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.

RUSSIA'S TWO DISCERNIBLE GEOPOLITICAL COUNTERWEIGHTS TO BALANCE CHINA

Russia's ardent ambition to continue as an 'Independent Center of Power" in global geopolitics was articulated more than a decade back by President Putin. Russia's intent to continue as such, independent of Russia's present strategic linkages with China, seems to have grown more intense.

Russia's strategic denouement with China being underway was analyzed in my article posted on January 15, 2025. Two geopolitical moves in recent past by Russia, draw attention to this trend. 

These concerns seem to have led Russia to draw Iran into its strategic fold and consummate a Mutual Security Treat with Iran in January 2025. 

Similarly, Russia made strategic moves to intensify its relationship with North Korea and reduce North Korean dependency on China.

 Notably, till Russia made the above moves, Iran and North Korea could be said to be beholden to China. China signed a 25 Year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in 2021.

Contextually, with both Iran and North Korea, standing 'unhinged' from China's strategic embrace, and preferring Russia as a more 'reliable strategic partner' creates serious strategic implications for China.

Much of the import of this realignment of Iran and North Korea has evolved in the wake of Russia's Ukraine Invasion of 2022 and Russia's stalled offensives thereafter.

Iran and North Korea rose up to Russian expectations of provision of sizeable military aid to Russia in contrast to China's pattern of hesitant military aid to Russia.

Russia so gains substantially in terms of geopolitical capital in West Asia and Indo Pacific at the expense of China.

North Korea for decades was considered to be a satellite of China, and its actions then so demonstrated it. This imparted to China a 'halo' by US policymakers that to control North Korea, they had to negotiate and motivate China to twist North Korea's tail.

Not so any longer, as now US policymakers will have to bargain with Russia to do so, to tame North Korea.

Russia's Mutual Security Treaty with Iran is a real game changer not only in West Asian geopolitics but also at the global level. 

In terms of West Asia geopolitical dynamics, United States, West, and Israel, now will have to contend the strategic combination of Iran as West Asia's dominant regional power with Russia as an erstwhile Superpower, notwithstanding, Russia's strategic diminution post-Ukraine.

At the global level, China positioning itself as the sole contender of United States global predominance gets that much diluted. 

In stark geopolitical terms, Russia today has gained two significant 'Strategic Partners' if not outright allies, giving Russia a strategic spread in West Asia and Northeast Asia/Indo Pacific.

 In January 2025, the emerging strategic profile is that of China currently having no substantial 'Strategic Partners' with the exception of Pakistan, which itself is wavering with growing public anti-China sentiments.

Concluding, it needs to be stressed that while the Russia-China Axis may continue tenuously, but a lot depends on new US President Trump's policy approaches to China and China's reluctance to give up its 'Russia Card' in its policy approaches to United States.

IRAN'S TWO SECURITY TREATIES WITH CHINA (2021) AND RUSSIA (2025) --- A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Iran's two Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreements with China (2021) and Russia (2025) both need to be read as 'Security Treaties' arising from strategic convergences to put in place existential counterweights by Iran against possible threats of United States military interventions.

Iran noticeably with acute adversarial relations with United States was a '"Strategic Magnet" to China and Russia to be drawn in for a security presence and influence in the world's largest Shia-majority State in a largely Arab Sunni monarchial kingdoms of Gulf, allied to the United States.

Iran before the initiation of these Security Treaties was militarily engaged with China and Russia for decades. 

From Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 to 2021, despite Iran being under severe military and economic pressures in a hostile neighborhood, Iran entered into a Security Treaty with China only in 2021 after hard bargaining. It had much to do with China prioritizing Saudi Arabia over Iran, including Chines supplies of CSS2 IRBMs.

The period 2021 to 2024 is strategically notable for Iran in relation to Russia.

In 2022 the Russian Invasion of Ukraine brought Iran closer to Russia wherein Iranian supplies of thousands of Drones assisted Russia in its faltering offensives in Ukraine. Iran also assisted Russia with ammunition supplies for its war in Ukraine.

In October 2023 and 2024, Iran was engulfed in a running war with Israel through its Proxy Militias---Hamas and Hezbollah, and for the first time direct Iranian Missiles/Rockets attacks on Israel.

United States Military Intervention in Iran had now become a distinct possibility, including destruction of Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities.

This hastened the Security Treaty with Russia, finally materializing in January 2025 and with incoming US President Trump's advent as catalyst.

Analytically, the question that comes to the fore is that did Iran feel inadequate with its Security Treaty (2021) with China, in terms of coping with a possible US Military Intervention against it?

Did Iran assess that Russia was a more reliable guarantor of Iranian security and assured source of advanced weapons and weapons technology than China?

Or were there other geopolitical factors weighing-in with Iran which prompted Iran to have an additional Security Treaty with Russia tto beef its security?

The answers will unfold sooner than later.

Judging by available reports in January 2025 what emerges is that Russia's Security Treaty with Iran notably caters for Mutual Security Assistance in case of aggression.

Further, the scale of intensity and levels of   Russia's military cooperation with Iran surpasses the notional Chinese military assistance to Iran since 2021.

 To sum it up, the Security Treaty with China was more of 'economic security' and less of military security for Iran. China's promise to invest $400 billion in Iran infrastructure, more specifically petrochemicals was an inducement for Iran. 

Geographical proximity of Russia with Iran as compared to a 'distant' China may have also weighed in with Iran to prefer Russia over China, in the bilateral context.

Concluding, Iran's 'Security Treaty' with Russia is an ominous development in the Middle East strategic calculus with serious implications and challenges for United States, West and Isreal. 

Possibility of proactive Russian military involvement to assist Iran against any US military intervention will now be a factor for consideration.