The raging Russia-Ukraine conflict is a stark reminder of the urgency of effective management of weapons of mass destruction. The international community must come together to restart the long-stalled international negotiations over arms control and nuclear disarmament by fully utilizing the existing mechanisms and platforms and generating greater consensus and impetus among all stakeholders. A staunch supporter of the international arms control and nuclear disarmament regime, China adheres to its longstanding nuclear policy of maximum restraint and remains committed to the pursuit of a new path leading to a world of enduring peace and stability.

In recent years, Sino-Russian relations have become a model of great power relations with high degree of mutual trust, high level of collaboration and high strategic value. After the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the assessment of the challenges for China-Russia relations in the external environment, the understanding of the conflict’s role in reshaping China-Russia relations, and the examination of the prospects of China-Russia relations have been critical in the analysis of how the Russia-Ukraine conflict will impact the game of great powers.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has provided new impetus to the centennial change in global order. Combined with the impact of global pandemic, this conflict has accelerated the transformation of international economic order from a US-dominated globalization process to the globalization driven by coexistence of multiple parallel systems.

As a geopolitical confrontation with global implications in the European region, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has an important and complex impact on China-EU relations.

The dominant narrative on the Chinese side is that this strategic competition between the two countries reflects the struggles for power, institutions, and perceptions, which will last throughout the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. In general, it is thus believed that competition and struggle have been adopted as key words for both Washington and Beijing in managing their relations.

Up till now, the fighting has been going on for over 100 days, with the two warring sides still in an offensive and defensive stalemate. Questions about this ongoing crisis can be listed in a long line, most of which no one can answer at this time. Yet among all the uncertainties, one thing is certain: what the Russian troops crossed on February 24 was not simply the land border between Russia and Ukraine, but rather more symbolically, the River Rubicon of the post-cold war international order.

At first glance, the Ukraine conflict has some loose parallels to 1958, when the People’s Liberation Army shelled Kinmen without notifying Russia in advance. But while rumors of intrigue may raise eyebrows, the comparison falls apart quickly.

Alienating Russia will not increase stability for Europe, nor will Russia disappear as a result of the Ukraine war. But Russia’s old power model — needlessly using force to punish countries for switching sides — needs to change.

Geopolitical risk, sanctions, and covid in China are redefining how we think about the future of global supply chains. Nations must start considering how to better secure their supply chains through regional trade partnerships, reshoring essential manufacturing capabilities, and sourcing goods from multiple nations and regions.

With the shadow of the Russia-Ukraine crisis looming in the background, America’s midterm elections will be a test of voters’ mood. Donald Trump’s sway over the Republican Party will be reinforced or repudiated. But economic factors may be the decisive factor.