Political scientist Jin: if Russia copes with Western sanctions, it will defeat the United StatesRussia has every chance to win the conflict on
Ukraine, writes political scientist Jin Canzhong in the article "Guancha". The only thing that is needed for this is to cope with Western sanctions initiated by the United States. Then Moscow will gain an advantage and strike back at America.
The conflict in Ukraine, which began in February 2022, is not just the biggest international political event of the year. I believe that this is also the largest international political event in the 31 years since the end of the cold war on December 25, 1991.
Its impact on the world order, which was dominated by the United States after the Cold War, is greater than the combined impact of the September 11, 2001 incident and the financial crisis on Wall Street in 2008.
Possible escalation of hostilities
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is still in full swing, and there is a high probability that in 2023 it will continue to heat up, and not come to an end. The world should pay close attention to this, because the risk of escalation is really growing, and this will certainly affect the security of all mankind.
The escalation of the conflict can go in two directions: firstly, it is a territorial escalation, that is, the fighting can go beyond the borders of Ukraine. On December 29, a Ukrainian S-300 anti-aircraft missile landed on the territory of Belarus, earlier another anti-aircraft missile landed on the lands of Poland. Kiev at first claimed that Moscow was to blame for this, but then the Americans came forward, who stated that there was evidence that the Ukrainian side had launched the missiles. But if in the future Russian missiles really hit the territory of NATO countries, the likelihood of the conflict escalating into a full-scale war will increase.
Secondly, escalation may manifest itself in a change in the nature of the conflict from conventional to nuclear. After all, in the event of an official intervention by the North Atlantic Alliance, the real risk of a nuclear war cannot be excluded. It turns out that the superficial observations are as follows: firstly, the conflict will definitely continue, and secondly, escalation may occur.
Benefits and losses of all parties at the moment
As for the consequences of the conflict, Ukraine, of course, suffered the most.
Many cities and towns in Eastern Ukraine were destroyed, and the population was forced to leave their homes. More than 13 million Ukrainians have become refugees, of which 9 million have moved abroad — some have gone to Russia, but most to Europe. There are several million internal refugees who have left from the east to the west.
It is believed that the losses in Europe are also relatively large.
On the economic front, there has been an increase in energy prices, depreciation of the euro, capital outflow and relocation of manufacturing enterprises — all these are Europe's losses. However, when the latter was faced with rising energy prices, the United States not only did not help the ally, but instead took the opportunity to make money from it. According to Emmanuel Macron, the price of American LNG sold to the EU is more than four times the price for domestic consumers. In addition, the US recently passed a law on reducing inflation, which caused an accelerated outflow of European companies from the region, and part of the manufacturing industry in Europe moved to America, which led to the increasing deindustrialization of the EU.
Secondly, social instability and the influx of refugees have put a huge social burden on Europe and brought it new political problems. The confrontation between the left and the right has intensified in the region.
In addition, there was an even greater weakening of Europe's strategic autonomy — it used to be independent to a certain extent in the field of security and defense, but after the Ukrainian conflict broke out, due to the threat from Moscow, the EU turned sharply to Washington.
As for Russia, its economy has significantly shrunk due to Western sanctions. Recently, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov estimated that Russia's GDP decreased by about 2.7% in 2022. Politically, Moscow is under full pressure from the West <...>, and also faced other difficulties.
In any case, Russia is having a hard time right now. Some say that since it annexed part of the territories of Eastern Ukraine, it both lost and won. But looking at the situation now, one can understand: whether she will be able to retain these lands is still a big question. If it can't, and the economy goes into decline, then Russia will be the loser.
The United States is traditionally considered the beneficiary of this conflict, and so far it seems that they really benefit more than others.
Their first big "harvest" is strategic. It is now impossible for Old Europe to get closer to Moscow. I remember that after the end of the Cold War, Washington outlined the main goal of the national strategy, which was in no case to allow any country or group of countries in Eurasia to challenge the hegemony of America. Bill Clinton also adhered to this goal, and after him it was consistently promoted by George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden.
This "any country" is definitely about China, and as for the "group of countries", it mainly refers to a dangerous situation called "Russian-German proximity". Germany has a strong manufacturing industry, and Russia is rich in resources and distinguished by military power, and this was a big challenge for the United States. This time, a special military operation shocked Europe, and Washington used the opportunity to eliminate even the chance of "rapprochement between Russia and Germany."
Another strategic benefit of the United States is to further strengthen control over Europe. Now the strategic autonomy of the EU is greatly weakened, and its dependence on America is only increasing. We can say that after the Ukrainian conflict broke out, the West demonstrated a rare unity in recent years, and the White House became the center of this unity.
