Since late May 2025, the international stage has been abuzz with events that, while seemingly peripheral, carry profound implications. From Mongolia’s foreign minister advocating for Philippine interests in the South China Sea, to the remarkably high-level reception for former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s widow, Akie, in Moscow, to French President Emmanuel Macron’s call at the Shangri-La Dialogue for NATO to address North Korean issues, and Ukraine’s recent large-scale airstrikes on Russia signaling its unwavering commitment to fight—all these developments point to a stark reality: the conflict in Ukraine has always been a proxy war. It simply used to serve the interests of the United States (under the Biden administration), and now it may well be serving China’s. This fundamental shift in the proxy war’s nature is driving a sweeping geopolitical realignment across the globe.
The Complex US-Russia Understanding and a Stronger Indo-Pacific Containment Strategy Against China
In recent years, the U.S. has accelerated its strategic pivot to the Indo-Pacific, aggressively building multilateral alliances like the Quad, AUKUS, and the U.S.-Japan-South Korea trilateral to contain China’s rise. However, with Europe mired in the Ukraine conflict and facing stretched strategic resources, Washington appears to have tacitly greenlit, or even encouraged, Russia to build alternative influence in Asia—provided it doesn’t align too closely with China.
Mongolia’s foreign minister publicly backing Philippine interests in the South China Sea is a clear signal of Russia’s implicit consent for Mongolia to draw closer to the U.S. sphere. Without Moscow’s quiet approval, Ulaanbaatar would never have openly sided with Manila against Beijing. Russia’s decision to allow Mongolia this engagement with the U.S. and Philippines is telling: it’s a strategic move to gain a foothold in Southeast Asia, while simultaneously signaling that “cooperating with the U.S. doesn’t automatically equate to being anti-Russia.”
Conversely, Japan’s posture toward Russia has also begun to soften. Akie Abe’s visit to Moscow, though technically private, received top-tier treatment from the Russian side. This is a classic example of signal diplomacy, using a non-official figure to test potential diplomatic breakthroughs, hinting at a shift among Japanese conservatives towards unconditional dialogue with Russia.
Yet, if Ukraine stubbornly refuses a ceasefire, and its continued fight is significantly powered by Chinese backing, this will dramatically solidify the burgeoning, unspoken understanding between the U.S. and Russia in Asia. Under immense pressure from a Sino-European front supporting Ukraine, Russia will more actively seek cooperation with the U.S. in Asia. The enormous economic incentive of the U.S. lifting sanctions could lead Russia to see “losing China but gaining the U.S.” as a huge strategic windfall. This is precisely why the Sino-Russian relationship is breaking down. Russia would regain access to the global financial system, engage in high-value trade with advanced economies like Japan and South Korea, and find opportunities to lessen its over-reliance on China, possibly even acquiring advanced technologies. This makes a U.S.-Russia alignment in Asia, forming a more robust and explicitly targeted “Indo-Pacific encirclement” against China, a highly probable outcome.
North Korea, Sino-Russian Fissures, and Europe’s Shift to a “China Proxy”: A Subtle Redirection of Strategic Focus
French President Macron at the Shangri-La Dialogue suggested NATO should address the North Korean issue. This statement provided international legitimacy for China to exert pressure on North Korea and opened a potential avenue for Sino-European collaboration. While Beijing has maintained a deliberate strategic ambiguity in its North Korea policy for years, Pyongyang’s current embrace of Russia has exacerbated the Sino-North Korean divide, effectively rendering the Sino-Russian “strategic coordination” defunct.
Against this backdrop, Ukraine’s decision to launch large-scale airstrikes on Russia just before peace talks, clearly signaling an unwillingness to cease hostilities, strongly suggests Kyiv has secured substantial commitments from Beijing. European nations, despite their strong desire to support Ukraine, have demonstrated limitations in long-term military industrial capacity and financial commitment. At this critical juncture, only China possesses the vast industrial production capabilities and financial might to provide Ukraine with the crucial support Europe cannot sustain. The sheer scale and technological sophistication of the June 1st offensive underscore this; had Europe possessed such capabilities, Ukraine’s past battlefield performance would not have been so challenging. This is a definitive sign that the Ukraine battlefield’s proxy role is undergoing a fundamental transformation: it’s transitioning from fighting for Biden to fighting for China.
