As dawn breaks over Kyiv today, the echoes of fresh Russian drone strikes reverberate through apartment blocks, injuring civilians and underscoring the unrelenting brutality of a war nearing its fourth year. The war’s long-term effects will be felt for generations, and it does not look like an end is in sight yet. The conflict, far from an isolated European
quarrel, has crystallised into a pivotal arena in the great power competition reshaping the world. At its core lies the burgeoning Russia-China axis, a partnership that threatens to dismantle the US-led international order. Yet this war offers the West a critical opportunity to stunt this alliance, delay its mounting challenge to American hegemony, and avert an irreversible realignment of global power. Amid this, conflicting signals emanating from the White House and the President Donald Trump's flirtation with short-term deals risk squandering a golden opportunity to stunt this alliance and delay its
existential challenge to Western primacy. A Russian victory—whether outright or through a frozen conflict that cements territorial gains—would prolong Vladimir Putin's rule, entrenching Moscow's ties with Beijing for decades. A reversal of the battle situation is essential to prevent an irrevocable shift in global power.
Hardening Russia-China axis: A threat to global order
The Russia-China entente has deepened alarmingly since the onset of the Ukraine invasion, evolving from opportunistic cooperation into a robust anti-Western front. Bilateral trade exploded to $240 billion in 2023, with China absorbing discounted Russian hydrocarbons that now fund nearly half of Moscow's budget. Beijing supplies vital dual-use goods—microchips, drones, and optics—comprising 89 per cent of Russia's semiconductor imports, enabling Kremlin's war effort despite sanctions. Intelligence reports confirm Chinese satellite assistance in targeting Ukrainian positions, while joint military drills enable the exchange of advanced weaponry from Russian hypersonics to Chinese electronic warfare systems.
This synergy amplifies mutual strengths: Russia diverts the US attention from Asia, granting China freer rein in the South China Sea and around Taiwan, while Beijing's economic might insulates Moscow from isolation. Unchecked, it could cascade into coordinated revisionism—Russian probes in the Baltics, Chinese coercion over Taiwan—eroding norms of sovereignty and inviting a fragmented, autocrat-friendly order. The war has supercharged this dynamic, with Russia integrating Iranian drones and North Korean artillery, forging a broader "axis of illiberals" that shares tactics and defies sanctions.
Washington's transactional trap
Signals from the recent Trump-Zelenskyy engagement highlight the dangers of prioritising immediate resolutions over enduring strategy by urging the Ukrainian President to concede territory, freeze the conflict along current lines with both sides "declaring victory." He rejected pleas for long-range Tomahawk missiles, warning of "destruction" if Ukraine resisted, and has since cancelled a planned summit with Putin, citing that it "didn't feel right."
However, the White House's plans for high-level advisor talks suggest a rush to broker a deal, possibly involving reduced US aid to Ukraine—mirroring earlier pauses in intelligence and military support after the acrimonious Oval Office meeting in February. Such transactional endeavors, emblematic of Trump's deal making ethos, risk sacrificing long-term geopolitical gains for illusory short-term peace.
A ceasefire on Russian terms would validate Putin's aggression, bolstering his domestic standing and ensuring his regime's survival amid economic strains. With Russia controlling nearly 20 per cent of Ukraine, including key industrial heartlands, Putin could rebuild forces using Chinese tech transfers, solidifying the axis. Beijing would interpret this as a Western retreat, emboldening its Taiwan ambitions and accelerating multipolar initiatives.
History's stark warnings
History abounds with inflection points where expedience birthed catastrophe. The 1938 Munich Agreement, where Britain and France appeased Hitler by ceding Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland for "peace in our time," and instead emboldened Nazi expansionism, resulted in World War II. An erroneous decision by Hitler to invade the USSR in 1941 (Operation Barbarossa), much against the advice of his generals, sealed the Reich's doom. Similarly, Napoleon's 1812 march into Russia shattered his empire through hubris. These missteps illustrate how such blunders, whether through appeasement or aggression, rewire power balances for decades. They underscore that forsaking strategic foresight for immediate gains invite catastrophe. And today, the West is at a similar inflection point. Yielding to Putin's terms could empower the Russia-China bloc, like it did Hitler in 1938, allowing Moscow to distract the West while Beijing advances, potentially triggering a two-front crisis and tilting the 21st century toward authoritarianism.
Why a Russian victory is fatal
Victory for Russia (meaning retention of captured areas) would cement Putin's rule beyond 2030, consolidate the axis through joint planning and resources, collapse Western deterrence (emboldening Iran and North Korea), and lead to the reordering of Eurasia with Moscow's leverage over Europe's energy. China, viewing Russia as a vital partner, would accelerate multipolar initiatives, exploit Western retreats, and ascend in power and stature, thereby assuming ascendancy. Conversely, a reversal of Russian gains would expose flaws in Russia's military (97 per cent of forces committed), breed internal instability, a possible regime change, and diminish Moscow's allure to Beijing. This would free the US resources for the Indo-Pacific, bolstering deterrence from Warsaw to Taipei.
Navigating the nuclear balance
Russia's nuclear arsenal demands caution; red lines are real, but deterrence is mutual. The combined aim of the West should be to expel Russian forces from Ukraine without existential provocation, via precision munitions, air defences, and intelligence, escalating support without NATO troops. Firmness with restraint, as in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, averts disaster. Recent US sanctions on oil firms underscore this calibrated pressure, urging a ceasefire without concession.
A call to resolve
This war tests the post-1945 global order of deterrence, law's primacy, and respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty of all nations that have fostered peace and prosperity. It is a strategic imperative for the combined West to seize the opportunity and turn the conflict into its advantage. It must thus clearly articulate the endgame – a sovereign, intact Ukraine and a constrained Russia. A Russian victory (ceasefire with freezing of the current frontline) will result in a transactional, unsafe world where small nations hedge and democracies falter. The US and allies thus stand at history's hinge as Ukraine is only the Indo-Pacific's prelude—a weakened Russia curbs China. It is thus essential to arm Ukraine to reclaim its borders, manage escalation to keep it below red lines, and clearly narrate the stakes.
For this, scaling up of ammunition, drones, air defence and deep strike capability is essential, and the US must ramp up aid with precision munitions to reclaim territory. It is also important to sever the axis lifeline by secondary sanctions on Chinese dual-use goods suppliers and disrupt the shadow trade, besides fortifying NATO deterrence by bolstering its eastern borders. Critics lament escalation risks, but history teaches that hesitation at inflection points invites greater peril. The US must prioritise the long game over ephemeral deals, ensuring Putin's defeat to preserve the order that has fostered unprecedented prosperity. Failure now could tilt power equations irrevocably toward autocracy.