Is China helping Russia in its invasion of Ukraine? If so, what does that mean for the conflict?

Secretary of State Blinken suggested that China is supplying Russia with “non-lethal” aid during a recent trip to Turkey.

This statement came just before a “secret” trip to Ukraine by President Biden, which was only a secret to Americans. Clearly, the Administration is upping the attention it is giving to the conflict.

This in turn comes from a steady increase in the type of weaponry the US will deliver to Ukraine and a commitment to support Ukrainian pensions.

China for its part said that it was not involved in the war and seeks a negotiated settlement. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said further that “the U.S. is not qualified to give orders to China” and that “we will never accept U.S. criticism, even coercion and pressure on China-Russia relations.”

That sounds friendly, doesn’t it?

What is non-lethal aid? Does buying oil from Russia qualify? Financial help such as loans? What if they supplied intelligence and logistical support? How would we know? It seems that it would be very difficult to draw borders around the definition itself, since any aid, except medical support, helps a nation inflict casualties on its opponent and thus could be construed as lethal.

If Ukraine can call on its friends for money and arms, why can’t Russia? Why would Russia not do so?

You see, that is the reason this situation is becoming so dangerous and why a full-throated debate needs to be had in this country right now about our commitment to Ukraine. The chances of this war widening are growing by the day and the Democrat Party which always called to “give peace a chance” and always calls for negotiated peace agreements, is utterly not interested in peace talks.

Not only that, the current President and his family have had close personal financial ties to the country the rest of us are supposed to protect.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party is becoming split between those who want to enlarge the US military role and the MAGA wing of the party that thinks a major war in Ukraine violates  principles of good foreign policy, such as:

The war must be in the direct self-interest and for the safety and security of the US. The war must be winnable, there must be a clear definition of victory, and not be another failed nation-building project. There should be a declaration of war declared by Congress as prescribed by the Constitution and the case made clear to the American people. The war needs to be paid for by taxes and not add further to the already towering deficit which is spiraling completely out of control. As another European war, the US should expect that the bulk of the expense and casualties be suffered by our European allies, who are most directly threatened by Russian expansion. Do we have a coalition to fight this war? Germany and France, are you ready to stand up?

Advocates such as Nikki Haley and Lindsey Graham say the war is about “freedom” and discouraging aggression. The aggression part we get but the freedom part is difficult to grasp due to its vagueness. If the US should go to war with every country to does not permit “freedom”, we will be at war with most of the nations on earth. Besides we could use a lot more “freedom” at home before we go about exporting it by force abroad.

The other thing we are told is that aid should continue “as long as it takes.” Again, what does this phrase really mean?

There is the 1994 agreement to support Ukraine and its territorial integrity, for which they in return gave up their nuclear weapons. But if you read the memorandum, support is not really defined. That agreement was violated in 2014 by Russia with the incursion into Crimea and we did not go to war.  Article  4 suggests if Ukraine is invaded, we take the issue to the UN. With Russia having a veto as a permanent member, how was that supposed to work?  President Clinton was clearly a genius.

Read the agreement yourself.  Explain where we are committed to going to war.  Show me the provision to support Ukrainian pensions.

To be sure, we have given our “word”, but what does that mean?  Our word to take it to the UN?  Yet we hear we must step up the conflict or the world will not believe “our word.”

Yes, our words should mean something but since Viet Nam, the second Gulf War (WMD that were not found), and Afghanistan, our words have not meant that much.

These and other arguments need to be made and debated by the American people and the citizens of Europe.

Given our current political situation of low trust in government and the current administration, how likely will it be to unite the American people to fight a land war in Asia against two nuclear powers? How likely is it that Europe will be a united front for war?

If China were to “openly” aid Russia, it would change the entire context of the war in Ukraine in a very dangerous way.

What seems clear is that we are sliding into war with little debate and no definition of victory. It will put us into conflict with two gigantic countries, Russia and China, both of whom have nuclear weapons.

If the threat of nuclear annihilation can hold the conflict to a conventional war, the US will have to fight a long-distance conflict with two countries with immense geography and manpower. That means a land war with incredibly long logistical lines and a war that cannot be won unless we are willing to invade and bomb their territory to disrupt their logistical lines of support. It is not clear we have the industrial capacity, sea lift capacity, oil, or manpower to fight such as war as many of our basic industries have been hollowed out and transferred to China.

We are already running out of military stores with the aid we have already provided to Ukraine.

Thus, if we are “lucky”, this would be a land war in  Eurasia. We clearly would have to bring back the draft and mobilize the entire economy for war.

And what about the environment? No, we are not being snarky.  Democrats have been screaming that global warming is an existential threat that will end life on earth maybe by the end of this decade. Millions of our young people actually believe this. Clearly, there are not the resources to fight a major protracted land war and fight global warming. And the carbon emissions of a war of this scale would clearly doom us all if you extend the logic of their arguments. Just destroying Nordstream released immense amounts of methane.

How difficult will it be to get this younger generation ready to fight trench warfare on frozen ground? Most of them can’t qualify for military service and clearly, women will have to be drafted given the current laws. And if not, men can get out of the draft by saying they identify as women. Is the Administration ready to make the case to our young people for their sacrifice?

It is doubtful we are culturally, politically, spiritually, or economically ready for this war to expand beyond where it is today. And the history of war is that once started, they do expand. 

However, there is no reasonable guarantee that the war could be limited to conventional means. Is the country ready to be destroyed in a nuclear war, and to destroy our adversaries, over the eastern part of Ukraine, which historically has been Russian?

After fighting a two-front war in World War II, suffering immense casualties on Iwo Jima and Okinawa,  Truman decided to end the war by dropping the bomb. Why would not Russia and China reach similar conclusions? But when Truman made his decision, it was against an enemy that did not have the bomb or the means to deliver a counterstrike.

That clearly is not the case today, so the “best case” is a gigantic land war. Are you ready for that over who occupies Donbas?  How many people even know where that is?

Are our leaders thinking ahead about what would be entailed to take on two nuclear powers at one time, with the hope the war would only be conventional? If China has stepped into the war with aid to Russia as Blinken suggests, what are we prepared to do about it?