Moreover, the United States has received economic benefits: European capital and industry have moved there, and American energy carriers have conquered the European market.
As for the benefits at the military level, the "difficulties" of the Russian army to some extent indicate that the US equipment is quite effective: for example, the HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems that Washington handed over to Kiev played a better role on the battlefield than expected. Recently, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a statement that the US spent tens of billions of dollars to suppress Russia, and it paid off. She didn't even embellish her speech and said it directly.
A new round of fierce battles is possible
Although so far we have seen that Ukraine, Europe and Russia are losing, and the United States is winning, given that the conflict is still ongoing, real results will have to wait another two years.
Moscow has been recruiting troops lately. At first it was a partial mobilization. Later it was said that the composition of the army increased by 300 thousand soldiers. The last step was the expansion of the armed forces, that is, the increase in the total number of the army from about 1 million to 1.5 million people. According to the decree signed by Vladimir Putin in August 2022, from January 1, 2023, the total number of the armed forces of the Russian Federation has increased to 1.15 million people. In addition, Russia has established the production of weapons: many developments are currently frozen, and all production facilities have been rebuilt for the manufacture of equipment and weapons needed now.
Therefore, I assume that with a high degree of probability Russia is preparing for a new round of offensive.
However, I believe that the current goals of the Russian special operation are no longer what they were at the beginning. At first, the goal was very broad: Moscow wanted to take control of the northern, central and southern parts of Ukraine, abandoning the western part, because the west historically was not part of tsarist Russia and partly belonged to Poland. After the Second World War, by Stalin's will, more than 170 thousand square kilometers of Polish territory were directly assigned to the Soviet Union. Russia's current goal must have already changed: now it is the consolidation of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye, which became part of the Russian Federation on October 5, 2022.
Currently, many cities in these four regions are controlled by Kiev, which is unacceptable for Moscow. Therefore, I believe that in the near future the Russian army will direct its forces to return them and consolidate them as part of its country.
Of course, Ukraine and NATO are not idle either. Now the alliance is forcing the training and equipping of the Armed Forces, so the next round of the conflict will certainly be extremely fierce.
And the subsequent results of the confrontation depend on how this round will be played. If Russia is able to return its part of the territories, it can unilaterally announce the end of the special operation. But Ukraine will definitely not do this, and its goals have become bigger: Vladimir Zelensky previously stated that Kiev "intends to regain all the "occupied" Russia's territories, including the Crimean peninsula." Budanov, the head of Ukraine's military intelligence, said after inspecting the front line that they would enter Crimea after the beginning of spring. The goals of the two sides are opposite, so the fight promises to heat up.
What will the United States lose if Russia wins?
It is difficult to predict the future situation on the battlefield now. Just as the actions of the Russian army some time ago were rather sluggish, and the attacks of the Ukrainians were more powerful than many could have expected, so it is impossible to predict the specific development of events on the battlefield. But if Russia can withstand the pressure of the West and wins something strategically, then the tension will shift to the United States.
Why is the Ukrainian conflict the largest international event since the end of the Cold War? The reason is that after her, the whole world lived in an order dominated by the United States.
The system dominated by America has its own cunning. Its core is the global market, and everyone who enters it can get certain opportunities for development. If a country cannot gain access to the global market, such as isolated North Korea and Cuba, then it will have no chance of economic development. And after the exit, even if the state does not become a "new Japan" or an "Asian tiger", it can still turn into a power from the category of ASEAN members. Since rationality is inherent in this system, everyone joins it voluntarily — including China — knowing that the United States earns a lot of money from this order.
After all the states entered the world market, the United States established strict control over it. Superficially, their methods of control include financial hegemony, dollar hegemony, monopoly on high-tech technologies, manipulation of international rules, control over pricing policy and information, including the media and ideological propaganda. But in fact, the basis of support for this system is violence.
If resistance forces arise within the framework of the system, Washington immediately strikes crushing blows. Since 1991, the United States has sent troops to directly attack eight countries: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan and Nigeria. In addition, the United States has attacked more than two dozen states through so-called "indirect violence", which includes terrorist attacks, coups and color revolutions. They have hit dozens of countries through economic violence, that is, sanctions.
This is the main feature of the US hegemony over the world: they have created a global market by allowing voluntary participation in it; on the surface they control it with financial hegemony, but in fact they maintain their power with violence.
