China would certainly prefer a weak but non-imploding Russia. They may not be able to create one though. So far they have played a smart game in several other conflicts of not over-committing to a particular outcome when they are but a 3rd party observer. A skill the USA might usefully learn.
A Russia that is essentially an large Viet Nam would suit them fine. Nominally similar politics and a generally friendly regime, or at least one whose enemies and rivals lists largely corresponds with China’s own. With whom they can trade outside of the Western-dominated system. And yes, there is some frictional rivalry between them, but their commonalities are much greater than their differences.
I am not someone who subscribes to the “The Chinese are 10 feet tall and will conquer the world” narrative. They are far from all-knowing or all-powerful. Xi is a bit impulsive for my tastes in major league world leaders. But in all I give them high marks for navigating this mess as they have so far, and I believe they recognize that the chess pieces are moving into an auspicious alignment for them.
That Red menace narrative is a bit of a Red herring.
China is major player in this dynamic with ambitions to eventually unify with Taiwan and expand their power and influence. They do not control Russia but they have sizable levers to use, and of equal import, to not use.
Russia ending up as a large Viet Nam is an ambition for China like a soft landing for our economy is. And similarly they want want exert the levers they have to thread the needle. I would suspect the Wagner affair gives them pause to keep Russia on track for a controlled collapse, landing in that Viet Nam position. And again a free fall collapsing former empire with lots of nuclear weapons but not much else and little hopeful prospects forward is likely something they want to steer away from.
Agreed. Well said. They want Russia down, but not out. And loyal enough to have the same enemies China does, if not necessarily for exactly the same roster of reasons.
There is one extremely risky move that NATO could attempt, but it’s the height of brinkmanship: announce that Ukraine will join NATO at a given future date and reiterate that every single inch of NATO land will be defended with the full force of the alliance.
No doubt that’s been gamed and is far too risky and desperate. Better to let Ukraine drive them out using conventional means.
from a pure “game-theory” POV … that is about the most stupid thing you could do.
You rob yourself of all other options and limit yourself to ONE.
Whereas your counterpart has all options at his disposal AND you allow him to dictate your actions.
IOW: why would you self-limit your option space?
FWIW: somewhat less stupid (but stupid nontheless) was Biden’s comment on “UKR will not be part of the NATO” a few days ago … Had he answered “we’ll cross that bridge when we get to the bridge” (or some other cryptic BS-answer ) … he’d have more options …
There is a prohibition in the NATO charter against accepting new members that are already at war. Biden saying (directly or obliquely) that Ukraine would not join while the war was on was not news. It’s established treaty for ~75 years now.
Not to mention Zelenskyy has stated that Ukraine will not be joining NATO while this war is still ongoing, as he seems to have a good understanding of the situation.
That won’t prevent Ukraine from joining NATO the day after the war ends - even if the peace treaty with Russia specifically states that it won’t join NATO.
) … he’d have more options …