Ukraine conflict: a proxy war between US and China?

In a previous column, I discussed the differing views on Russia and China between the "Hot-headed" faction of the "Anti-China Party" in the U.S. and the "Libertarian Americans." I noted that while both sides have similar justifications, they represent fundamentally opposite visions for U.S. foreign policy. The "Hot-headed" faction believes that the U.S.'s sole focus should be on defeating China, and that the Ukraine-Russia conflict is distracting the U.S. from this goal. If the U.S. continues to be bogged down with issues that are not directly related to its national interests, China will come even closer to surpassing the U.S. economically and militarily.

The mainstream factions of both Republicans and Democrats in the American Congress come together to form the Anti-China Party. These mainstream factions are in agreement about the need to set China back in economic, technological, and military terms. The "Hot-headed" faction, which accuses the Biden administration of not being tough enough on China, represents the most hawkish wing of the Anti-China Party.

The "Neocons" are another group of hawks within the Anti-China Party, and they are often credited with influencing the foreign policy decisions of the Biden administration. It is frequently suggested that the "Liberal Internationalist" hawks and the Neocons are allies when it comes to Russia and China. However, it should be noted that the Neocons differ from the Hot-headed faction on the issues of Russia and Ukraine. In a joint letter titled "36 experts agree: Follow the course in Ukraine" published in The Hill on June 22, 2022, David Kramer and two of his colleagues, including renowned neocon Francis Fukuyama, called on the US and the West to provide Ukraine with necessary weapons, impose sanctions on Moscow, and continue to strengthen NATO's eastern flank. According to the signatories, the US should not encourage Kyiv to negotiate a ceasefire that would result in territorial losses for Ukraine.

Recently, neocon writers David J. Kramer and Igor Khrestin published a joint article titled "Helping Ukraine Can Deter China" in The Bulwark on April 14. The authors aimed to debunk the views of the "China First" advocates in the Anti-China Party-Emergency Faction who argue that the war in Ukraine is distracting the US from China. Kramer was also one of the signatories of the joint letter in The Hill.

Kramer and Khrestin targeted Elbridge Colby, a prominent figure in the Hot-headed Faction, and Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, describing them as "advocates of the misguided China First' argument." Colby, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration, was the chief architect of the 2018 National Defense Strategy. According to Colby and his colleagues, "U.S. military aid to Ukraine harms the U.S. Indo-Pacific posture," "Europe is not doing enough to shoulder Ukraine's burden," and "U.S. policy towards Ukraine is not helping to deter China." Kramer and Khrestin, however, are critical of these three Hot-headed faction views being turned into myths.

In contrast to the emergency responders, Kramer and Khrestin argue that the best way for the U.S. to deter China in the Indo-Pacific region is to assist Ukraine in defeating Russia. According to these two authors, the joint stance of the U.S. and the West against Russia is causing hesitation in using force against Taiwan. They assert that "the Ukrainian War is actually the Chinese War," and that aid to Ukraine does not distract the U.S.'s attention from China.

Kramer and Khrestin also point out that the weapons and ammunition sent from American stocks to Ukraine are not part of the promised inventory for Taiwan, so the flow of arms to Ukraine will not cause delays in arms shipments to Taiwan. They believe that the increase of 40% in the budget for the Pentagon's "Pacific Deterrence Initiative" should not be tied to a halt in military aid to Ukraine.

While acknowledging that Europe needs to spend more on defense and do more for Ukraine, Kramer and Khrestin note that Poland and the Baltic states are already helping beyond their means, and that the UK is doing its part. They emphasize the importance of Germany's contribution and warn that abandoning European allies now would be disastrous for Ukraine and the U.S. alliance system. They argue that such a move would undermine NATO, give Putin a major victory, and send the wrong signal to Beijing.