In 2024, Rising Tensions in East Asia Signal Potential Confl

The relationship between China and Russia seems to grow closer as the U.S. and China look at each other with hostile eyes. 

China’s leader, Xi Jinping, may soon be heading to Moscow to visit Vladimir Putin.

President Xi was reportedly more than happy to hail his “no limits” friendship with Putin when he played host in early 2022 to his Russian counterpart  — one of the few world leaders to endorse China’s controversial staging of the Winter Olympics.

But their very meeting was a signal that Xi was nevertheless still willing to stand with his friend in the face of Western backing for Kiev.

It is typical of China’s approach, a mix of caution and support.

China has seized on the opportunity to burnish its credentials as a counterbalance to U.S. power, particularly as their relationship has cooled sharply since Donald Trump first introduced sanctions and Joe Biden expanded them. 

Xi regards Putin as an important ally in standing up to U.S. global influence. Xi certainly does not want to see his friend defeated on the battlefield. If Russia were to lose the war and Putin fell from power, then China could face the prospect of an unknown leadership in Moscow — possibly even a pro-Western liberal — where at present it is certain of a firm and similarly autocratic ally.

With Russia’s army bogged down by Ukraine’s fierce defence of its territory, the overarching question for China must be whether it should move away from its pro-Moscow neutrality and actually supply Russia with weapons.

U.S. intelligence has said that Beijing is indeed actively considering whether to help Putin with much-needed shipments of such munitions as artillery shells and drones.  China has repeatedly denied that it has any such intentions. But the decision is not a simple one.

One view in Beijing is that if it signals to the U.S. that it won’t allow Russia to lose the war then that could encourage the U.S. to push Ukraine towards a peace settlement.

China would much prefer a negotiated solution that would keep Russia as a strong ally. Indeed, it has proposed a 12-point peace plan so vague that it was dismissed at once by the U.S. 

Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, was more positive and suggested a meeting with Xi. So far, China has not responded.

Beijing must also be anxious that a Russian defeat would only strengthen the U.S. and the West, which might then turn their attention towards ways to weaken China. This is already a real concern for Xi.

“It (the U.S.) regards China as its primary rival and the most consequential geopolitical challenge,” said Foreign Minister Qin Gang last week. “This is like the first button in the shirt being put wrong. If the U.S. does not put on the brakes and continues to roar down the wrong road, no amount of guardrails can stop the derailment and overturning, and it is bound to fall into conflict and confrontation. Who will bear its disastrous consequences?” 

But Chinese analysts are also aware that the dispatch of armaments to Russia could provoke a furious reaction from Washington. 

As Zhou Bo, a former colonel in China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) wrote in the Financial Times: “If Beijing takes Moscow’s side in the conflict then we are already in the dawn of the third world war.”

A cold war would be more likely than armed open conflict between China and the U.S., and still have significant ramifications for China. Rage in Washington, where suspicions about China’s rise and the nature of its ambitions are already intense, could convert easily from current limits on technological exports into much broader penalties on trade.

A hit to economic growth could fuel unemployment and stir up the popular unrest that is Beijing’s greatest fear.

Meanwhile, China has seen the unity of the West in backing Ukraine and must have drawn lessons in relation to Taiwan.

On 20 March, President Xi Jinping arrived in Moscow on a special plane to pay a state visit to Russia at the invitation of President Vladimir Putin. 

President Xi was warmly greeted by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Chernyshenko and other senior Russian officials at the ramp. 

The military band played the national anthems of China and Russia. President Xi Jinping inspected the honour guard of the three services and watched the march-past.

President Xi Jinping delivered an arrival statement, extending warm greetings and best wishes to the Russian government and people on behalf of the Chinese government and people. He stressed that China and Russia are friendly neighbours connected by shared mountains and rivers. Our two countries have consolidated and grown the bilateral relationship on the basis of no-alliance, no-confrontation and not targeting any third party, and set a fine example for developing a new model of major-country relations. The growth of China-Russia relations has not only brought tangible benefits to the people of our two countries, but also made important contributions to the development and progress of the world.

