A slew of articles and opinions erupted after President Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin met in Alaska in mid-August, with many media outlets focused on who had “won” the summit. Many of those viewpoints found the U.S. side to have been lacking. Some gave the advantage to the Russian side, and even North Korea, which sells weapons to Russia, came in for an honorable mention. But many took the position that China came out of the Russia-U.S. summit as the winner – a neat feat for a country whose leader was not even at the table.
One analyst suggested that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is using the Russia-Ukraine war to weaken the United States while advancing its global ambitions.
“The game for the CCP is to keep the United States very distracted, so they can continue their extreme aggression throughout the rest of the world,” said Casey Fleming of Blackops Partners. Fleming called the CCP “the wild card” and the “grand puppet master” controlling countries such as Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea.
Veteran analyst Gordon Chang called the summit a win for China, and for its “only military ally,” North Korea.
Chang, writing in Newsweek, argued that “no deal” was exactly what China wanted, pointing out that “Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reportedly told Kaja Kallas, the EU foreign policy chief, on July 2, China does not want Russia to lose because then the U.S. would focus on China.”
It seems that many China analysts think that Washington can only focus on one big country at a time. Is it feasible to believe that the United States could be “distracted” by crises so consuming, important and immediate that everyone – up to and including the president – would somehow lose sight of whatever China is doing? One hopes not.
Was Beijing pleased with the outcomes of the Trump-Putin meeting? First, let’s look at its official response.
Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning addressed that question on August 19. The official line, in Mao’s words, is that “China believes that dialogue and negotiation provides the only viable way out of the Ukraine crisis, and supports all efforts conducive to peace.”
Asked a follow-up question about China’s position on the Ukraine crisis amid the “current circumstances,” Mao replied, in part:
China did not create the Ukraine crisis, nor is China a party to it. Even so, China has since day one held an objective and fair position and promoted talks for peace. President Xi Jinping put forward four principles, namely, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected, the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter should be observed, the legitimate security concerns of all countries should be taken seriously, and all efforts conducive to a peaceful settlement of the crisis should be supported… China stands ready to, in light of the will of the parties concerned and together with the rest of the international community, continue playing a constructive role for the political settlement of the crisis.
That does not sound like the statement of a country that has just pulled off a diplomatic coup. Instead, there’s a whiff of defensiveness.
Mao was not asked about China’s part in the crisis; she was asked about China’s position on the crisis, prospects for resolving it, and what kind of peace agreement China hopes to see. And yet she opened her reply by disavowing any responsibility for the existence of the crisis.
And she finished with a remark that subtly points to another point of discontent for Beijing: China is “ready to” help mediate in the crisis, but none of the “parties concerned” seem at all interested in having it do so. Xi’s “four principles” for solving the crisis have been roundly ignored not only by Trump but by Xi’s “best friend,” Putin.
The summit and its aftermath had a few other key takeaways for China – most of which Chinese leaders will not officially admit to.
Certainly, China wants to maintain its stranglehold over the cheap oil it can buy from Russia as long as the war goes on. It is estimated that in 2023, China spent $60.64 billion on Russian crude, averaging out to nearly $567 per metric ton. That translates into a savings of approximately 10 percent for China compared to Saudi crude (which, during the same time period averaged out at $626.86 per metric ton). A 10 percent savings when talking tens of billions is significant.
And no one realizes that more than Putin. The Russian leader would very much like to sell his country’s oil on world markets, markets in which he can recoup the 10 percent he is losing to China and to India. Putin’s problem is that with no peace in sight, he is restricted to selling to the only two major countries who are willing to fly in the face of U.S. sanctions on Russian oil.
China’s dilemma now is how to maneuver the relationships among the three – China, the United States, and Russia – to the greatest advantage for itself.
One disadvantage that China has is the persistent fear that Putin may cool his relationship with China if it means gaining a renewed relationship with, if not respect from, the West, and particularly with the United States.
China, on the other hand, very much wants to hold on to the “no limits” relationship to which they are committed with Russia. If and when Russia and Ukraine come to a negotiated settlement, China doesn’t want to find itself sidelined by either Russia or the United States.
China also saw Trump openly express his disappointment that a ceasefire had not been reached, and in the days since, when fighting and air strikes continued in Russia and Ukraine, admit that he “was not happy” about it. Chinese leadership would see that kind of transparency as weak; China’s diplomatic guardrails are bounded by barbed wire and could never allow such openness.
In the meantime, China is faced with ongoing trade negotiations with the United States and hopes to come out the better for it. Since the Trump-Putin summit, in what seems to some like a complete reversal, Trump has offered China 600,000 visas over two years for its students to go to the United States and study. China, however, is well aware that this freebie has another side: It also represents leverage, to be used when appropriate. What is given can be taken away.
The official Chinese reaction to the summit and the still ongoing negotiations with both the Russian as well as the Ukrainian leaders can only be neutral because they don’t know what’s coming next.
The Chinese Communist Party survives by preventing and managing the one phenomenon that the CCP and Chinese citizens fear most: chaos. For thousands of years, chaos and its devastating effects have ruined the lives and fortunes of dynasties and ordinary Chinese alike. In the 20th century alone, the death toll in China from war, insurrection, politically-induced famine, and political upheaval has taken the lives of tens of millions. When confronted with chaos from outside, and an inability to accurately predict what may happen as a result, the Chinese instinct is to hunker down, shut the storm doors, and let the winds blow over.
Confronted with its only true major power competitor currently led by a president and his administration that never fails to surprise – to the shock and dismay of some, and the delight of others – China’s reaction to the Trump-Putin summit and its ongoing aftermath can only be cautious, controlled, and most of all quiet. China’s complicity in the killing fields of the Russia-Ukraine war already says it all.