Recent developments have seen the European Union and the G7 countries taking a tough stance against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is closely related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. At the same time, the CCP is urging some countries not to attend the Ukraine Peace Summit in Switzerland and openly siding with Moscow. By actively linking itself to Russia, the CCP is reminiscent of its involvement in the proxy war in the Korean Peninsula for the Soviet Union in 1950, which resulted in China being isolated from the West for decades. 74 years later, it seems that the CCP is repeating the same mistakes.
On June 17, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg issued a warning that if the CCP continues to provide military technology to Russia and assist Russia in the war in Ukraine, NATO allies will make the CCP “pay a price.”
During a CCP Foreign Ministry press conference on June 18, spokesperson Lin Jian responded by saying that “NATO should engage in self-reflection” and stated, “Stop shifting blame… don’t add fuel to the fire, inciting camps to confront each other.”
Following the Ukraine Peace Summit in Switzerland, NATO once again pointed fingers at the CCP. Despite being aware of the seriousness of the situation, the CCP continues to show a defiant attitude.
The Ukraine Peace Summit took place in Switzerland on June 15-16, with representatives from 92 countries and 8 international organizations in attendance, but the CCP refused to participate. The CCP could have sent a symbolic representative to continue playing its façade of neutrality, engaging in diplomatic maneuvers, and causing disruptions at the venue; however, the CCP chose not to participate and covertly encouraged some countries to boycott the summit, resulting in another diplomatic failure for the CCP.
As the China-EU trade war is about to begin, the CCP has announced anti-dumping investigations into EU pork while openly supporting Russia, exacerbating tensions with the EU and NATO. Despite repeatedly claiming to oppose “camp confrontations,” the CCP is actually driving such confrontations and is aware that its own camp is at a clear disadvantage.
On June 14, the Chinese state media Xinhua reported “Putin proposes ceasefire conditions for Russia-Ukraine conflict.” The conditions included the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions and a declaration of non-accession to NATO, after which Russia would “declare a ceasefire and begin negotiations.”
The day before the opening of the Ukraine Peace Summit, the CCP openly sided with the Kremlin, putting itself at odds with NATO, its numerous allies, and partners.
Ukrainian President Zelensky accused the CCP of assisting Moscow in disrupting the peace summit and joined Western allies such as the United States in condemning Moscow’s ceasefire demands. Xinhua naturally did not report on these responses.
The joint communique of the Ukraine Peace Summit called for the preservation of Ukraine’s “territorial integrity” as the basis for any peace agreement to end the Russia-Ukraine war.
The CCP is not only facing off against the United States, NATO, and the EU. 74 years ago, the CCP intervened in the Korean War and subsequently clashed with the United Nations forces, and now it is making similar foolish choices once again.
The CCP hopes to use the Russia-Ukraine war to potentially contain the US and NATO, but the logic in Beijing should go beyond this. The US has united more and more allies and partners against the CCP, significantly weakening its power and international influence. The CCP has been trying to build an anti-US alliance but has only managed to rally countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
Moscow has entered into a confrontation with NATO, but this has not eased the pressure on the CCP; openly supporting Russia in waging war and continuing to adopt a belligerent attitude towards neighboring countries have only created more enemies for the CCP. The CCP must prepare for the worst scenario as it may find itself increasingly reliant on Moscow’s support in the event of a major conflict.
If the CCP were to start a war in the Taiwan Strait, the example of the Russia-Ukraine war serves as a warning. The Russian military has a significant advantage in terms of personnel and equipment compared to the Ukrainian army, which lacks manpower and equipment, yet, with assistance from the US and NATO, they have managed to battle the Russian forces for over two years. While this year, the delayed aid from the US and NATO has allowed the Russian military to launch large-scale offensives, their progress has been limited, far from completely occupying the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions. Currently, Russian forces occupy approximately 75% of the total area of these four regions, demanding that Ukraine cede the remaining 25%, making it difficult to bring such terms to the negotiating table.
If the CCP were to engage in a transoceanic war, it remains uncertain whether the performance of the CCP’s military would be better or worse than the Russian forces, and Beijing should have already taken this into account. The CCP is transitioning towards a wartime system, likely out of fear of retaliation.
Once hostilities commence, the US and its allies will inevitably impose the same sanctions on the CCP as they did on Russia, leading to the isolation of the CCP’s financial system from the international community. Importing high-end products like chips will become extremely challenging, and the CCP will struggle to sustain a prolonged conflict; with blocked oil pipelines and food shortages, the CCP’s regime will be unsustainable. At that point, Russia will be virtually the CCP’s only lifeline, at least providing some oil, natural gas, minerals, and agricultural products.
The CCP has always viewed Russia as a major rear support, rendering it unable to abandon or betray Moscow. In 1972, the CCP abandoned the Soviet Union, gearing up to ally with the US, but the Soviet Union remained resentful. During the Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979, although the Soviet Union did not directly participate in the conflict, they provided substantial support to the Vietnamese army. If the CCP were to abandon Moscow now or try to use it as a bargaining chip for deals with the West, Russia will retaliate in the future by seizing opportunities to take advantage or inflict harm at crucial moments.
From the outset, the CCP hitched a ride on the Russian tank, and now it is challenging to disembark.
The Russia-Ukraine war is unfolding against the backdrop of the US-China confrontation. The Kremlin is also using the CCP to contain the US, seeing it as an opportunity to advance its agenda. Prior to the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, Putin secured a significant oil deal promised by the CCP, likely receiving some leverage from Beijing, expecting the conflict to begin after the Olympics concluded; however, the unfavorable turn of events resulted in a war of attrition.