However, this conflict, framed as “Sino-European support for Ukraine,” will fundamentally evolve into a proxy war between Russia and China (through Ukraine).
America’s deep influence in Europe will dictate the extent of Europe’s autonomy. NATO’s security framework ensures Europe’s fundamental military reliance on the U.S. This structural dependence limits Europe’s capacity for major strategic divergences with the U.S. Consequently, Europe, or NATO itself, operates largely within the U.S. sphere of influence. While current European leaders may appear at odds with Trump administration policies, this is more a reflection of internal U.S. political battles, suggesting that the core policy line on China and Russia might be controlled by Trump’s domestic political adversaries. Once Trump resolves his internal issues, or U.S. domestic politics achieve greater unity, Europe will swiftly revert to aligning with U.S.-led strategic objectives.
In this war of attrition, where “Sino-European support for Ukraine” faces off against Russia, the U.S. will likely side with Russia. This aid should not be simply interpreted as helping Russia “win,” but rather as sustaining this proxy war to create a dual drain on China and Europe—the latter being perceived, from a certain U.S. internal political viewpoint, as aligned with Trump’s domestic opponents. Trump’s ultimate goal is to maximally weaken China, even if that entails making concessions to Russia in Europe, including lifting sanctions, offering financial facilities, or sharing intelligence, thereby enabling Russia to gain an advantage on the Ukrainian battlefield and continuously deplete Sino-European resources.
The Future Axis: Extreme Balance and a New Normal of Global Attrition
The core fault lines of the current world order are no longer merely a “U.S.-China confrontation.” Instead, it’s a multi-proxy chess game driven by the realignment of three major powers:
- The essence of the Eastern European battlefield: Ukraine, backed by China and Europe, vs. Russia. This is a high-intensity war of attrition. U.S. “aid” to Russia aims to perpetuate this conflict, weakening Sino-European power and ultimately undermining U.S. domestic rivals while achieving its geopolitical objective of countering China. At the same time, Europe’s fundamental political reliance on the U.S. means its cooperation with China will be limited in depth, ultimately reverting to the U.S. global strategic framework.
- The essence of the Asian battlefield: A deep U.S.-Russia alliance vs. China’s “Indo-Pacific encirclement.” The U.S. will leverage sanction relief as a reciprocal gain, deeply binding Russia to its side, jointly containing and wearing down China in the Indo-Pacific.
- The substantial rupture of the Sino-Russian relationship. The catalyst is Russia’s rapprochement with the U.S., offering Russia a massive incentive to completely “jump ship.” Russia will view this as a highly profitable opportunity to break free from its excessive reliance on China and regain international standing, thereby fundamentally transforming into a strategic adversary to China.
This is not a Cold War-style bloc confrontation, but a fluid, flexible, and ambiguous “multi-proxy warfare and war of attrition” order. Internal divisions within the West (such as temporary U.S.-European divergence driven by U.S. domestic politics) and within the East (such as the substantive Sino-Russian rupture) coexist, pushing the international situation into a new state of multilateral maneuvering and multi-axis operations.
Conclusion: The Evolution of Proxy Wars and Global Power Realignment
As global attention focuses on news of Ukraine’s large-scale airstrikes within Russian territory, a deeper strategic realignment is quietly unfolding between Asia and Europe. From Ulaanbaatar to Manila, Tokyo to Moscow, and Pyongyang to Paris, every diplomatic detail points to a core reality: the Ukraine war’s proxy role shifting from serving Biden to serving China is a critical variable reshaping the global power landscape. Moreover, the proxy-driven, attritional nature of both Eurasian battlefields will become the decisive arena for global power competition in the foreseeable future.
In this new struggle, Sino-European-backed Ukraine’s war of attrition against Russia, the deep U.S.-Russia alignment in Asia, and the substantive rupture of Sino-Russian ties due to Russia’s rapprochement with the U.S. will be the three main axes for observing shifts in the world order. Europe’s fundamental identity as part of the U.S. sphere of influence remains unchanged; its cooperation with China will be strategic rather than a fundamental pivot.
If China is to emerge undefeated from this war of attrition and successfully navigate the already-realized dual U.S.-Russia encirclement in Asia, it will require exceptionally sophisticated strategic wisdom and highly flexible diplomatic maneuvering. This is a new normal fraught with uncertainty, yet it will rigorously test the strategic resolve of all participants.