President Xi noted that both being major countries in the world and permanent members of the UN Security Council, China and Russia play important roles in international affairs. In a world of volatility and transformation, China will continue to work with Russia to safeguard the international system with the UN at its core, the international order underpinned by international law, and the basic norms of international relations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. 

China will work with Russia to uphold true multilateralism, promote a multi-polar world and greater democracy in international relations, and help make global governance more just and equitable. 

He is confident that the visit will produce fruitful results, and inject fresh impetus into the sound and steady growth of China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for the new era.

President Xi’s special plane arrived at the Moscow Vnukovo Airport. President Xi was warmly greeted by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Chernyshenko The Russian side held a grand welcome ceremony at the airport. The military band played the national anthems of China and Russia. President Xi Jinping inspected the honour guard of the three services and watched the march-past.    

                      -------------------by Amit  Mittal

Even the talk of supplying sophisticated arms and ammunition to war-ridden Ukraine is like adding fuel to the fire which could one day engulf the world in a turbulent third war of its times. It is nothing less of an instigation to incite the West against the East. Term it whatever you will; the much-publicised aggression of Russia against Ukraine is nothing but meddling into the muddle of East versus West conflict.

The United States has jumped into the fray with the promise of M1 Abrams followed by a reluctant Germany adding to the confusion. Germany’s Leopard 2 is now promised to Ukraine, but how Many and when remains suspense. Germany has about 2000 Leopards spread out amongst European allies, but they can’t let them out to Ukraine or any third party as Germany holds all the export licenses for them.   

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's indecision divided his country, too, including his governing coalition and even his own Social Democrat Party. "Free the Leopards!" was the slogan that raged at regular demonstrations outside the German parliament, while inside the debate to send or not to send tanks raged amongst German MPs. As the aggressor in two world wars, many Germans are wary of being the leading provider of battle tanks in Ukraine. 

Since World War Two, Berlin has been reluctant to take the lead, but as Europe's biggest economy, that's exactly what allies often look to Germany to do. Germany feels deep responsibility for the slaughter of millions of Russians during World War One and Two.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz looks east to Moscow, with many party members a bit suspicious of the US and its NATO dominance.

Chancellor Scholz didn't want Germany to be the central facilitator on the battle-tanks-to-Ukraine front. While European countries, including the UK, Poland and the Netherlands, say it's clearly, the Kremlin that is escalating this conflict; many in Germany say they fear delivering heavy tanks and other offensive weaponry to Ukraine could push Vladimir Putin to even wilder extremes, even the use of nuclear weapons.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz didn't want Germany to stand out and alone in being the primary provider of heavy tanks to Ukraine. His sudden U-turn could be because he realised if he continued to hold those tanks back, he could find himself isolated amongst his own allies. Nonetheless, Germany is amongst the top three single donors of military aid and one of the main providers of humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius announced during a surprise visit to Kyiv to supply Ukraine with at least 100 battle tanks. Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced the decision to send 14 tanks - and allow other countries to send theirs too - at a cabinet meeting on Wednesday. Germany permitted other countries to send their Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine - which was restricted until now under export regulations.

US President Joe Biden's the administration is also expected to announce plans to send at least 30 M1 Abrams tanks.  A Kremlin spokesman earlier said the tanks would "burn like all the rest".

The US and Germany had resisted internal and external pressure to send their tanks to Ukraine for some time. Washington cited the extensive training and maintenance required for the high-tech Abrams.

Germans endured months of political debate about concerns that sending tanks would escalate the conflict and make NATO a direct party to the war with Russia. German officials had reportedly been insisting they would only agree to the transfer of Leopard 2s to Ukraine if the US also sent M1 Abrams.

However, the timing remains unclear, and it could take many months for the US combat vehicles to reach the battlefront. Britain has already said it will send Challenger Two tanks to Ukraine.

Ukraine is unlikely to get the 300 modern main battle tanks it needs to win the war.

Western tanks - including the UK's Challenger 2, Germany's Leopard 2 and the US-made Abrams - are all seen as superior to their Soviet-era counterparts, like the ubiquitous T-72.

But if half a dozen Western nations each provide 14 tanks, then which would bring the total to nearly 100 - which could make a difference. A missing element for offensive operations are still air power.

