyrgis, it was blessing. I am convinced it will be also the case of the Russian Federation, bringing freedom to Ichkerians, Circassians, Buriats, Chuckots and many others.

That is why, together with my colleague Kosma Złotowski, we are glad to host numerous experts, historians, journalists, politicians from both sides of Atlantic, and leaders and representatives of more than 20 nations of the Russian Federation, who will gather in Brussels in the European Parliament to discuss prospects for the decolonisation and deimperialisation of the Russian Federation. Join us for this important discussion, you can find more information on the website of the ECR Group.

Dissolution of the Soviet Union was a catastrophe for Putin and his KGB colleagues. For the Baltics, Ukrainians and Georgians, but also for Kazakh or Kyrgis, it was blessing. 

Opinion: Xi Jinping doesn’t want to wind up on the losing side in Ukraine

By Max Boot
January 30, 2023 at 12:36 p.m. EST

Russia has a lot more people, a larger economy and a more powerful military than Ukraine. By all rights, it should have crushed Ukraine at the start of the war. That this didn’t happen — and that the war is now heading into its second year with Kyiv in a good position to regain more lost ground — can be explained in no small part by the reality that Ukraine has many allies and Russia does not.

The Kiel Institute for the World Economy estimates that the United States and Europe have pledged roughly $100 billion in military and economic aid to Ukraine since the Russian invasion. That includes increasingly sophisticated military equipment ranging from Patriot air defense systems to the Leopard 2 and M1A2 Abrams tanks that were promised last week.

Russia needs foreign help, too. It’s running low on everything from artillery shells to drones to missiles. But only two rogue states that we know of — Iran and North Korea — have so far been willing to provide the Kremlin with military equipment. Advantage, Ukraine.

Russia’s biggest missing military supplier is China — the world’s largest exporter of high-tech goods and the fourth-largest exporter of weapons. Beijing could play the same role for Russia that the United States is playing for Ukraine. If that were to happen, the odds of a Russian victory would rise exponentially. But that hasn’t happened, suggesting that, in practice, there are sharp limits to the “no limits” friendship that Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping proclaimed just a few weeks before the Russian invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24.

China has been happy to continue trading with Russia on advantageous terms. China and India have replaced Europe as the major purchasers of Russian oil and gas, which have fallen in price because of Western sanctions. In return, according to researchers at Silverado Policy Accelerator, China has become the Kremlin’s largest source of imports — in particular the semiconductors that Russia needs to manufacture both civilian and military equipment. Because Apple and Samsung stopped selling smartphones to Russia, China stepped in and captured 70 percent of the Russian market in the third quarter of 2022. This two-way trade indirectly subsidizes Putin’s war effort — and, in the case of microchips, could enable Russian arms production.

But remember: China also had a robust economic relationship with Ukraine before the invasion. Indeed, as noted by my Council on Foreign Relations colleague Zongyuan Zoe Liu: “By 2019, China had replaced Russia as Ukraine’s largest trading partner, becoming the top importer of Ukrainian barley and iron ore, while Ukraine overtook the United States as China’s largest corn supplier.”

Taiwanese Foreign Minister Joseph Wu told me that “China wants to see prolonged war in Ukraine, because it will divert the West from China while China is getting energy at low prices from Russia.” Maybe, but China has not been happy about the economic disruptions caused by the Russian invasion. As the largest lender to low-income nations, China has to worry about being repaid by countries that have seen their economies battered by soaring commodity prices.

Chinese diplomats have privately been telling the Europeans that Xi did not know of the Russian invasion in advance and had to scramble to evacuate 6,000 Chinese nationals in Ukraine. Xi has also publicly expressed “questions and concerns” about the Russian invasion and told Putin not to use nuclear weapons.

As an unsentimental practitioner of realpolitik, Xi does not want to wind up on what could be the losing side. The Financial Times reports, based on conversations with Chinese officials, that “China now perceives a likelihood that Russia will fail to prevail against Ukraine and emerge from the conflict a ‘minor power,’ much diminished economically and diplomatically on the world stage.”

In other words, a defeated Russia might not be a very useful future ally for China — another country that has few friends in the world. And China, as the world’s largest trading nation, cannot afford to become as isolated as Russia has become. That helps to explain why Beijing is reaching out to Europe and trying to ratchet down animus with the United States — for example, by sidelining one of its most noxious “wolf warrior” diplomats.

In an intriguing article this month in Foreign Policy, two scholars at the Stimson Center — former intelligence officer Robert A. Manning and China expert Yun Sun — argued that the Biden administration should take advantage of Xi’s ambivalence about the war to woo him away from Russia. They suggested that “China’s early offer to mediate in the Ukraine crisis should be probed” and that “the United States has little to lose by testing the proposition that new opportunities may be opening up that are sufficient in allowing U.S.-China cooperation on Ukraine.”

Paul Heer, a 30-year veteran of the CIA and former national intelligence officer for East Asia, told me he agreed there was a “potential opportunity” here: “Putin has become an embarrassment to Xi, if not yet a net liability.” But the question is what kind of quid pro quo can Washington offer? “Beijing isn’t going to side with us against Moscow simply because it’s the right thing to do,” Heer pointed out. “What’s in it for China to do so?”

There’s the rub — and one potential downside of growing U.S. animosity with China. Continuing what Donald Trump started, President Biden has been ramping up economic pressure on China — to include blocking the export of the most advanced microchips and microchip-manufacturing equipment. He is giving the impression that the goal of U.S. policy isn’t just to counter China’s military threat but, as noted by Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman, to stop China’s economic rise.

To coax China into being more cooperative on the war in Ukraine and other pressing issues such as North Korea, Heer told me, “We would need to convince the Chinese that we are at least as interested in the potential for peaceful coexistence and strategic cooperation as we are in pursuing our systemic strategic rivalry.” But, in the current atmosphere of spiking tensions, that’s “a very tall order.”

So, it’s doubtful that the United States can persuade China to become a partner in ending the Ukraine war. But at the very least the Biden administration can continue pressing China not to provide military equipment to Russia. As long as China stays largely on the sidelines, Ukraine will have a fighting chance to prevail.