INTRODUCTION
It is well established that the US’s constant attempts to belittle Russia from the position of an equal partner in the global order to a “competitor” has forced Russia to establish a no-hold barred relations with China despite the fact that during the initial period of the Second World War the USA was the main supplier of arms to China to arrest the aggression by Japan. It is equally known that with the atomic blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that brought Japan to its knees and subsequent surrender resulted in the emergence of a so-called rule-based division of the global order with hegemonic distribution of power between the USA and European Western powers that lasted for about a quarter century. Since decades have passed from 1945 to the present-day world with the emergence of China as a global power along with eternal friendship with Russia is determined to check Western hegemony. In this milieu China with its Belt and Road Initiative to build infrastructure in developing countries which these countries needed badly but did have the money became a winner in its game with the West. In these days of multipolarity the real super power, the USA, has to take along European countries and also South Korea, Japan, India, Australia and New Zealand. I had written in an earlier article that
In March 2021 renowned newspaper The Diplomat printed an article titled The QUAD is not an Asian NATO but was a reply to security threat posed by China to international order. China along with Russia replied that QUAD was a fitting reply to the domination by Western powers since the days of the defeat of Japan and her surrender after the nuclear explosion that obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the order of then US President Harry Truman. Analysts have been perplexed as to why though Japan was an adversary and the main theater of war was Germany which too was defeated leading to the suicide of Adolf Hitler and subsequent trial of Nuremberg leading to the trial and punishment of the leading military lights of Hitler.
QUAD AS A FITTING REPLY TO CHINESE MUSCULAR ACTIVITIES
Decades have passed since then and new world has emerged where QUAD has been welcomed as a fitting reply to China’s aggressive behavior in South Asia, and in the disputed areas in South and East China sea. Forgotten are the days of the Rape of Nanking when the US had been an arms supplier to beleaguered China to confront the Japanese. Military developments drew Americans and Chinese closer together. In today’s world most Americans feel China to be the number one enemy of the USA.
CHINA IS NO LONGER A RISING STAR OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
(Medium Digest-August 10 2024-Alex Crowther) Over the past few decades, China has been lauded as the rising titan of the global economy, a nation poised to displace the United States as the world’s preeminent economic power. Yet, beneath the surface of this seemingly unstoppable ascent lies a fragile foundation, riddled with deep-seated structural weaknesses and economic distortions. These issues, long masked by Beijing’s tight control over information and economic data, are now surfacing with alarming rapidity, threatening to upend the very stability of the Chinese state. At the heart of China’s economic troubles is an unsustainable growth model, one that relies heavily on debt-fueled investment and state intervention. Since the turn of the millennium, China’s GDP growth has averaged an impressive 9% per annum. However, this growth has been accompanied by an explosion in debt.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long touted this growth as evidence of its economic prowess and legitimacy. Yet, much of this growth has been driven by an unprecedented real estate boom, a sector that now accounts for nearly 30% of China’s GDP. This shift towards state control has had a chilling effect on the private sector, particularly in high-growth industries such as technology and e-commerce. The government’s recent regulatory crackdown on tech giants like Alibaba and Tencent has wiped out over $1 trillion in market value, sending shockwaves through the investor community and raising questions about the future of innovation in China. The broader implications of this crackdown are profound. By stifling private enterprise and curbing the influence of market forces, Beijing risks undermining the very dynamism that has driven China’s rapid economic ascent. Yet, the most pressing issue facing China today is not its debt or declining productivity, but its demographic crisis.
CHINA FACES DEMOGRAPHIC CRISIS
For decades, the CCP pursued a one-child policy, a draconian measure that has resulted in one of the most severe demographic imbalances in the world. China’s working-age population peaked in 2014 and has been declining ever since, with the fertility rate now languishing at a mere 1.3 births per woman, well below the replacement level of 2.1. By 2050, China is projected to lose nearly half of its working-age population, with the number of elderly citizens set to double. This demographic time bomb presents an existential threat to China’s economic future, as a shrinking workforce and an aging population will place enormous strain on the country’s pension system and healthcare infrastructure. The economic consequences of this demographic decline are already being felt. Labor shortages are driving up wages, eroding China’s cost competitiveness and prompting manufacturers to shift production to lower-cost countries like Vietnam and Bangladesh.
Meanwhile, the shrinking consumer base is dampening domestic demand, exacerbating the challenges facing the economy. In response, Beijing has attempted to boost fertility by relaxing the one-child policy and introducing measures to support families, but these efforts have thus far proven ineffective. In many ways, China’s current predicament is reminiscent of the challenges faced by Japan in the 1990s. Like China, Japan experienced a rapid economic boom, driven by high levels of investment and a booming real estate market. However, when the bubble burst, Japan entered a prolonged period of stagnation, characterized by deflation, sluggish growth, and mounting debt. The parallels between China and Japan are striking, yet the stakes are much higher for China, given its sheer size and importance to the global economy.
The key difference, however, lies in the political context. While Japan is a democracy with a relatively open society, China is an authoritarian state, where the CCP maintains a tight grip on power. This political centralization, while providing short-term stability, also increases the risks of a sudden and severe crisis. As economic pressures mount, the CCP may resort to more draconian measures to maintain control, exacerbating the very problems it seeks to solve. In conclusion, China’s economic trajectory is fraught with peril. The combination of unsustainable debt, a deflating real estate bubble, declining productivity, and a looming demographic crisis presents a perfect storm that could destabilize not only China but the entire global economy.