While the US is supporting Ukraine and cautioning the CCP against aiding Russia and also vigilantly preventing the CCP from instigating a war in the Taiwan Strait; the Russia-Ukraine conflict has reached a stalemate, causing the CCP to realize the enormous risks of starting a war in the Taiwan Strait, which is the deterrence effect the White House aims to achieve.
US support for Ukraine not only aids NATO allies, reaffirming its leadership position but also sends a message to the CCP. The Biden administration has formulated a strategy of “intense competition” with the CCP and is gradually weakening it step by step without resorting to war, deterring CCP’s adventurism being a crucial aspect. Through substantial assistance to Ukraine and efforts to diminish Russian power, the US aims to make the CCP understand the potential consequences of engaging in war.
The strategies employed by the US and China in response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict are further extensions of their confrontation. The CCP hopes to use Russia to counter the US but has also provoked the ire of Europe. The US and its allies are collaborating more closely, gearing up to confront China and Russia together. This reflects the CCP’s erroneous strategic choices, making it increasingly challenging to backtrack.
On June 12, the US announced sanctions on over 300 global entities and individuals assisting Russia, including mainland and Hong Kong businesses selling semiconductors, IT technologies, and laser products to Russia.
The joint statement from the G7 leaders’ summit on June 14 stated that the CCP’s “continued support for Russia’s defense-industrial base enables Russia to sustain its illegal war in Ukraine, with significant and broad security implications.”
During the G7 summit, British Prime Minister Johnson remarked that about 80% of the components used by Russia on the Ukrainian battlefield originate from Chinese companies. He emphasized that support for Russia’s war economy and prolonging Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine should “come at a cost.” The UK announced a new round of sanctions against Russia, including five mainland and Hong Kong companies. Johnson also stated that the UK would take concerted action with allies to prevent the CCP’s “belligerent actions, safeguarding our economic security.”
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron, who proposed the “Golden Era” of UK-China relations during his premiership, stated on June 13 that the change in UK policy was in response to changes in the real world and the consequences of the CCP’s own actions.
The joint communique from the G7 summit again demonstrated a tough stance against the CCP, covering issues such as overcapacity, cyber attacks, the Taiwan Strait, East China Sea, South China Sea, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and human rights.
On June 17, CCP Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian continued to equivocate, stating that the G7 summit was “stirring up camp confrontation,” a report immediately echoed by Xinhua News Agency. However, it is the CCP that is actually provoking “camp confrontation.” In order to confront the US, the CCP is supporting Russia in the war against Ukraine, provoking other countries and escalating conflicts with more nations.
On June 10, four US teachers were attacked in Beishan Park in Jilin City. During the CCP Foreign Ministry press conference on June 11, spokesperson Lin Jian referred to the incident as a “random event.” However, when asked by reporters whether the CCP is concerned that such incidents, whether random or targeted, might affect people’s decision to visit China, Lin Jian could only state that the police are “preliminarily judging this incident as a random event and conducting further investigations.”
While this incident may be deemed a “random event,” the CCP’s anti-US and xenophobic propaganda has been fuelling tensions, with consequences likely to extend beyond China. This not only casts a shadow over US-China relations once again but may also deter more individuals from visiting mainland China.
On June 13, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang’s visit to New Zealand saw unilateral visa waivers granted to New Zealand. This has become a standard tactic for CCP diplomatic engagements, indicating Beijing’s helplessness; however, by continuously playing with fire, the CCP is finding it increasingly difficult to earn the trust of the international community. By sending Li Keqiang to visit New Zealand and Australia, the CCP has continued its dismissive attitude towards the trilateral summit with Japan and South Korea, lacking sincerity in its actions.
Both the New Zealand and Australian Prime Ministers hold top decision-making positions, whereas Li Keqiang only has the title of Premier of the State Council of China without the status of a second-in-command. Li Keqiang’s visit resembles that of a nominal Chinese Foreign Minister, without the actual authority of a Chinese Foreign Minister, restricted to reading scripts during meetings with foreign heads of state and unable to respond to questions from reporters. As the CCP’s party leader refuses to directly address the issues, it becomes challenging to enhance relations with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand.
China and Russia are quasi-allies, mutually leveraging each other. Putin’s upcoming visit to North Korea is expected to secure more artillery and missile aid, which China is most capable of providing, but may hesitate or even refuse to do so directly. The CCP is unlikely to provide aid to Russia gratuitously like the US and likely hoarding weapons and ammunition in preparation for a potential war.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in Sweden assessed that the CCP has increased its nuclear warheads by 90 units from last year, totaling approximately 500 warheads. The CCP’s nuclear arsenal is clearly inferior and remains unusable in practice, yet the production and maintenance of nuclear weapons incur significant costs, straining the CCP’s finances, as it continues to significantly expand its nuclear weapons, ultimately hastening its own demise.
The CCP often uses expressions like “playing with fire will get burned” and “lifting a rock only to drop it on its own feet” when interacting with the outside world; in reality, the CCP is foolishly persisting on this path.
74 years ago, spurred on by the Soviet Union, the CCP blindly started the Korean War on the Korean Peninsula, wishing to control the entire peninsula, but ended up empty-handed; the CCP’s military was driven out of Korea by the Korean regime, while the US forces maintained a presence in South Korea. China struggled to gain international recognition for a long time, falling into isolation and falling far behind developed countries for several more decades, facing internal turmoil and a precarious political situation.
74 years later, the CCP finds itself repeating the same mistakes and heading down the same path, only this time without the support of the Soviet Union; the CCP poses as the biggest enemy of the United States, which will not extend an olive branch to the CCP for the sake of Russia. Another round of futile disruptions by the CCP’s decision-makers is underway, depicting a reenactment of “playing with fire leads to self-immolation.”
**This is a rewritten version of the original news article, maintaining the facts and essence of the content while refining the language and structure for better readability.**