China Will Never Let Russia Lose the War in Ukraine

PUBLISHED on August 14, 2025, 10:10 AM EDT – Key Points and Summary – The upcoming Trump-Putin summit is unlikely to produce a lasting peace in Ukraine because the key to ending the war lies in Beijing, not Moscow.

-China is the primary strategic beneficiary of the protracted conflict, which drains U.S. resources and solidifies Russia’s status as a dependent junior partner.

Xi Jinping President of the People’s Republic of China speak’s at a United Nations Office at Geneva. 18 january 2017. UN Photo / Jean-Marc Ferré

-Because a Russian defeat would free up American power to focus on the Indo-Pacific, Beijing will not allow it.

-Therefore, without major U.S. concessions to China—an unlikely scenario—the war will likely be settled by attrition on the battlefield, not at a negotiating table.

The Key to Stopping the War in Ukraine Lies in Beijing, Not Moscow

The anticipated meeting in Alaska between President Donald J. Trump and President Vladimir Putin has raised expectations that a deal may be in the works to at least broker an armistice between Ukraine and Russia.

The announcement following Steve Witkoff’s visit to Moscow sparked a flurry of activity in Kyiv and European capitals, with Europeans issuing statements about their enduring solidarity with Ukraine and what they expect the deal not to include, particularly regarding territorial concessions that would compromise Ukraine’s interests.

It is clear that, as far as the US administration is concerned, this is for the most part a bilateral US-Russian negotiation, with neither Ukraine nor the Europeans included so far.

The question remains whether the upcoming Alaska meeting will substantially alter the trajectory of how the conflict in Ukraine has unfolded – and is likely to continue unfolding going forward.  And most importantly, whether any armistice deal brokered at the Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska – should it come to that — will hold, for it would have to contain provisions that would compel Moscow to adhere to it going forward, rather than pursuing the path to victory that Putin believes is ultimately his.

Trump’s Russia Reset 

Since the day Donald J. Trump took office, the quest to end the brutal war in Ukraine has been front and center on the administration’s agenda.

Trump has attempted to reset relations with Russia through direct appeals to Putin, apparently believing that the President’s force of personality, combined with Steve Witkoff’s envoy diplomacy and promises of economic cooperation, will loosen the bond between Moscow and Beijing.  Observers have compared these efforts to the Nixon/Kissinger reset with communist China, with the administration stipulating that history can repeat itself, only this time “in-reverse.”

Main battle tank T-14 object 148 on heavy unified tracked platform Armata. Image Credit: Creative Commons.

Eight months into the second Trump presidency, it is clear that this is unlikely to happen and that, though Putin may continue to play the game of peace negotiations and feign interest in ending the conflict, he will not agree to a lasting ceasefire under the present conditions.

The Russian military has been making slow but steady gains on the battlefield, and Russia’s economy continues to be able to sustain itself, buttressed by oil and gas sales, legally and through its shadow fleet network and shady deals, despite the sanctions.

However, most importantly, Washington’s efforts to negotiate directly with Moscow will likely ultimately fail – even if some sort of a temporary solution is devised – for the key to a lasting armistice in Ukraine lies in Beijing, not Moscow.

China’s View of the Ukraine War

The reality is that the war in Ukraine has been an unprecedented strategic opportunity for China to weaken the United States’ position in the Pacific, one President Xi probably didn’t fully expect, even when on the eve of the Russian invasion in 2022, he and Putin spoke about their “no-limits partnership.” Putin’s misjudgment that Ukraine would fold quickly or, better still, welcome its Russian brothers did not factor in the costs for Russia of what was about to happen.

The Biden administration’s decision to rally NATO support behind Ukraine, notwithstanding its excessive preoccupation with escalation management and the lack of an overall Russia strategy, left Putin with few options but to turn to China for help.

The transformation of the conflict into a brutal war of attrition, in which the US became deeply involved by supplying Ukraine, has created a historic opportunity for Xi to divert America’s attention to what for China is a secondary theater, as it gears up for a confrontation in the Indo-Pacific.

