CHINA'S FOREIGN POLICY UNDERPINNINGS 2025 AMIDST GLOBALGEOPOLITICAL UNCERTAINTIES

China's foreign policy underpinnings in 2025 as China faces increasingly global geopolitical uncertainties cannot but be a reflection of Chinese President Xi Jinping's struggle to inject resilience in China's foreign policy when China stands both externally and internally besieged.

Contextually, China faces major imponderables in 2025 as it braces to navigate through the choppy waters of global uncertainties. 

These can be briefly spelt out as: (1) US-Russia relations in wake of US President Trump bailing out President Putin on Ukraine (2) President Trump consequently can be expected to press home the advantage by driving a wedge in the Russia-China Axis (3) China's geopolitical irrelevance in Middle East and Europe generated in 2024, can it be retrieved? (4) President Trump launching a new round of Trade Wars on China coupled with pivoting US Military Forces in Europe to Asia Pacific.

The first three factors have the potential to reduce China's global geopolitical weightage and the leverages it has enjoyed so far on the global stage courtesy both Russia and United States.

China seems confident presently that US President Trump will not be able to dilute or cause a serious breach in the Russia-China Axis. May be so, but as posted by me earlier on this site, a somewhat strategic denouement was creeping in.

The fourth factor stated above will damage China's unsuccessful attempts of China's economic recovery and compound China's growing social unrest as a result of high unemployment rates and loss of foreign investors' confidence in China's economic resurgence.

President Trump despite a conciliatory call to Chinese President soon on assuming office can be expected to adopt even more 'Hard Line' strategies towards China, than even his earlier term. .

In the imponderables outlined above, China's national security, and continuance of Chinese Communist Party's supremacy, is the bedrock of China's foreign policy, get impacted.  How China configures its foreign policy to meet these eventualities has yet to unfold.

China would not be overly worried about diversion of greater US Military Forces to Asia Pacific but would be certainly concerned over US efforts to dilute the Russia-China Axis.

Economic security which forms the second pillar of China's foreign policy has already acquired threatening contours for China.

China today is plagued with a stagnant economy said to be entering a 'deflationary phase', growing unemployment and with consequent domestic social unrest. China's exports are slowing with increased loss of investor confidence and flight of capital reducing China's economic resilience.

What are the options open for China's foreign policy in 2025? It can push-back United States military and economic pressures or accept a "US Deal" on President Trump's terms?

China's push-back against US military and economic pressures would require Russia's unstinted support. This now emerges as an imponderable and would depend on Russian President Putin's pay-back contours, to President Trump for bailing him out of the Ukraine morass.

In the triangular United States-Russia-China power-play what has been a constant is a severe 'Strategic Distrust' in US-China relations whereas as I have posted earlier that some strategic denouement has crept in Russia-China relations.

Nearer home in Asia, China also suffers from a severe 'Strategic Distrust' with Japan and India. Both Japan and India are Asia's major contending powers against China and strategic partners of United States and therefore cannot throw any lifelines to China.

China is however unlikely to submit to US dictates without a bitter fight. To breakout from its external and internal siege, China can be expected to generate serious security challenges for United States and its Allies hoping that US President Trump "resiles" from his apparent 'China Containment' strategy and also force Russia to take sides.

 And herein lies China's foremost foreign policy challenge in 2025 and how it navigates through these geopolitical uncertainties? 

Contextually, current geopolitical configurations do not offer any possibilities of any Major Global Players siding with China, externally and internally besieged.  

  

EUROPE PERCEIVES 'MUNICH 2:0 MOMENT' INFLICTION BY US PRESIDENT TRUMP CONCEDING TO RUSSIAN DEMANDS ON UKRAINE

"Munich 1:0Moment" has been a historically infamous juncture in world history noted for then British PM Neville Chamberlain in a desperate bid for "Peace at any Cost", abjectly surrendered control of   German-speaking Sudetenland Region of Czechoslovakia to Germany as demanded by Hitler in September 1938. 

British appeasement of Nazi Germany could not ensure peace. It only emboldened Hitler to launch in September 1939 the large-scale invasion of Europe leading to World War II, 1939-45.

"Munich 2:0 Moment" in February 2025, is being perceived in European capitals as similar appeasement of Russian Communist dictator Vladimir Putin by American President Donald Trump policies on Ukraine by reversing gears of US policies on Ukraine of past Biden Administration and US commitment to European security and NATO. 

Ironically, in February 2025, it was at Munich Security Conference that the sum total of United States policy pronouncements of the new US Trump Administration fell heavily on Ukraine and future of European Security.

In brief, President Trump, Vice President Vance, US Defense Secretary Hegseth and Secretary of State Rubio, in their pronouncements leading to Munich Security Conference and at Munich widely quoted in global media, amply indicated that the United States was going in for direct talks with Russia to end the Ukraine War.

Implied in US pronouncements was also that Ukraine should be ready to cede control of 20% of Ukrainian territory captured by Russia. 

In tandem, to discourage European countries to rally around Ukraine to resist a United States 'Imposed Peace Deal' appeasing Russia, the European leaders were put on notice that the Trump Administration intended to cut its military presence in Europe and that NATO N increase defence spending to 5% of GDP for their security.

Worse, was damaging US statements that Ukraine had started the War with Russia, and that Russia was not a threat to Europe.

The strategic reality was the reverse of US pronouncements at highest levels. Russia had launched a devastating 'war of aggression 'against Ukraine.

Further, the United States was a party to the enunciation of the 'NATO Vision Document 2030' in which Russia was designated as the prime threat to European Security. 

