Throughout the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the US and China have displayed conflicting attitudes. In response to Russia's military engagement in Ukraine, beginning on February 24, the US expressed strong opposition to the war by leveraging severe sanctions. China, on the other hand, had an ambiguous response that neither advocated for nor condemned the war. At the March 2 UN General Assembly meeting, the US voted to condemn Russia for its invasion of Ukraine while China abstained. The American and Chinese responses are not only important to how the war progresses, but it also impacts broader US-China relations as they find each other on different points of the spectrum. This disagreement could impact the possibilities of confrontation between the two countries and flare up other possible tensions.

&nbsp;

**Context of the Russia-Ukraine War:**

The root cause of this conflict began with NATO’s eastward expansion after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. NATO was joined by Eastern European nations formerly in the Communist Sphere, including Hungary, Poland, and the Baltic states. This was perceived as a threat to Russia as NATO moved closer to Russian territory. The biggest flashpoint, though, was Moscow’s vehement opposition against Ukraine’s desire to join NATO. To Russia, Ukraine acted as a political and economic buffer zone separating it from the rest of Europe. 


In a televised address on February 21, President Vladimir Putin argued that Ukraine was an “integral part of Russia’s history” and that eastern Ukraine was part of ancient Russian lands. Initially, for months, Putin denied that he would invade Ukraine. However, Russian troops were deployed near Ukraine, and Moscow recognized Donetsk and Luhansk– two separatist regions known collectively as the Donbas– increasing the possibility of Russia’s invasion. On February 24, after Putin declared that Russia couldn’t feel “safe, develop and exist” due to the constant threat from modern Ukraine, Russia launched a large-scale military invasion. Despite the two rounds of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, a cease-fire agreement has not been reached and the war continues on.



The United Nations General Assembly denounces Russian aggression in Ukraine by a vote of 141 to 5 with 35 abstentions on March 2nd, via Foreign Policy

&nbsp;

**Response of the US:**

Before Russia declared war on Ukraine, President Joe Biden had expected Putin to invade Ukraine. The Biden administration threatened to enact a series of sanctions towards Russia if the invasion took place. After Russia violated Ukraine’s sovereignty, the US did not deploy troops to directly engage in Ukraine but went ahead with two main strategies: isolating Russia and launching an “economic war” through sanctions. 


Recently in his State of the Union address on March 1, Biden emphasized the reinvigorated Western alliance, leaving Putin “isolated in the world more than he has ever been”. This isolation is shown in the votes of the UN General Assembly regarding Russia's invasion of Ukraine– of the 190 countries, 141 countries condemned the invasion. The Western countries were especially united in their response, supplying Ukraine with weapons and together imposing the toughest economic sanctions ever introduced on a country. These sanctions included cutting off Russia’s access to technology and the global financial system, such as removing selected banks from the Swift messaging system and blocking Russia’s largest banks from the US financial system. The West also targeted specific individuals, including the “oligarchs,” and put export controls on certain technology. As a result, Russia’s ruble fell 30% against the US dollar, delaying payments of exports of oil and gas to Russia and leading Russia to double its interest rate. Analysts expect these sanctions to continue being strengthened, such as adding more technology subject to control. However there are exceptions to these sanctions, such as energy. Russia is a major global oil and gas supplier. A hit on energy could cause a sudden increase in energy prices that can cause economic damage around the world, especially European countries.

On an ideological level, this war is also a conflict between liberal democracy and authoritarianism. Therefore, to fight Russia is to fight autocracy and defend the values of democracy. Regarding this aspect, President Biden had declared in his State of the Union address that “In the battle between democracy and autocracy, democracies are rising to the moment, and the world is clearly choosing the side of peace and security.” 

&nbsp;

**Response of China:**

Before the war occurred, China was considered a possible “lifeline” for Russia when it faced economic sanctions from the West. China had denied that Russia possessed the will to invade Ukraine. In fact, on February 4, President Xi Jinping and Putin met in Beijing and announced that their partnership had “no limits.” The two leaders backed each other up regarding the tensions on Ukraine and Taiwan, promising to increase collaboration against the West. However, after the war broke out, China was caught between Russia and the West, neither condemning the invasion nor giving its full support to Russia.  

