By John Q. Hosedrinker 
China has reiterated its firm stance against nuclear escalation in Ukraine, urging all parties to exercise restraint and avoid actions that could lead to misunderstanding or miscalculation. This statement comes as Russia has accused Britain and France of planning to supply Kyiv with nuclear weapons, a claim China claims not to be familiar with the specifics of. Beijing consistently believes that nuclear weapons must not be used, a nuclear war must not be fought, and international non-proliferation obligations should be observed. President Xi Jinping also emphasized China’s support for consistent dialogue on the war, advocating for equal participation and consideration of all parties’ legitimate concerns.
Read the original article here
China has recently reiterated its firm stance against nuclear proliferation, a statement that carries significant weight, especially against a backdrop of claims suggesting a European plan to arm Ukraine with nuclear weapons. This affirmation from China arrives at a time when the world is grappling with renewed anxieties surrounding nuclear armament, a stark contrast to decades past when de-escalation seemed to be the prevailing trend. The sentiment is that countries, even those with no immediate intention of using such weapons, feel compelled to maintain a nuclear arsenal as a safeguard, a safety net that could, at any moment, unravel.
The fact that China, often seen as Russia’s strategic partner, champions a “no nukes” position is noted with interest. However, the hope is that this anti-nuclear sentiment extends beyond mere rhetoric and translates into a broader commitment to de-escalation, perhaps even to a non-expansionist policy that would see Russia withdraw from Ukraine. Regardless of whether major powers like China or the United States advocate for nuclear disarmament, the reality is that the global geopolitical climate has shifted. The era of precarious peace appears to be over, prompting discussions about whether nations in Eastern Europe should consider nuclear armament themselves.
Questions arise regarding China’s vocal opposition to nuclear proliferation, particularly when juxtaposed with events like Russia deploying nuclear weapons in Belarus. The notion of arming Ukraine with nuclear weapons is widely viewed as an extremely ill-advised and potentially catastrophic proposition. It’s argued that Ukraine already possesses the technical capacity to develop nuclear weapons should it choose to, but refrains from doing so precisely to avoid an escalatory spiral and its devastating consequences. This suggests that Russian leadership might be contemplating the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a desperate measure, a last resort in a conflict where its prospects appear to be dimming.
The response from China to these unfolding events is viewed with considerable disappointment by some. There’s a strong call for the West to unequivocally warn Russia against any contemplation of nuclear weapon use, emphasizing that such actions would be met with universal condemnation. The argument is made that nations bordering Russia should urgently prioritize acquiring nuclear capabilities, suggesting that Ukraine’s past decision to disarm in exchange for security assurances, which were subsequently violated, highlights the perceived necessity of nuclear deterrence.
The ongoing discourse often circles back to the perceived hypocrisy of nations advocating for nuclear restraint while possessing significant arsenals themselves. The question of why China, a country with a substantial nuclear program, is so vocal about others acquiring them is frequently posed. It is observed that China has consistently upheld a “no first use” policy, pledging not to employ nuclear weapons first or against non-nuclear states, a commitment that is highlighted as a sign of responsibility.
However, skepticism persists regarding the sincerity of China’s pronouncements, with some suggesting that its foreign policy statements often run counter to its actions. The mention of North Korea, a nuclear-armed state, often arises in these discussions, questioning the scope and effectiveness of China’s anti-nuclear advocacy. The idea of preventing nuclear proliferation is generally well-received, but the current global situation, with escalating tensions and the potential for widespread armament, presents a complex challenge.
The narrative that China is the bad guy for urging calm while Russia and NATO engage in strategic posturing is also contested. It is suggested that Russia is actively propagating false narratives, including claims that England and France are transferring nuclear weapons to Ukraine, as a pretext to justify its own potential use of tactical nuclear weapons. These allegations are often attributed to Russia’s intelligence services, whose track record of intelligence failures is highlighted as a reason for distrust.
The overarching sentiment is that the world does not need more nuclear weapons. China’s position, in this context, is seen by some as a stabilizing influence. Yet, historical accusations of China providing nuclear technology to other nations, such as Pakistan, linger, adding layers of complexity to its public stance. The alleged European plan to arm Ukraine with nuclear weapons, if true, would represent a significant and dangerous escalation, met with China’s affirmation of its anti-nuclear stance.
The comparison of China’s nuclear arsenal to that of the United States and Russia underscores the relative scale of their programs. China’s “no-first-use” policy, in place since 1964, is presented as a consistent aspect of its nuclear doctrine, differentiating it from other nuclear powers. The assertion that assuming the opposite of what China states is a valid analytical approach is also challenged, with evidence pointing to its consistent stance on nuclear weapons, even acknowledged by Ukraine’s ambassador to Beijing.
The claims about NATO posturing are dismissed as Russian disinformation aimed at justifying the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons. The absence of credible evidence for NATO providing “dirty bombs” to Ukraine is emphasized. The effectiveness of “no-first-use” policies in extreme circumstances is a subject of debate, but China’s consistent adherence to this principle is a notable point.
The discussion about Ukraine’s decision to relinquish its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees that were ultimately not honored is central to the argument for its right to rearm, potentially with nuclear capabilities. The contrast between this situation and Russia’s deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus further fuels the debate. Ultimately, China’s affirmation of a “no nukes” position amid claims of European plans to arm Ukraine serves as a focal point in a broader, ongoing global discussion about nuclear deterrence, proliferation, and the ever-present specter of nuclear conflict.