The Daily Populous Monday July 28th, 2025 evening edition
Authored by united24media.com and submitted by AndroidOne1

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi recently told EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas that Beijing “can’t accept Russia losing its war against Ukraine as this could allow the United States to turn its full attention to China.”

However, this statement may reveal less about China’s genuine concerns and more about its diplomatic posturing.

According to The Hill on July 25, Wang’s remarks should be viewed through the lens of strategic ambiguity — a common feature in diplomatic communication, particularly from authoritarian regimes with strong propaganda infrastructures.

His framing of the United States as China’s primary threat appears to downplay a more immediate and complex challenge: Russia.

While China indeed seeks to reduce American pressure, the US is distant and not engaged in a destructive war. In contrast, Russia—a bordering state embroiled in a prolonged war—presents both security risks and long-term complications for Beijing.

Three possible outcomes of the war in Ukraine illustrate China’s strategic calculations.

If Russia achieves a form of victory, it could embolden Vladimir Putin, validate his imperial ambitions, and potentially lead to further aggressive actions — such as confronting NATO or annexing parts of Kazakhstan.

A victorious Russia may also challenge the terms of its partnership with China, pressing for more favorable energy deals or pushing back against Beijing’s influence. This could strain the “no-limits” relationship and alter the current power dynamic.

If Russia suffers a clear defeat, internal instability could follow. According to Alexander J. Motyl, writing in The Hill, this could include elite power struggles, potential regime collapse, or even civil conflict and fragmentation of the Russian Federation.

While China might have territorial opportunities in such a scenario, they would likely be outweighed by the geopolitical instability created by a collapsing nuclear-armed neighbor.

Beijing’s most favorable outcome is neither Russian victory nor total defeat. As Motyl explains, “A war that bloodies but does not beat Russia is China’s obvious favorite choice.” A weakened Russia, locked in an unwinnable war, would remain intact but diminished — lacking the capacity to challenge Beijing and increasingly dependent on Chinese economic and political support.

According to The Hill, such a scenario would also serve the interests of the US, Europe, and Ukraine. While not their optimal outcome, a severely weakened Russia aligns with broader Western objectives of regional stability without direct escalation.

This suggests a rare convergence between Chinese and Western strategic interests. As Motyl concludes, “The US should actively pursue what China wants: a weak Russia.” Supporting Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression may offer Washington a path to achieving this shared goal.

Whether Wang Yi’s remarks were calculated misdirection or indirect signaling, China appears to favor a version of Russia that is bloodied, reliant, and firmly within its orbit.

According to analysis by political scientist Alexander Motyl, China’s ideal outcome in the war is a weakened, dependent Russia that continues to distract the United States without collapsing entirely.

Earlier, The New York Times reported that Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) had labeled China an “enemy” in a classified internal memo, accusing Beijing of espionage, military tech theft, and territorial ambitions in the Russian Far East—despite Putin’s public embrace of a “no limits” partnership with Xi Jinping.

hinterstoisser on July 28th, 2025 at 03:44 UTC »

Of course it is. Russia is heavily dependent on China for electronics and other armaments.If the war stopped, China’s exports to Russia would drop thus their trade would no longer be balanced.

China is using the same strategy that western nations have used in Asia, Africa for decades.

Volodio on July 27th, 2025 at 23:45 UTC »

An interesting analysis, and I agree in most parts, but I think if we go with the assumption of the two-front strategy in mind, China would not put Ukraine as the limit and would actually rather have Russia win this and start another conflict in Europe.

If Russia fights until exhaustion against Ukraine, then it largely diminish the distraction it can be to the West. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Europe is slowly rearming and thus can become a bigger threat to China all the while not being exhausted in any capacity by Russia. Meanwhile the US is able to disengage from Ukraine to pivot to Asia. If the war lasts in Ukraine, then Europe will become stronger and the US will still not be pinned in Ukraine. This does not benefit China.

To be a proper distraction, Russia needs to actually win in Ukraine and then attacks another European country (Finland or the Baltics would be good target in this scenario) where Europe would be more directly involved and thus would actually spend resources and exhaust itself against Russia and the US would be incentivized to go back to Europe to contain Russia.

If the Chinese strategy was simply a forever war in Ukraine, I think China would have reduced the aid sent to Russia and be vocal about it, especially in the weeks before the NATO conferences which increased the spending to 5% of the GDP, in order to slow down Russia (which is currently making gains in Ukraine), encourage the European countries to not increase their defense spending and not posture itself against Europe.

That said, I think this idea that China is pushing for a two-front strategy is questionable. Practically, it is doubtful whether China can truly divide the attention of the US, considering the US army is made to fight a war on two fronts and the forces needed against Russia and China would be quite different. As for Europe, China would gain more in dividing the NATO alliance and disengage Europe from the US than supporting Russia to try to distract Europe as this will certainly antagonize Europe and make it more likely to intervene against China. Especially as in recent years, there has been more links between the Asiatic enemies of China and Europe (such as the South Korean support for Ukraine and Poland and the jointer fighter program between Japan and some European countries). Moreover, it is questionable whether a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is possible, especially if the US is involved but also maybe even on its own as it would be a considerably difficult operation and Taiwan is certainly ready to make China pay a high price for it, making the question of European support for Taiwan a bit less relevant. I think this idea of China pushing for a two-front strategy is mostly invented by people trying to get the US to stay in Europe and involved against Russia by making the two conflicts more intertwined than they really are.

MarzipanTop4944 on July 27th, 2025 at 21:16 UTC »

They are following a very obvious Balance of Power strategy. Support the weaker side of every conflict, just enough to not lose, to bleed both competitors.

It's ironic that the Chinese are playing by the rules of the game the West perfected for 500 years, while the former masters of that game have apparently forgot how to play entirely, to the point that they empowered China to become their main competitor at their own expense.