Currently, China continues to adhere to its non-interference in foreign affairs, most prominently illustrated by its abstention at the UN General Assembly. But, China is not actively supporting the war, as Beijing argues that Ukraine is no exception to its commitment to preserve the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations. Beijing also offered on a few occasions to help Russia and Ukraine settle the conflict through diplomatic measures. However, this doesn’t mean that China is necessarily siding with the West, as seen in China’s refusal to use the word “invasion” when referring to Russia’s actions or criticizing Putin. Moreover, China blames the US and NATO for the war. China argued that the war could have been prevented had the Biden administration promised not to accept Ukraine as a NATO member, and that the NATO expansion was responsible for causing deteriorating relations with Russia. 


Experts state that “China will do what it can to help when Russia is in economic and financial distress.” When President Putin enacted military actions, China lifted restrictions on Russian wheat imports, and the Russian-owned energy multinational corporation Gazprom signed a contract with China regarding a new natural gas pipeline. However, China is cautious about supporting Russia; not only could China’s attempts to create a global and economic footprint, such as Belt and Road Initiative projects in Ukraine, be threatened, but also it could be subjected to secondary sanctions. China is already impacted by Western sanctions, such as in the manufacturing and export sectors, and the US warned that China will face consequences if it helps Russia evade sanctions. China continues to walk a fine line between the West and Russia, saying that it neither supports Russia nor will it take part in imposing sanctions. There will be a need to focus on comments from the National People’s Congress for further implications.

&nbsp;

**Conclusion**

The responses of the US and China towards the Russia-Ukraine war impact US-China relations by intensifying the confrontation between the West and China, impacting the US resource allocation in foreign policy and affecting other tensions such as Taiwan. With the coordination of American and European sanctions against Russia, the possibility of the West’s resolve to compete geopolitically with a rising China could become stronger. Moreover, China’s future tactics regarding the war could significantly impact the confrontation between China, Russia, and the West. The current debate about whether China knew Russia’s plan for invasion beforehand would also contribute to the conflict. For the US, the threat posed by China and Russia are both serious, but it is very difficult for the US to choose which conflict to focus on. However, the military resources of the US are limited to fight the major wars at the same time while China and Russia are increasingly working together. Therefore, rising threats from Russia in the European area will impact how the US distributes and develops its resources regarding China in the Indo-Pacific area. Lastly, the citizens of Taiwan are worried that the next war would happen in their area by China which claims Taiwan should be under its rule. Although government officials and researchers emphasize differences between the situation of Ukraine and Taiwan, arguing that the possibility of war is low, there are growing concerns about how the current Russia-Ukraine war could impact other potential conflicts in the future. 


As the Russia-Ukraine war continues on, the positions US and China take in their foreign policy would greatly impact how the war processes and also the future world order regarding the relationship between the West and China. There is a growing need to focus on China’s response regarding the confrontation and how the US reacts to it. 

The Responses of US and China towards the Russia-Ukraine War: An Overview

China has taken several steps to tackle climate change, but China’s status as the world’s largest carbon emitter, among other things, have led many to question the sincerity of Beijing’s commitment to climate action.

&nbsp;

**Background and Chinese Action**

Climate change is undeniably one of the world’s most pressing challenges, and in the past few years we have seen the international community at large increasingly make commitments and take steps aimed at reducing carbon emissions. China has been no exception to the rising international environmental consciousness, despite their significant carbon footprint. China is the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, generating roughly one-third of the global carbon emissions. After several decades of remarkable economic growth, powered in large part by coal-fired plants -- the major contributor to air pollutants -- China has acknowledged the importance of developing renewable energy sources due to the dire strategic and economic implications of current climate predictions. China has made significant investments in renewable energy over the last decade, spending twice that of the US. In 2021, President Xi Jinping restated a goal of reaching peak carbon emissions by 2030 and pledged to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2060, which is an incredibly ambitious goal for Beijing to set. Clean energy is a major component of Beijing’s “Made in China 2025” initiative, with China dramatically increasing domestic investment in clean energy, rolling in ambitious and innovating strategies like the establishment of “Green Pilot Finance Zones” in several major Chinese cities in order to spur clean energy development. As of early 2017, China owns “five of the world’s six largest solar module manufacturing companies and the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer.” China is balancing an increasing demand for electricity, their goal of energy security, and the enormous investment required for carbon neutrality. China plans to generate 1,200 gigawatts of solar and wind power, which is equivalent to the entire U.S. power consumption, by 2030. The grid infrastructure alone to carry the electricity is expected to cost roughly $300 billion.