 Russia was emboldened to invade Ukraine in 2022 as in 2014, the world looked upon helplessly as Russia militarily annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Extremely galling for European capitals was US President Trump's strategy to cast aside Europe and Ukraine from any Peace Talks on Ukraine that United States would hold with Russian President Putin.

Contextually emerging from the above developments are disturbing geopolitical and strategic implications unleashed by US President Trump.

Topping the list is the future of Transatlantic unity, European Security and NATO Solidarity. Ever since end of World War II in mid 1945 these three elements were the cornerstone of United States and European security policies.

The next disturbing implication that comes to the fore is that are United States security policy formulations going to be based on the 'Dyad Precept' of managing global security. The 'Dyad Precept' was first aired by US President Obama who asserted that a Dyad of United States and China could manage global security.  It was foredoomed geopolitically and met its demise soon.

In a similar vein, President Trump soon on assuming office, shared views with Chinese President Xi Jinping that both United States and China could ensure global peace and security.

In February 2025, what is becoming visible is another version of the Dyad Precept in which United States is set to deal directly with Russia and imposing a harsh peace deal on Ukraine on terms demanded by Russia.

 Critically at stake for Ukraine and NATO Nations which had so far loyally supported US Biden Administration policies of militarily aiding Ukraine against the Russian Invasion, was not only the future of the Ukraine State but also the future of NATO and its credibility.   

Concluding, it needs to be observed that it takes decades to build security alliances, and it does not take much effort to wreck them with reckless statements/ assertions as has been visible by US President Trump's pronouncements leading to Munich Security Conference and his Vice President Vance's pronouncements at Munich in February 2025 at Munich.

European leaders are not wrong in perceiving the current trend of United States policies on Ukraine and European Security as Europe's "Munich 2:0 Moment" where United States in a bid to appease Russia has indulged in a "sell-out" of Ukraine and European Security.  

In geopolitics, perceptions count, and United States is being perceived widely as sacrificing Ukraine and Europe to appease Russia in pursuit of an elusive peace, more determined by US domestic politics rather than long-term US security interests.

Can the United States gain geopolitically with this trend? Unlikely, as inherent in United States rewarding Russia as the "Aggressor" with 20% of captured Ukrainian territory, are the seeds of future conflict.

 

MIDDLE EAST: US PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ASSERTIONS ON GAZA AND IRAN (FEBRUARY 2025) PORTEND GREATER TURBULENCE AND VOLATILITY

US President Trump's latest assertions on future of Gaza and signing orders to put into force US plans to prevent Iran going in for nuclear weaponization will inherently push the Middle East to greater geopolitical instability and military turbulence.

Lying at the core of these two stirring plans is United States larger strategic aim to neutralize Iran's geopolitical sway in the Middle East and liquidation of threats to Israel's security. More significantly it is to emasculate sponsoring capabilities of Hamas and Hezbollah.

President Trump's Gaza Plan envisages United States taking over control of Gaza Strip on long term basis for reconstruction and incorporating the re-location of Palestinian Arabs to neighboring Arab countries like Jordan and Egypt. 

Obviously, this has raised a howl of strong protests from all major Arab Nations. Even close allies like United Kingdom though not openly opposing President Trump's Gaza Plan have stressed that no 'forcible relocation' should take place.

However, the Hamas is likely to oppose the Gaza Plan implementation both by use of military force and terrorism. as the central aim of Gaza Plan is to liquidate Hams completely from its hold over Gaza.

It remains to be seen whether leading Arab Nations will aid the Hamas to retain its hold over Gaza. It is Iran's countermoves of keeping Gaza under Hamas control that would require watching.

Either way, any implementation of Gaza Plan by Trump Administration is fraught with greater volatility and turbulence as it would involve virtual forced relocation of over one million Gaza Palestinians, acceptability of hosting by neighboring Aram countries under increased overhang of military opposition by Hamas.

Similarly, the Trump Plan to prevent nuclear weaponization of Iran is fraught with even more military risks and escalation as Iran can be expected to stoutly resist giving up its nuclear weapons option.

United States diplomacy and geopolitical/ economic pressures are unlikely to yield any results from Iran to give up its nuclear weapons option, especially learning from the Ukrainian experience.

President Trump may be left with no option but to order US & Israeli air strikes/cruise missiles attacks against Iran's nuclear weapons setup. The outcome could be horrendous for United States, Israel and Iran.

Any US/Israeli strikes plans against Iran's nuclear facilities needs to be accompanied in tandem with destruction of Iran's missiles/rockets launching sites as Iran in response can unleash hundreds of missiles, rockets and suicide drones against US military bases in Middle East and against Isreal with crippling effects.

More significantly, Iran can resort to blockade of Hormuz Straits both by physical means and military means. This will cripple the global oil supplies sending oil prices sky high.

The last factor that needs to be considered is Russia's responses to US military intervention against Iran against the backdrop of recently signed Mutual Security Treaty,

Russian responses underway to cater for such eventualities focuses on assisting Iran's buildup of its Air Defence networks with supplies of S400 missiles, surveillance and radar networks besides intelligence sharing. In brief, Russia short of sending troops to Iran can be expected to pull out all stops to enable Iran to make the costs of US/Israeli strikes prohibitive.

Concluding, what needs to be said is that should United States move ahead with President Trump's Gaza Plan and Iranian nuclear sites strike plans what is likely to unfold is greater bloodying of Middle East sands with a host of unintended consequences.