From the start, for Beijing the simple calculus has been that the longer the conflict grinds on, the more of American and European weapons, munitions and money it will consume, leaving the US military with fewer resources for a looming Indo-Pacific contingency.

At the same time, Russia has become increasingly dependent on China for its very economic survival and its ability to continue the war.  The war is also draining Moscow of manpower.  In short, with each passing day, Russia is moving further down on the ladder to its junior partner position vis-à-vis the PRC.

It is as though China were taking a page from the American playbook from World Wars I and II when it comes to great power conflict.  In those two wars, the US entered last, suffered the fewest casualties, and was positioned to frame the political settlement after the shooting had stopped.

From Beijing’s perspective, today it is the United States and its European allies that are depleting their weapons and munitions stocks and spending billions to keep Ukraine’s economy afloat while China continues to build up its military at speed and scale.

The Russia-China Alliance 

The sinews of the Russia-China alliance are being strengthened in the killing fields of Ukraine, not because the two countries find themselves in agreement when it comes to their shared goal of building a “multipolar world,” but instead because the continuation of the war in Ukraine means for each a crucial strategic gain.

For Russia, the subjugation of Ukraine is not about gaining more territory but about its enduring imperial narrative, whereby Moscow is re-gathering the Eastern Slavic inner core with the Great Russians, the Little Russians, and the Belorussians – all parts of a larger unified construct.

Putin’s notorious quip to George W. Bush that “there is no such thing as a Ukrainian nation” sums up this Russian narrative.  For China, the continuation of the war in Ukraine means weakening its principal adversary, the United States, diverting its attention away from the primary area of confrontation, and increasing Beijing’s chances of bidding for hegemony in the Indo-Pacific. And the cost of backing up Russia in the long run is manageable compared to the advantage of extending the war in Ukraine to China.

Most of all, Beijing will never agree to a Russian defeat, for that would not only vindicate the United States and its allies but would also free America’s resources for the Indo-Pacific.  This interplay of the Russian-Chinese interests shows yet again that the current debate in the US policy community about prioritizing the Pacific at the expense of our commitment in the Atlantic misses the point, for our two principal adversaries see the game differently, with China linking the outcomes in Ukraine, Europe and the Atlantic writ large to its geostrategic plans in the Pacific.

The Sino-Russia alliance is likely to remain an enduring reality of the international system for years to come – no amount of cajoling or talk of a “Nixon/Kissinger in reverse” will change that.  Should Russia prevail in Ukraine and force a spheres of influence deal on Europe, the United States will face the prospect of two hostile powers shaping or downright controlling the future of the Eurasian landmass, in effect pushing the United States back into the Western Hemisphere.  And while skeptics may dismiss such concerns, it is worth remembering that the United States fought in two world wars and then for half a century pursued the strategy of containment to prevent exactly this outcome.

There is only one country that can truly compel Putin to end his neoimperial quest, and that is China if it decides to deny Russia its vital support.  Hence, if there is to be a meaningful negotiation to end the conflict it needs to take place in Beijing, not Moscow.  Only Xi can force Putin into a ceasefire deal by cutting off his country’s money, equipment and support.  To get there would require US concessions to China in the Indo-Pacific, including on Taiwan, so deep that they would effectively wreck the security system in the Pacific, run counter to US strategic priorities and mark a de facto American defeat in Asia.

The War in Ukraine Will Likely Continue 

Therefore, the likelihood of such a deal with the Chinese is virtually zero, which means that the war in Ukraine is likely to continue, regardless of whether the summit in Alaska results in a temporary truce. Considering the price Russia has thus far paid pursuing the chimera of empire, and the risk to the regime at home should it be seen as having failed, are too grave for him to accept anything less than a de facto surrender to his demands for Ukraine to become neutral and to disarm, setting itself up for a future Russian conquest.

And so, as painful as it is to admit, the war in Ukraine will likely be settled through blood and toil on the battlefield – until one side determines it can no longer continue.

About the Author: Dr. Andrew A. Michta 

Andrew A. Michta is Senior Fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council of the United States. The views expressed here are his own. You can follow him on X: @Andrewmichta.