&nbsp;

**US Reactions and Future Implications**

Despite seemingly genuine steps taken by China to tackle climate change and Beijing’s signaling its commitment to reducing emissions, many of their concrete actions have drawn skepticism from American observers. While China has made strides in solar and wind power and currently leads the world in these clean energies, they have paradoxically increased their coal generation alongside this. This has led many US policymakers and experts to question whether China is genuine about their commitments to curbing climate change, whether they are making them for international appearances, or even in order to use the promise of climate action as a diplomatic bargaining chip. American skeptics of China’s climate efforts argue that these efforts are motivated purely by self-interest, and that energy security is Beijing’s priority above climate action as evidenced by their continued expansion of coal power. Contrary to this thesis, however, is the fact that China has made significant investments in renewable energy and last year referred to climate change as a “crisis. Additionally, some policymakers that believe in the earnestness of Beijing’s climate action acknowledge that even if it is for self-serving purposes, China’s inclusion and participation in climate change negotiations is imperative. 

Beijing's Commitment to the Planet

As the United States continues to keep a close eye on China’s military, the Pentagon released its annual report to Congress on China’s military and security developments in November 2021. The report not only confirms that China is continuing its efforts to modernize its military, but it also reveals a notable change in strategy.
​
Breaking from past posture, China is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal. The report notes that China may possess 700 warheads by 2027 and at least 1,000 by the end of the decade. While the US continues to maintain its numerical advantage of nuclear weapons — about 5,550 warheads compared to China’s 350 — China’s nuclear ambitions have grown significantly. 
 
China is also testing biological toxins for dual-use purposes in military medical institutions — a sign China is expanding its research into the potential use of chemical and biological weapons. Due to such research, the Pentagon report concludes that China may not be meeting obligations of the Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention (BWC) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). With COVID-19 serving as the latest reminder for how powerful, and uncontrollable, biological weapons could ultimately be designed to become, China’s testing of “biological activities with potential dual-use applications” alarms Washington.
 
Furthermore, as China prepares for future warfare capabilities, the People’s Liberation Army’s Strategic Support Force (SSF) is quickly becoming one of the world’s most powerful military branches. Tasked with commanding China’s strategic space, cyber, electronic, information, and psychological warfare missions and capabilities, the report warns China’s anti-satellite and electronic weapons can challenge an adversary’s access to the space domain during a conflict. Given how reliant the world is on satellites and high-technology, the US will likely be closely observing any Chinese military developments above Earth’s surface.
 
The report follows recent provocations from China, including its summer launch of a fractional orbital bombardment system, armed with a hypersonic glide missile, into space that can carry nuclear warheads, and harassing Taiwan by sending combat aircraft into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone. Last September, while patrolling along Alaska’s Aleutian Islands, the US Coast Guard confirmed that it “observed four ships from the People’s Liberation Army Navy” in the US exclusive economic zone. 



Pentagon structure in Northern Virginia (AFP)



If uncertainty about China’s military advancements still exists, recent satellite images show that China is building mockups resembling US naval vessels for suspected target practice. Despite these potential concerns from the US, Chinese media has stressed that the US should not feel concerned by recent military actions and prioritize peaceful cooperation, rather than “pressuring” China into an arms race.
 
Based on the Pentagon's assessment, China is working to not only match their “strong enemy” of the US, but even “fight and win wars” against the US military in future realms of warfare. As China’s military continues to strengthen, the US is under pressure to improve military readiness, modernize its equipment, and strengthen security alliances. With the current state of competition having no end in sight, military advancements from both states are likely to intensify.

Annual Pentagon Report Confirms Notable Chinese Military Developments


On January 15, 2020…

then-US President Donald Trump and China’s Vice Premier Liu He signed a “historic, enforceable agreement” termed the US-China Economic and Trade Agreement. Colloquially known as the Phase One trade deal, this agreement marked a significant development in trade relations and tensions between the two largest economies in the world.