Ukraine has been asking for the West to provide modern fighter jets since the war began. So far, none has been delivered.

Anatoly Antonov, the Russian ambassador to Washington, wrote on Telegram: "If the United States decides to supply tanks, then justifying such a step with arguments about 'defensive weapons will not work.

"This would be another blatant provocation against the Russian Federation."

More than 30 countries have provided military equipment to Ukraine since the war began in February 2022.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has said his forces need Western battle tanks urgently to defend its territory and push Russian troops out of occupied areas.

Ukraine used Warsaw Pact designed T-72 tanks before the invasion, and since February 2022, has received more than 200 T-72s from Poland, the Czech Republic and a small number of other countries.

Announcing the US decision to send 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, President Joe Biden described them as "the most capable tanks in the world".

He said the US would start training Ukrainian soldiers to use them immediately, but it remains unclear how long it will be until the tanks themselves are delivered.

The Stryker is one of the many armoured vehicles donated to Ukraine. The US recently confirmed that 90 Strykers would soon be dispatched. Among the other vehicles donated by the US recently were 59 more Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. They were used extensively by US forces in Iraq.

In December, the US announced sending the Patriot missile system to Ukraine. This highly sophisticated system has a range of up to 100km, depending on the type of missile used, and requires specialised training for Ukrainian soldiers, likely to be carried out at a US Army base in Germany.

But the system is expensive to operate. One Patriot missile costs around $3m. The US has also provided Nasams (National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System) to Ukraine. The first Nasams arrived in Ukraine in November.

In addition, the UK has provided several air defence systems, including Starstreak, designed to bring down low-flying aircraft at short range.

Germany has also provided air defence systems, including the IRIS-T air defence systems which can hit approaching missiles at an altitude of up to 20km.

Among the long-range rocket launchers sent to Ukraine by the US are the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System or Himars. Several European countries have also sent similar systems.

Crucially, the range of Himars, and many other systems, vary according to the munitions used, and it is believed that western donors have not provided the ammunition with the longest range.

Australia, Canada and the US were among the countries to send advanced M777 howitzers and ammunition to Ukraine.

The range of the M777 is similar to Russia's Giatsint-B howitzer and much longer than Russia's D-30 towed gun. Thousands of Nlaw weapons, designed to destroy tanks with a single shot, have also been supplied to Ukraine.

Drones have featured heavily in the conflict so far, with many used for surveillance, targeting and heavy lift operations. Turkey has sold Bayraktar TB2 armed drones to Ukraine in recent months, whilst the Turkish manufacturer of the system has donated drones to crowd-funding operations in support of Ukraine.

Kyiv believes its forces are now in a position to use more NATO-standard equipment.

The UK has agreed to provide 14 Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine. The Challenger 2 is the British army's main battle tank. The Challenger 2 was built in the 1990s but is significantly more advanced than other tanks available to Ukraine's armed forces.

                                                --------------------------------By Amit Mittal------------------------------

Energy markets began to feel the pinch in 2021 due to several factors including rapid economic rebound following the pandemic. The situation, however, escalated into global energy crisis following Russia- Ukraine war in February 2022.

The price of natural gas reached record high and so did electricity in some markets. Oil prices hit their highest level since 2008. 

Higher energy prices have contributed to painfully high inflation, pushed families into poverty, forced some factories to curtail output  and slowed economic growth to the point that some countries are heading towards severe recession.

Europe, whose gas supply is uniquely vulnerable because of its historic reliance on Russia, could face gas rationing, while many emerging economies are seeing sharply higher energy import bills and fuel shortages.
 

While today’s energy crisis shares some parallels with the oil shocks of the 1970s, there are important differences. Today’s crisis involves all fossil fuels, while the 1970s price shocks were largely limited to oil at a time when the global economy was much more dependent on oil, and less dependent on gas. The entire world economy is much more interlinked than it was 50 years ago, magnifying the impact. That’s why this can be termed  as the first truly global energy crisis.

Some gas-intensive manufacturing plants in Europe have curtailed output because they can’t afford to keep operating, while in China some have simply had their power supply cut. In emerging and developing economies, where the share of household budgets spent on energy and food is already large, higher energy bills have increased extreme poverty and set back progress towards achieving universal and affordable energy access. 

