How Do We Stop Putin ? – Postscript: The Chinese Aspect

 In a recent post on this subject which I authored back in March,  I mentioned that Putin had recently agreed a pact with the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping. This was much heralded by both governments at the time as a mutually beneficial arrangement in the face of increased ‘aggression’ by NATO and the West, and was clearly intended to present a counter to Western influence prior to the start of the Ukraine invasion.

It appeared at the time that Putin had been the main architect of the pact, and many speculated that Xi had agreed to it only on the basis of Putin’s ‘guarantee’ that he would quickly achieve his objective of subjugating Ukraine without much resistance from the Western alliance. 

As the war progressed, some reports in the media suggested that the Chinese leadership were becoming restive in the face of the marked lack of progress by the Russian military and its failure to achieve its objective in bringing Ukraine quickly back into the Russian empire, suggesting Xi was dissatisfied with Russia's attempts to make good on the ‘deal’ originally offered by Putin.

There may, however, be a more sinister explanation as to the origin and timing of the invasion....

Although I’m not normally an advocate of conspiracy theories, this one does bear looking at in the light of what’s happened since then, given its chilling implications.

Since he came to power, Xi Jinping has taken an altogether more aggressive stance than his predecessors against the West generally, and against the USA in particular. He sees the US as China’s principal rival in the struggle for world military and economic supremacy. Having completed the process of bringing a rebellious Hong Kong firmly back in line, (and in the process reneging on the 'two systems, one country' agreement it reached with Britain in 1997), China has its eye firmly on Taiwan for as the next candidate for ‘reabsorption’ into the Chinese empire. 

Xi will have been very happy with Trump’s US isolationist policy during Trump's presidency, despite the US trade sanctions against China Trump introduced during his presidency. Now Biden has resumed ‘business as usual’ on the foreign policy front, and the US is emerging from its shell again, China’s supremacy over its Asia-Pacific domain is back in question.

In the face of this change, we should ask how might Xi best go about removing this renewed threat to his ambitions ? His best bet would be to divert the USA’s attention from the Asia-Pacific region by creating a ‘diversion’ farther from home. In the course of their previous discussions, he and Putin will have covered at some length the issue of wayward state reclamation, and Xi would have been well aware of Putin’s grand ambition to reconstitute the Soviet Union in his image, but without the inconvenience of failed communist doctrine and the old politburo system.

My guess is that Xi will have been highly skeptical about Putin’s ability to realise this goal, and may also have seen his obsession with it as an opportunity to ‘tie up’ the Western Alliance in a European conflict well away from the Chinese sphere of influence. He would not have have voiced this outside his intimate circle of CCP party faithful. He will also no doubt have seen an opportunity in the coming Ukraine conflict to engineer food and raw material shortages, the brunt of which would be borne in the 3rd world. Who better than 'good old' China to alleviate some of the dire problems which would lie ahead for Africa and the poorer parts of Asia and the Middle East as a result - and gain even more political influence and local 'brownie points' thereby...

On the military front, by actively encouraging Putin to invade Ukraine, which Xi himself, like most of us, would have secretly regarded as an unwinnable campaign, Xi would set the scene for a local European war without too much danger of escalation to full scale global nuclear conflict. This could usefully tie up both NATO and Russian militaries for years or even decades bogged down in a stalemated 'tit for tat', and thereby leave China as the dominant power in SE Asia and the Pacific.

This strategy would of course have two risks associated with it: 1) It would have to assume that Putin’s initial Blitzkrieg would fail due to Ukrainian resistance and 2) More importantly that NATO, far from ignoring the conflict as Putin predicted, would unite with the rest of the world in ‘taking Putin on’.

Both of these assumptions, if indeed Xi actually did make them pre-invasion, have clearly already proven to be correct. A third assumption he would also have had to make is that any military conflict would avoid the use of nuclear weapons....

Mercifully, this one has also proven correct - so far. However, Putin has already made it clear he would go nuclear if Russia were directly threatened. Xi may also have included this possibility in his calculations and assumed that if a nuclear conflict between NATO and Russia were to ensue, it would be limited enough to effectively obliterate both Russian and NATO nuclear capability, leaving much of China’s military and civilian population undamaged, thereby giving China full supremacy over whatever was left.

