As the Russia-Ukraine conflict enters its third year, the situation has not shown signs of easing. The Ukraine offensive lost steam and Western aid has weakened. The conflict continues and even shows signs of all-around escalation. Having achieved some regional advantages on the battlefield, Russia has made high-profile claims that its targets are not limited to its current scope of control, and it has turned tough diplomatically, as threats of using nuclear weapons have come from its highest level.
Facing this tougher Russian posture, Europe responded with more aggression: After French President Macron revealed Europe’s internal discussions about sending troops to Ukraine, the German military’s internal discussions about providing Ukraine with Taurus missiles was leaked. Although the exchange of verbal threats between Europe and Russia has the diplomatic aura of a game of chicken, with both sides continuously consolidating their tit-for-tat political positions and showing a military inclination toward direct confrontation, there is indeed tremendous risk that the conflict could escalate from a regional one into an all-around European war.
The main origin of the escalation risk is that the Ukraine issue has degenerated into a tool of Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S. and highlighted the weakness of both Ukraine and the West on the battlefield and in logistics. While the Biden administration has asked European nations to share more responsibility, the U.S. is mired in political difficulties. So, from the perspective of either willingness, capacity or efficiency, European countries can’t make up for the deficiency left by inadequate U.S. aid. The military aid offered by European countries in the name of the EU or in bilateral forms has virtually equalled aid from America. But unless the $60 billion the Biden administration promised arrives soon, European assistance won’t make a difference even it can hold up half the sky.
Hope for a Ukraine victory is beginning to fade, and Europe’s anxiety and nervousness are rising. During the Munich Security Conference, there was almost no mention of a political solution. Instead, I got an earful of talks about organizing a defense alliance, upgrading military production and increasing aid to Ukraine. Because of the domestic political impasse in the United States, the European and American positions on Ukraine have changed quietly. Sporadic mentions of Russia-Ukraine peace talks came from Republican members of the U.S. Congress instead. Therefore the messages from the French leader and the German military both indicate that Europe is preparing for the worst.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict now stands at a critical tipping point. This year will be a decisive moment that may determine whether it will continue being a regional conflict or slide into a wider war. As the battlefield situation loses balance and the U.S. and European nations enter an election year — prioritizing domestic concerns — decisive factors that influence the direction of the Russia-Ukraine conflict are gradually turning from the inside to the outside, from the battlefield to politics.
The greater part of this year will see Ukraine striving to hold on. It not only badly needs continuous provision from the West but also has to wait for a new consensus after the U.S. and European political races. Judging from the present state of affairs, regardless whether Trump wins in the U.S. or ultra rightists win in Europe, the political race is tilting in a direction that disfavors Ukraine. In order to cope with the troubles, Europe is trying to adopt a tactic of straightening the curve, adjusting its goal from Ukraine winning in the near term to making sure it doesn’t lose in the long term — with all its support and aid shifting onto a long-term, systematic track. Therefore proposing and hyping the likelihood of a wider Europe-Russia war becomes urgently necessary. This serves four objectives:
• It creates a public opinion foundation that supports the legitimacy of aid to Ukraine in the long run;
• It contains Russia’s aggressiveness in diplomacy, creating what Macron calls strategic ambiguity;
• It forms a new consensus by means of greater mutual transparency among allies, thus reducing misgivings and infighting between major countries, especially France and Germany, over aid and war preparedness; and
• It mounts pressure on the Republican Party in the U.S., creating a unified stance and narrative from the Biden administration that Republicans will shoulder historical responsibility for losing Europe.
The dire state of affairs has also presented a greater possibility for the crisis to proceed toward a political and diplomatic solution. After all, no party can afford the devastating consequences of a conflict between nuclear powers. Thus, the forces for peace in the international community should seize the opportunity and enhance cooperation.
Against the current backdrop, Special Representative of the Chinese Government on Eurasian Affairs Li Hui again visited Russia and Ukraine, as well as the EU and multiple EU member countries. This not only directly reflected the consistency of China’s position for peace and negotiations but was a timely response to present conditions. One of the trip’s main goals was first to understand each party’s real purpose and future plans amid the fog of information and diplomatic warfare. With Russia and Ukraine in a fierce war and Russia and the West in intensive confrontation, each party has received highly distorted information, significantly increasing the risks of misjudgment. China should take advantage of its special role as a balanced, objective third party to help the parties communicate true information and reduce the risks.
Second, in the present impasse, where neither party is willing to take a step back, the Chinese side may propose a more just solution that proceeds from the big picture — and on such a basis help the parties seek convergence and consensus.
Finally, China’s diplomatic maneuvering should set an example in the international community, especially the Global South, so that the growth of forces for peace outpaces that of the war machine and reveals the damaging potential of a single-minded military approach to crisis resolution by means of the charm of a political and diplomatic solution that promises sustainable security. If the international community cannot unite and act rapidly — even if the risk of escalation remains under control — its future orientation brooks little optimism. The wolf will really come next time.
