By Mate Khvedelidze, Associate Professor at Caucasus University
In geopolitical strategy, sometimes the most powerful move is not to advance, but to step aside. As America recalibrates its posture in the Russia Ukraine conflict, leaving Europe to bankroll military aid, a natural question has arisen: will China begin supplying Russia more openly and directly?
So far, the Chinese are continuing to supply Russia, but covertly, not openly or officially. Nor is there much talk of a dramatic increase in volume. This restraint is not accidental; it is born of logic, and will, in turn, lead to logical outcomes.
Both sides see the war in Ukraine as a proxy conflict—Russia as China’s proxy, and Ukraine as America’s. Understandably, Washington feared being drawn by Beijing into a spiral of escalation, a spiral in which any outcome, be it Russian victory, defeat or even a negotiated ceasefire, would leave China as the real winner. This fear partly explains why the Biden administration initially chose to arm Ukraine cautiously, in carefully measured doses (enough to avoid Ukrainian defeat), while Donald Trump attempted to push for a ceasefire outright.
What was the Americans’ underlying concern? Put simply, if the war dragged on, and it has, it would transform completely into a proxy war, with China supplying Russia comprehensively. The US was wary of being entangled in such an escalation, especially one that would lock up its strategic resources in Europe, just when the true arena of American rivalry with China lies in the Indo-Pacific.
Moreover, regardless of who wins the war, a prolonged conflict leaves China in a stronger position. Worse, if Russia loses and is severely weakened, it risks becoming a fully-fledged satellite of Beijing—a development Washington wants to avoid at all costs. Armed with Russia’s natural resources, China would gain a decisive industrial and commercial edge over the United States.
Naturally, Washington would have preferred to strike profitable bargains with both Russia and Ukraine, using the war to significantly boost its own economy.
But for reasons that are all too evident—including the fact that Putin has long since passed the point of being able to stop this war—Washington has returned to the militarization path in Ukraine.
In this environment, the Americans found a shrewd way to ensure China wouldn’t emerge as the sole victor: they simply took a step back. Not a full retreat, but a clever sidestep.
Here’s what that looks like in practice: rather than letting China supply Russia openly and drawing America into an escalation spiral, Washington changed tack. It now provides arms to Ukraine, yes, but does so with European money. This sidesteps Trump’s electoral promises, keeps the MAGA camp quiet, and avoids direct confrontation with Beijing.
Why is this partial retreat a smart move? Because from Washington’s point of view, the Indo-Pacific remains the top priority in the China rivalry. The US is no longer spending its own resources in Europe—quite the opposite. It’s using European funds to boost its arms industry, while concentrating its real strategic focus (and money) on the Pacific theater. In essence, America preserves the status quo in Europe while profiting from it.
If China now begins to arm Russia more openly, it would backfire. It would damage Beijing’s ties with Europe and push EU countries into Washington’s preferred anti-China coalition. And again, America pays nothing for this—it continues to earn from European wallets.
Even more intriguingly, should the Chinese ramp up military support for Moscow, Russia’s growing military clout would increase US relevance in Eastern Europe, especially in Poland. This would rule out any serious attempt to establish a unified, self-reliant European defense capability—something that would, in the long term, reduce NATO’s centrality and, with it, America’s strategic foothold on the continent. Again, Washington wins.
So what are the Europeans doing in all this? Faced with a threat to their own continental security, they’ve begun stepping up criticism of China and demanding that Beijing halt its support for Russia.
Further evidence that no peace deal is coming? Last month, the Council of Europe began laying the groundwork for a special tribunal targeting the Russian Federation. Clearly, one does not threaten a future negotiating partner with prosecution.
The creation of a tribunal for Russian war crimes, and the ICC’s arrest warrant for Putin, are cut from the same cloth. In plain terms, Europe is signaling that it will not negotiate with Putin’s regime directly. Rather, it’s telling the Russian siloviki that once Putin’s head rolls, the conversation can begin anew.
Other developments are worth noting. There’s a new UK-Germany military cooperation treaty. There’s renewed interest in easing visa requirements for Turkey. There’s even talk of Armenia integrating into the EU. The winds are shifting.
To summarize: China cannot supply Russia openly or dramatically ramp up support without falling into the very trap it set for the Americans. Should Beijing take that route, Washington will deepen its Indo-Pacific focus while Beijing is left confronting Europe—and likely EU sanctions. China cannot withstand joint European-American pressure. Unlike the Russians, the Chinese are a pragmatic people. They will choose the smarter strategy.
By Mate Khvedelidze, Associate Professor at Caucasus University