Former US President Donald Trump and China’s Vice Premier Liu He at the White House signing ceremony on January 15, 2020 (via USTR)



Since early 2018, the US and China have been embroiled in a trade war, the collateral effects of which have reverberated throughout the global economy. Under the Trump administration, the US formally imposed tariffs on billions of dollars worth of goods imported from China. In response, the Chinese government retaliated with its own set of tariffs and cancelled orders for key American exports like soybeans. At the international level, economic uncertainty resulting from the ongoing trade war slowed GDP growth in countries and regions beyond the two feuding parties. The global implications of continued economic conflict between the US and China greatly concerned world leaders and industry experts, with lobby groups urging both countries to engage in trade talks and ease the escalation of tensions. In early 2020, after rounds of negotiations, the two sides finally arrived at a preliminary deal.


On the day of the signing ceremony, Trump issued remarks on the historical significance of the Phase One trade deal. In his speech, he spoke of the deal’s hopes for promoting “harmony” between the US and China as well as “for the whole world.” Similarly, Liu echoed statements emphasizing the importance of finding ways to best serve “the interest of both countries” due to China’s increasing economic power on the world stage. In a press conference two days after the signing ceremony, Liu added that the Chinese economy stands to benefit greatly from certain provisions in the deal, like addressing IP protection, as China looks to create a more attractive environment for investors and technological innovators. However, since the deal was primarily negotiated to address American discontent with the US-China trade deficit and Chinese trade practices, most provisions naturally aim to rebalance the bilateral trade relationship and should theoretically work in the favor of the US business community more so than that of China.






The inception of the Phase One trade deal marked the start of a tougher American policy on economic relations with China. As the text of the agreement outlined, the US expects a series of “structural reforms” regarding Chinese trade practices in seven major areas of concern: IP, technology transfer —  the coercive acquisition of foreign technologies in exchange for market access — agriculture, financial services, currency, expanding trade, and dispute resolution. The order in which the aforementioned issues fell on the list potentially reflected the Trump administration’s internal prioritization of economic concerns, given the sanctions imposed on the Chinese tech giant Huawei in 2019 amid rising US-China tensions over the global 5G industry. To put it in simpler terms, China pledged to buy more “farm, energy and manufactured goods” from the US in exchange for a partial reduction of certain US tariffs, such as the one targeting $160 billion worth of Chinese-manufactured consumer electronics and clothing. 





Representative Katherine Tai spearheaded bilateral dialogue on trade relations with Liu in late 2021. However, their conversations reflected continued dissatisfaction with China’s end of the deal. Following a video call with Liu in October, Tai highlighted “outstanding issues” regarding progress on the Phase One trade deal and stressed the US discontent toward China’s “state-led, non-market policies and practices,” which disadvantaged American businesses. Given China fell short of its two-year purchase commitment by approximately 38 percent, the Biden administration kept Trump-era tariffs on Chinese imports in place. 


Meanwhile, the newly-appointed Chinese Ministry of Commerce Spokesperson Shu Jueting relayed that both countries will keep their communication channels open and continue to engage in frequent dialogue regarding progress on the Phase One trade deal in a press conference earlier this month. She added the Chinese side hopes their American counterparts can allow for and promote the prospering of a “favorable atmosphere” between the two nations, suggesting a shifting of responsibility from the Chinese leadership to American politicians. China’s passive attitude toward meeting Phase One commitments might reflect the nature of the trade deal, being that the US stands to benefit more from setting clear rules of trade that would reign in Chinese economic tactics and ambitions.


Following the much-anticipated virtual summit between US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping in November 2021, US-China trade relations remain uncertain because both sides “made no apparent progress on trade” despite hinting at potential additional deals in the future. While the Phase One trade deal de-escalated economic conflict between the two countries to encourage bilateral dialogue and reduce miscommunication, rising US-China tensions in the Indo-Pacific region have begun to overshadow trade issues. Ultimately, any future phases of the US-China trade deal will depend on both parties’ satisfaction with their respective implementations of the Phase One trade deal. Yet, two years after signing the agreement, US-China economic relations remain tense as neither side is willing to back down on their demands as the Biden administration maintains tariff rates and the Chinese Ministry of Commerce continues to provide its domestic sectors with subsidies deemed unfair by American policymakers. 

The Responses of US and China towards the Russia-Ukraine War: An Overview

Beijing's Commitment to the Planet

Annual Pentagon Report Confirms Notable Chinese Military Developments

This Day in History: January 15, 2020 - Phase One Trade Deal Agreement