As a geopolitical confrontation with global implications in the European region, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has an important and complex impact on China-EU relations.

The dominant narrative on the Chinese side is that this strategic competition between the two countries reflects the struggles for power, institutions, and perceptions, which will last throughout the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. In general, it is thus believed that competition and struggle have been adopted as key words for both Washington and Beijing in managing their relations.

Up till now, the fighting has been going on for over 100 days, with the two warring sides still in an offensive and defensive stalemate. Questions about this ongoing crisis can be listed in a long line, most of which no one can answer at this time. Yet among all the uncertainties, one thing is certain: what the Russian troops crossed on February 24 was not simply the land border between Russia and Ukraine, but rather more symbolically, the River Rubicon of the post-cold war international order.

At first glance, the Ukraine conflict has some loose parallels to 1958, when the People’s Liberation Army shelled Kinmen without notifying Russia in advance. But while rumors of intrigue may raise eyebrows, the comparison falls apart quickly.

Alienating Russia will not increase stability for Europe, nor will Russia disappear as a result of the Ukraine war. But Russia’s old power model — needlessly using force to punish countries for switching sides — needs to change.

Geopolitical risk, sanctions, and covid in China are redefining how we think about the future of global supply chains. Nations must start considering how to better secure their supply chains through regional trade partnerships, reshoring essential manufacturing capabilities, and sourcing goods from multiple nations and regions.

With the shadow of the Russia-Ukraine crisis looming in the background, America’s midterm elections will be a test of voters’ mood. Donald Trump’s sway over the Republican Party will be reinforced or repudiated. But economic factors may be the decisive factor.

Views differ on what triggered the current conflict. But whatever the pros and cons of NATO expansion, the conclusion must be that China, not Russia, is the greater long-term, structural and potentially lethal challenger to America.

The phrase “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow” has been heard frequently in Taiwan since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. But separatists on the island are not sure the United States would come to their rescue if Beijing moved toward reunification.

Differences over the rules for world affairs will not be resolved easily and won’t be resolved in favor the U.S. Countries are interdependent, and a divided world serves no one’s best interests.