Picture a plump, aging man wearing water wings in a Beijing pool, cursing under his breath. Not the fondest memory for Nikita Khrushchev — best known for staring down Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As he bobbed awkwardly, Mao Zedong circled around him, relishing the humiliation of a supposed ‘peer’ he knew couldn’t swim.
The scene remains a near-perfect metaphor: the mistrust and tension that colored Russia-China relations then — in 1958, when China’s GDP was less than a quarter of the Soviet Union’s — and now, when Russia’s crumbling economy is barely a tenth of China’s.
And yet, here the West is today — slowly, passively, despite stated interests, turning this uneasy alliance of frenemies into something far more dangerous.
Since 2008, the West has stood by as Moscow tested the postwar order — invading Georgia, grabbing Crimea, and slicing into eastern Ukraine. Sanctions were imposed and statements issued, but deterrence isn’t asserted with “deep concerns” — it’s measured by what you’re willing to stop. And that’s where Western leaders have failed.
Unsure of where to place its bets, Beijing didn’t rush to embrace Russia; it watched. But Washington’s inaction and lack of resolve made China’s calculation easier: better to align with a fellow revisionist power than to hedge its rise on a fickle West.
There are two distinct paths forward — one that drives a wedge between Moscow and Beijing, and one that cements their partnership.
First, consider this scenario: America draws a clear line, telling Russia — get out. Withdraw from Ukrainian territory, and in return, sanctions will be lifted, relations restored.
Some say it’s a tall order, but we haven’t even tried. We talk of strength, of standing by our word, but what could be more powerful than honoring a promise, vague as it was, made decades ago when we stripped Kyiv of its nuclear insurance against the very Russian aggression it has endured for generations?
The moral case for supporting Ukraine is airtight. Russia’s war is a criminal act under the very rules we established after WWII. The stakes for America’s security and prosperity couldn’t be higher. A world where aggression goes unpunished is one where defense budgets skyrocket.
The Pentagon spends nearly a trillion dollars per year — more than the next nine largest military budgets combined. If we want to remain the undisputed leader in a world where others are ramping up spending, the $40 billion a year of aiding Ukraine will look like pocket change.
Russia plays to win. We play not to offend. Instead of speaking softly and carrying a big stick, we are making grand pronouncements and extending olive branches, which are seen by the Kremlin not as goodwill to be appreciated, but as weakness to exploit.
“They are laughing at us,” said Boris Johnson — and he’s right. So why are we afraid to pursue the one and only just outcome: restoring Ukraine’s borders and kicking the invaders out? Because Putin will call it escalation? God knows neither the world nor the U.S. need his permission to dispense a long-overdue accountability.
True, the Kremlin, led by a wanted war criminal, would see this as a bitter pill to swallow. But swallow it must, for this Potemkin superpower chose to wage war on a small neighbor — and now finds itself unable to prevail unless America, through misjudgment, hesitation, or neglect, hands it a victory.
By turning itself into a pariah, Moscow has become shackled to Beijing, a vassal state in an arrangement where President Xi holds all the cards. Meanwhile, its partnerships with Iran and North Korea have become essential lifelines — Tehran supplies drones and missiles, while Pyongyang ships artillery shells and even deploys troops. But Moscow still has a choice: remain trapped in China’s orbit or break free. It simply has to abandon the drive to recolonize Ukraine.
While the Kremlin plays its venal games, Washington overlooks a quiet but potent lever: over one hundred million Russians. Many may cheer for conquest and love to hate America, but beneath lies a populace that craves stability, something Putin has leveraged for years.
Pride in being ‘вне политики’ — outside of politics — runs deep, yet even apathy has its limits, especially as living standards decline. Do Russians truly wish to live under Beijing’s yoke, trading their future for Moscow’s imperial delusions? Their economic interests would be better served by a Russia that turns westward, not east, and rebuilds ties with Europe and America — on our terms, not Putin’s.
If Russia walks away with anything resembling victory, its pre-2022 marriage of convenience with China — transformed into a “no limits” friendship after Moscow launched its full-scale war — will harden into a triumphant alliance – confident enough to rewrite rules, redraw borders, and challenge American power.
Imagine the U.S. lifting sanctions or striking deals while Russia clings to stolen lives and land. Forcing Ukraine to capitulate — even if we dress it up as diplomacy — wouldn’t just be a betrayal of our principles; it would signal to Moscow and Beijing that the West really is as hypocritical, weak and divided as they always claimed.
Remember the last time we saved Moscow? Stalin, ever-so-hungry for conquest, signed a pact with Hitler to carve up Poland. When Hitler inevitably turned on Moscow, it was America that came to the rescue with Lend-Lease — sending 400,000 trucks, 14,000 aircraft, 13,000 tanks. Without it, the USSR stood little chance. And how did Moscow show its gratitude? By scheming for control over Eastern Europe and plunging the world into the Cold War.
The same story repeated itself this century when Germany embraced Wandel durch Handel — "change through trade" — believing economic ties would tame Russia’s belligerence. Instead, it backfired spectacularly. Moscow weaponized its gas trade, turning cooperation into blackmail.
No concession will make Moscow see us as anything but an enemy. America’s very existence – the land of the free and the home of the brave – is a threat to Russia, which can only survive as an oppressive empire. Every “reset” has been met with duplicity, because for the Kremlin, peace isn’t an end — it’s a pause before the next act of aggression. We should be reminding Moscow of Khrushchev’s water-wings humiliation, not handing Putin the victory Stalin never lived to see — America too indecisive to defend freedom against tyranny.
Andrew Chakhoyan is an Academic Director at the University of Amsterdam and a former U.S. government official at the Millennium Challenge Corporation. A Ukrainian-American, he studied at Harvard Kennedy School and Donetsk State Technical University.