Unlike the first two assumptions, this would be a highly dangerous and probably incorrect one. The virtual impossibility of avoiding a full scale exchange once the nuclear button had been pressed, and the ability of radioactivity to spread rapidly round the globe in lethal quantities following such an exchange, virtually ensure this. Xi may, however, have thought that this was a risk worth taking to achieve his ultimate aim - that of China as the supreme world power…

How likely is it that Xi did play a key role in inspiring the Ukraine invasion ? I should stress that all this is merely a theory, and has so far only circumstantial evidence to support it. It is a plausible one, however, and we should not dismiss it out of hand, given its chilling implications. The timing of the pact between Russia and China was widely publicised, and was certainly no coincidence, given how subsequent events have played out. China was obviously aware of Putin's plans in some detail from an early stage, and it's also highly likely that Xi insisted the planned invasion should not take place until after the Winter Olympics in Beijing had finished. 

We will, of course, never be party to the detail of what was actually discussed and agreed between the two leaders at the time – Putin could never admit to having been in any way ‘hoodwinked’ into invading Ukraine by Xi, given the massive loss of face that would involve. Even if Xi did have a decisive role, Putin's obsessive mentality would be likely to convince him that the idea was his alone. 

Putin will also realise that he will be dependent on both financial and military support from Beijing in the coming months when Western sanctions really start to bite, particularly if his 'scorched earth' campaign in the Donbas falters due to increased Ukrainian resistance, so he could not afford an open rift with Beijing. Recent changes in Russian military fortunes in the Donbas in response to more effective US and UK weapons systems may indicate this process has already started. 

Although Putin is unlikely to survive more than another year or two before he is removed by an exasperated Russian populace (like the French, the Russians have ‘form’ for ridding themselves of unwanted leaders !), Xi is much more likely to survive politically long-term, given the overwhelming stranglehold the CCP has on its heavily indoctrinated population, and his own relatively young age. The prospect of a Chinese leader with such potentially Machiavellian tendencies remaining in charge for many decades is a chilling one indeed. 

Whether or not Xi was the principal architect of the invasion, the West should take great care not to underestimate him, and we must do everything possible to ensure that Chinese influence is not allowed to proliferate closer to home. We should also continue to support 3rd world nations wherever possible to counter further proliferation of Chinese influence, and ensure we retain what little 'soft power' we have left.

We should also expect continued cyber-attacks from both Russia and China. Beijing in particular will have its eye on the political situation in the US, and would see it as advantageous if isolationist Republicanism won out in this politically and socially divided country. If Trump, or someone with similar views, were elected in 2024, Chinese and Russian adventurism would be much more likely to flourish without interference. Beware - the state-funded cyber-warriors are coming - social media platforms take note.

It is reassuring to see that both US and UK intelligence services are on the case, despite the current political shenanigans, as is shown in a very recent report . One can only hope that governments the world over recognise the danger and avoid falling into the Chinese 'honey-trap'.

Viv

Update 14.9.22: Interestingly, there has been no mention of the China-Russia pact recently. Xi may well have decided to 'soft pedal' on the 'brave new world Eastern resurgence', given Putin's abject failure so far to make any progress in his bid to annex Ukraine and his growing unpopularity with the Russian people, especially the young. Xi also has problems in his own back yard - the recurrent and lengthy lockdowns imposed on his major cities are starting to deprive their citizens of essentials, and I suspect it won't be long before the CCP has open rebellion on the streets to deal with. 

The only way out of this for him that doesn't involve violence on the streets is to admit he backed the wrong horse and suspend the zero Covid policy. Now that he has secured his 3rd term at the party congress, it's unlikely he'll risk losing face by doing this. Stand by for some fireworks this winter.....

Update 17.11.22: Yesterday's missile impact on NATO soil and the Western leadership's reactions to it confirm how close we really are to an accidental triggering of a worldwide nuclear conflict. It was, however somewhat reassuring that Biden and Stoltenberg were quick to call for a calm assessment of what had actually happened, rather than indulging in some form of 'knee jerk' reaction. Even more encouraging was Moscow's praise for their actions, which indicates even Putin is conscious that he is 'playing with fire'.  Let's hope this 'close shave' with armageddon acts as a salutary warning - to both sides.

Version Date 17.11.22