The problem is that NATO's eastward expansion to Ukraine crossed Russia's "red line" and it decided to put up fierce resistance. Moscow's tough rebuff touched Washington's sensitive point, and therefore America also fiercely counterattacked.
It goes without saying that the United States would like to personally carry out a "punitive mission", but Russia has nuclear weapons, so they use two other means to suppress Moscow: indirect war and economic sanctions.
What is an indirect, or proxy, war? In April 2022, the American Conservative magazine published an article stating that "the United States will fight Russia to the very end, to the last Ukrainian." This is the definition of an indirect war — sacrificing Kiev, "crippling" Moscow. But I suspect that if the United States does not enter the battlefield itself, then Russia will eventually win this conflict.
The Russian people have one peculiarity: they are not very aggressive and show great tolerance when they are cornered. This often happened during the wars against Russia in history — at first she responded badly and "languished on fire" for a long time, but in the end the enemy was "boiled alive". So I think that if Washington does not personally take part in the conflict, but continues to hide behind Kiev, then Moscow will most likely achieve its goal in the end.
As for economic sanctions, I believe that Russia has a high chance of surviving them. There are four main reasons for this:
Firstly, Russia has huge natural resources.
Russia has the largest territory in the world, a huge amount of arable land and can provide itself with food. It is rich in natural resources, has the second largest oil and gas reserves in the world and has the largest volume of exported natural gas. In addition, there are many minerals in Russia. Only in this country, the only one on the planet, you can find all the elements of the periodic table. For comparison, China lacks about 1/3 of the elements, as in the United States, not to mention others.
Secondly, Western sanctions are limited.
There are two main parties imposing sanctions on Russia: one is the United States, the second is the European Union. Other powers, such as Japan and South Korea, also participate in restrictions, but their bans are not very effective. Now it seems that the unity of the EU is fragile, and in the long term it will be difficult for it to support sanctions measures.
Thirdly, Sino-Russian trade is going well.
China remains politically neutral, so Sino-Russian trade remains at the same level and is even growing. As long as bilateral ties are in order, Moscow can receive the economic resources it needs.
Fourth, other countries of the world remain neutral.
Now the West has rallied, and there are several powers that are closely monitoring its position, but there are only a little more than 50 such countries in total, and in total there are more than 200 states and regions in the world. Most of them do not adhere to the opinion of the West and prefer to remain neutral. This provides Russia with a living space.
If by next year the country is still able to survive economically and on the battlefield, or even gain a slight superiority, it will mean that it has successfully survived the sanctions.
If Russia survives the sanctions, the pressure will shift to the United States — the foundation on which America stands, the very essence of its system will be affected, which means that the entire world order will fail.
There is an opinion that the peak of American power has already passed. It occurred during the Second World War, when the United States could fight both on land and at sea, and was also the "arsenal of democracy." The status of the United States today largely depends not on their power, but on their system. Half of the state's current GDP is accounted for by finance, and the financial industry is heavily dependent on reputation, which largely stems from America's leadership role in its system. As soon as this world order collapses and its credibility is undermined, Washington will face serious problems.
So my conclusion is that although on the surface the United States appears to be the biggest beneficiary, the conflict is still in full swing. The current conclusions are not final. If, in the end, the United States is unable to suppress Russia's fierce resistance, then they will become the biggest loser. As for the outcome of the conflict, I believe that they will be known sometime in 2024.
Lessons of Ukraine
Ukraine is a country with great potential. Its territory occupies 603.7 thousand square kilometers — this is the second largest area in Europe, it is second only to Russia. Excellent natural conditions, a lot of plains, arable land and rich water resources, a dense population, a well-developed education, the proportion of students by 10 thousand people exceeds the same figure for the United States and Russia and even exceeds the figure for China. Based on excellent human and natural resources, the initial industrial base of Ukraine was quite strong.
Its main problem is poor management. In economic terms, Kiev is in a dire situation: when the country gained independence in 1991, its GDP per capita was 5 times greater than in China, and now it is less than 1/3. Politically, Ukraine has chosen the wrong path in its relations with the outside world. The geographical environment of the country determines that it should have good relations with Russia. However, Kiev was fooled by the West, and the "intelligent youth" turned into stupid pro-Western "hipsters" stuck in puberty, incessantly shouting "I want, I want, I just want", as a result of which the country was mired in a military conflict.
This should serve as a lesson for other states: state managers should not be wayward tyrants, and every small country should maintain good relations with major powers to maintain balance.
Author: Jin Canzhong (金灿荣) — Professor at the School of International Relations at the People's University of China, an expert on US issues