CHINA’S ERA OF RAPID GROWTH MAY BE ENDING
While the CCP has thus far managed to maintain control, the underlying economic fundamentals suggest that China’s era of rapid growth may be coming to an end. The question now is not if, but when, China will face its day of reckoning. And when that day comes, the repercussions will be felt far beyond its borders. A taboo has been broken in Europe.
Only a few months ago, it would have been inconceivable for European leaders to propose sending European troops to Ukraine. But on February 26, French President Emmanuel Macron said the deployment of European forces to Ukraine could not be “ruled out.” Since then, other European officials have joined the chorus; the Finnish defense minister and Polish foreign minister have both suggested that their countries’ forces could end up in Ukraine. These comments, combined with existing support for such measures in the Baltic states, show that there is a growing bloc of countries open to direct European intervention in the war. These explosive comments are driven by shifting conflict dynamics. The debate in the U.S. Congress over sending military aid to Ukraine has been a debacle. A new aid package is finally on track for approval, but the months of dithering in Washington have dismayed Europeans and given Moscow hope that Western resolve to support Kyiv is cracking.
Russian forces—bolstered by equipment from China, Iran, and North Korea—have taken advantage of the gap in U.S. military support for Ukraine by stepping up their attacks on civilians and nonmilitary infrastructure. In early April, knowing that Ukraine was running short of antiaircraft ammunition, Russia launched a missile attack that destroyed the largest power plant in the Kyiv region. Further damage to critical infrastructure, nuclear power plants, and agricultural land will dramatically raise the costs of reconstruction, for which Ukraine’s partners in the West will likely have to foot much of the bill. As Russian forces speed up their advance, the possibility that they could break through Ukrainian defenses along the eastern front presents Europe with a security threat it cannot ignore.
A Russian victory in Ukraine would vindicate President Vladimir Putin’s ambitions and belief in the inherent weakness of the West. It would enable the Kremlin to keep Russia on a war footing—an all-of-society approach to conquest that European countries would be unable to match. There is no reason to expect Putin to stop with Ukraine. He has called the breakup of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the twentieth century, lamenting that “tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory.”
The Baltic states are in danger, as is Poland: last year, the former Russian prime minister and Putin loyalist Dmitri Medvedev described the Baltics as “our” (meaning Russian) provinces and Poland as “temporarily occupied” (meaning by NATO). By threatening to send troops, European countries are trying to disrupt this worrying trajectory.
ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP AS PRESIDENT WILL LEAVE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AS UKRAINE’S ONLY DEFENDER
To truly change the outcome in Ukraine, however, European countries must do more than simply talk about deployments. If the United States continues to delay aid, and especially if it elects Donald Trump (who has pledged to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours, presumably by allowing Putin to keep his gains) as president in November, Europe will be Ukraine’s only defender. European leaders cannot afford to let American political dysfunction dictate European security. They must make it clear to Russia that Europe is willing to protect Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. The idea of European troops deploying to Ukraine has elicited predictable objections. The Kremlin was outraged by Macron and others’ recent statements warning of war—possibly a nuclear one—with all of Europe. Moscow has threatened escalation, and Berlin and Washington have responded with words and actions aimed at de-escalation—a dynamic that deters both Germany and the United States from sending the more advanced missile systems that Ukraine desperately needs. Too many politicians and pundits in the United States and Europe echo Putin’s own talking points by warning that any kind of external intervention in Ukraine would lead to World War III. In reality, sending European troops would be a normal response to a conflict of this kind. Russia’s invasion disrupted the regional balance of power, and Europe has a vital interest in seeing the imbalance corrected.The obvious way to do this is to provide a lifeline to a Ukrainian military that could once again be left high and dry by the United States, and the best lifeline would be European soldiers. It would also reduce the likelihood of a new front opening along these borders, as Russia would almost certainly seek to avoid broadening the war by attacking other European militaries. European forces could also help secure Ukraine’s three remaining Black Sea ports, which are vital to both the Ukrainian economy and global food security, relieving additional Ukrainian soldiers.
CONCLUSION
Any kind of European operation in Ukraine would carry emotional weight as well. The presence of European troops would raise the morale of the Ukrainian people and reassure them that their country’s future is in Europe. Moscow would try to spin any lethal response to a Russian attack as European aggression, but Russia would be responsible for any escalation. Moscow knows it cannot win by provoking the whole continent, and it seeks to avoid the U.S. military intervention that would very likely follow if Russian forces were to invade a NATO country and trigger Article 5 of the alliance’s charter. Instead, Russia is basing its hopes for victory almost entirely on Europe treating Ukraine as separate from the rest of the continent.
So far, its hopes have come to pass. European leaders have tolerated attacks on Ukraine that would have triggered a united European response had they happened in any NATO or EU member state. This attitude has allowed Russia to escalate its war in Ukraine, safe in the knowledge that the rest of Europe will keep its distance. The arrival of European forces in Ukraine would change that calculation. Moscow would have to face the possibility that European escalation could make the war unwinnable for Russia. And because European forces would be acting outside the NATO framework and NATO territory, any casualties would not trigger an Article 5 response and draw in the United States. Russia’s opponent would not be NATO but a coalition of European countries seeking to balance against Russian imperialism. European leaders do not need to follow the dictates of an increasingly unreliable United States about how the battle in Ukraine should be waged; they can and should decide for themselves how best to ensure the continent’s freedom and security. Europe must do what it takes to safeguard its own future, and that starts with making sure Ukraine wins this war.