Even in advanced economies, rising prices have impacted vulnerable households and caused significant economic, social and political strains.

Climate policies have been blamed by some for contributing to the recent run-up in energy prices, but there is no evidence. In fact, a greater supply of clean energy sources and technologies would have protected consumers and mitigated some of the upward pressure on fuel prices.

Energy prices have been rising since 2021 because of the rapid economic recovery, weather conditions in various parts of the world, maintenance work that had been delayed by the pandemic and earlier decisions by oil and gas companies and exporting countries to reduce investments. Russia began withholding gas supplies to Europe in 2021, months ahead of its invasion of Ukraine. All that led to already tight supplies.

The United States and the EU imposed a series of sanctions on Russia and many European countries declared their intention to phase out Russian gas imports completely. Meanwhile, Russia has increasingly curtailed or even turned off its export pipelines. 

Russia is by far the world’s largest exporter of fossil fuels, and a particularly important supplier to Europe. In 2021, a quarter of all energy consumed in the EU came from Russia.

As Europe sought to replace Russian gas, it bid up prices of US, Australian and Qatari ship-borne liquefied natural gas (LNG), raising prices and diverting supply away from traditional LNG customers in Asia. Because gas frequently sets the price at which electricity is sold, power prices soared as well. Both LNG producers and importers are rushing to build new infrastructure to increase how much LNG can be traded internationally, but these costly projects take years to come online.

Oil prices also initially soared as international trade routes were reconfigured after the United States, many European countries and some of their Asian allies said they would no longer buy Russian oil. 

Some shippers declined to carry Russian oil because of sanctions and insurance risk. Many large oil producers were unable to boost supply to meet rising demand – even with the incentive of sky-high prices - because of a lack of investment in recent years. While prices have come down from their peaks, the outlook is uncertain with new rounds of European sanctions on Russia kicking in later this year.

Some governments are looking to cushion the blow for customers and businesses, either through direct assistance, or by limiting prices for consumers and then paying energy providers the difference. But with inflation in many countries well above target and budget deficits already large because of emergency spending during the Covid-19 pandemic, the scope for cushioning the impact is more limited than in early 2020. Rising inflation has triggered increases in short-term interest rates in many countries, slowing down economic growth.
 

Europeans have rushed to increase gas imports from alternative producers such as Algeria, Norway and Azerbaijan. Several countries have resumed or expanded the use of coal for power generation, and some are extending the lives of nuclear plants slated for de-commissioning. 

EU members have also introduced gas storage obligations, and agreed on voluntary targets to cut gas and electricity demand by 15 per cent this winter through efficiency measures, greater use of renewables, and support for efficiency improvements.
 

To ensure adequate oil supplies, the IEA and its members responded with the two largest ever releases of emergency oil stocks. With two decisions – on 1 March 2022 and 1 April – the IEA coordinated the release of some 182 million barrels of emergency oil from public stocks or obligated stocks held by industry. 

Some IEA member countries independently released additional public stocks, resulting in a total of over 240 million barrels being released between March and November 2022.

The IEA has also published action plans to cut oil use with immediate impact, as well as plans for how Europe can reduce its reliance on Russian gas and how common citizens can reduce their energy consumption.
 

The invasion has sparked a reappraisal of energy policies and priorities, calling into question the viability of decades of infrastructure and investment decisions, and profoundly re-orientating international energy trade. Gas had been expected to play a key role in many countries as a lower-emitting "bridge" between dirtier fossil fuels and renewable energies. But today’s crisis has called into question natural gas’ reliability.

The current crisis could accelerate the rollout of cleaner, sustainable renewable energy such as wind and solar, just as the 1970s oil shocks spurred major advances in energy efficiency, as well as in nuclear, solar and wind power. 

The crisis has also underscored the importance of investing in robust gas and power network infrastructure to better integrate regional markets. The EU’s Re-Power-EU, presented in May 2022 and the United States’ Inflation Reduction Act, passed in August 2022, both contain major initiatives to develop energy efficiency and promote renewable energies.