Russian President Vladimir Putin (left) speaks to Chinese President Xi Jinping during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, on September 16, 2022. Photo: Kremlin Pool / Sputnik / Sergei Bobylev

Western leaders are becoming increasingly frustrated by China’s role in enabling the war in Ukraine. Some have even openly threatened to sanction the country if it continues to provide Russia with the materials it needs to build more weapons.

And they are right to focus on China’s position of power. Russia is now so dependent on the only major economy still taking the risk to support its regime, that China could effectively force Vladimir Putin to end the conflict.

The extent of Russia’s economic dependence became apparent fairly quickly after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Just a few months later, things were not going to plan.

In the hope of putting pressure on European countries supporting Ukraine, Russia decided to cut almost all of its exports of gas to the West. Before the war, Russia had provided about 40% of Europe’s gas.

While at first that decision provoked an energy crisis and a surge in bills across the continent, Europe eventually managed to wean itself from Russia’s supply. They did this in part by replacing gas with other sources of energy but also by substituting Russian imports with gas from other countries, including the US.

Electricity prices in Europe are now roughly back to pre-war levels. And while gas prices are still high, they have dropped, with storage facilities expected to be almost full later this year.

So now Russia faces a massive problem of its own: selling its gas.

For the first time in over 20 years, the Russian state-owned energy giant Gazprom sustained a financial loss in 2023. Until then, the customs and tax revenues from the company contributed around 10% of the country’s budget.

Revenue from oil exports has also decreased. As Western countries have banned Russian oil, the country is forced to sell it for less, absorbing the additional costs of transporting production to the likes of China and India while mainstream transporters refuse to risk carrying it.

As for natural gas, geography makes things even worse for Russia. China is the only potential customer large enough to justify a new pipeline to replace the ones which used to deliver to Europe. But given this privileged position, China feels able to demand the gas at a huge discount.

In this kind of bargaining situation, China has the upper hand.

China can buy gas from anywhere in the world, but Russia can only sell it (at the volumes it needs) to China. Then there is the question of urgency – Russia needs to finance a war now, while China has no pressing energy need it cannot fulfill.

Bargaining basement

Russia’s dependence on China applies to other sectors of the economy too. The Chinese yuan now accounts for 54% of trades in Russia’s stock exchange since it was cut off from the global banking system in 2022. It has no credible alternative to replace that money if China starts to apply similar sanctions.

Even more crucial for the war, China is responsible for around 90% of Russia’s import of “high priority” dual-use goods – electronic components, radars, sensors – without which it could not build advanced military hardware. Again, there is no alternative supplier.

It is hard to win a war with only North Korea and Iran – two countries themselves subject to heavy economic sanctions – on your side. In short, this means that China is now in a position to demand anything from Russia.

And in potential negotiations between China and the West, both have much to gain – and a similar bargaining position to each other.

For example, China is facing considerable domestic economic problems of its own. One of these stems from industrial overcapacity and the need to find buyers for all the products it manufactures.

But the US has just imposed a 100% border tax on electric cars from China, and 50% on solar cells. The EU is doing something similar and considering asking Chinese firms to make electric vehicles in Europe, sharing their technology.

Taxing cheap products which could reduce carbon emissions may seem like a self-defeating strategy given the urgent need to finance the energy transition. So perhaps the West wants to avoid becoming too dependent on China, for the same bargaining reasons that make Russia’s current position so weak.

But the balance is not the same. China needs Western markets, and the West needs China’s green industrial capacity and know-how, as the country now installs more renewable capacity every year than the rest of the world combined.

Europe is still facing difficult economic times, and a tariff is essentially an extra tax burden on European consumers. Everyone would benefit from the trade war toning down, and China has something very valuable to offer.

For all intents and purposes, China now owns Russia and could use this power to end the war in Ukraine.

Renaud Foucart is Senior Lecturer in Economics, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Join the Conversation

15 Comments

  1. “China has the power to end the Ukraine war”— As explained by this article, such claim is probably true. But the Ukraine war is hurting the West and as many people who have studied the CPOC believe, what motivates China greatly now is a strong desire to get even with the West and dominate it for its having emasculated China during the “century of humiliation.” Ending the Ukraine war would run contrary to such goal. So, China will do nothing to stop it… the CPOC might even try to exacerbate it!

  2. Look in the mirror. NATO also has the power to end the Ukraine war, which it started in 2014, and which it continued by rejecting Ukrainian neutrality under the Istanbul accords. Austrian neutrality worked in the Soviet era. If NATO truly is a defensive alliance it should act as such. But Serbia and Libya might beg to differ on its defensiveness and peace loving nature. As for its leader, the US, I would expect Iraq and Syria to also weigh in.

    1. Exactly, NATO and in real terms the US has had the power to end the war since day two, after it had the UK push Ukraine to stop the negotiations.

  3. Why in the world would China be willing to do the west’s bidding by withdrawing support from its major military ally when the west is actively threatening military action against China?

  4. From an article in SCMP today reporting on the meeting between Xi and Putin at the SCO: “We must make efforts to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the two countries and defend the basic principles of international relations,” Xi told Putin.” This is what is at stake. Please recall that it is US policy to UNDERMINE the government and economy of China, as well as Russia.

  5. This article makes no sense. The US and NATO have the power to end the war. China is threatened over Taiwan the same way that the US provoked Russia – crossed all red lines – into invading Ukraine as its last resort in dealing with brain dead US leadership. I believe it is clear China should and will continue to support Russia exactly as it has until now – this is an existential issue of confronting the US hegemonic, lawless and endlessly destructive Empire. The article seems to completely miss the boat,

  6. Yes, that may be so. But it is not in China’s interest to do so. The war keeps China supplied with cheap fuel and food while keeping the U.S. preoccupied and out of China’s hair, not to mention draining American resources.

  7. This author RENAUD FOUCART is pouting so much lies in this article. If AsiaTimes want to be a serious news outlets, it should vet authors and articles such as this. This author claim that Russia decided to cut all of its exports of gas to the West, but the fact that this was instigated by USA including the gas pipe blown-up. Also USA forced the west to implement sanctions on gas from Russia so that USA could become a higher-price exporter or LNG to the West. Why did the author not point out obvious facts like this? This author claims to be a senior lecturer at the Department of Economics at Lancaster University Management School. Must be a lousy school.

    1. No need vetting, just a little bit of commonsense and one would know how illogical the article is. Who will the West target after Russia is done?

      1. Exactly.
        The moment you see “China now effectively owns Russia” you know you can’t take the author seriously…

  8. right… guess that’s how europe thinks. i own you, be my serf

    no wonder you cannot see the forest from the trees