The Cost of Choice: Diverging Paths of the U.S. and China in the Russia–Ukraine War

The Russia–Ukraine war has acted like a sharp chisel, carving today’s world into two distinct blocs: on one side, modern states bound by shared values, such as the U.S., Europe, and Japan; on the other, countries loosely united by temporary interests and rooted in an imperial mindset.

The United States chose to stand firmly with Ukraine, aligning itself with Europe and Japan. China, in contrast, declared a “no-limits” partnership with Russia. These divergent choices carry profound consequences for trade, currency, and technology battles between the two powers, while reshaping the global order itself. As the saying goes, “Choices outweigh effort”—especially in moral crossroads like the Russia–Ukraine war. Choosing the right side opens the path forward; choosing the wrong one leads to strategic dead ends.

The United Nations Secretary-General made it unambiguously clear: Russia is the aggressor; Ukraine is the victim. In such a matter of right and wrong, Europe rejects any claim of neutrality. The U.S. chose to uphold justice and support Ukraine—a decision aligned with moral principles and the correct direction of history. “Those who uphold the right path gain more allies; those who betray it are left isolated.” With this choice, America has gained respect, influence, and strategic momentum worldwide. Those who stand on the wrong side inevitably find their position growing weaker over time.

In essence, the war is a direct confrontation between an outdated imperial system and the framework of modern democratic governance. Ukraine, after years of oscillating between Russia and the EU, ultimately chose democracy and the rule of law. The success of the Baltic states and other Eastern European nations—once part of the Soviet empire—demonstrates that the modern system is the path to progress.

To stand with the EU means sharing values, markets, and rules. To stand with an empire means becoming a satellite state, a buffer zone, and a subordinate. Ukraine’s choice has inspired other countries once within Russia’s orbit—Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, the Central Asian republics, and even Mongolia—to move away from imperial influence and edge closer to Europe.

China’s position in this war has shocked much of the world, and unsettled many of its neighbors. Confronted with Russia’s blatant aggression, China—as a permanent member of the UN Security Council—was expected to take a fair stance and oppose the invasion. This was the hope of smaller, weaker nations. Instead, Beijing chose “neutrality” in words but unlimited cooperation in practice, deepening suspicion and even fear among other states.

As a result, more countries are actively leaning toward the United States for security guarantees—not only traditional allies but also wealthy Middle Eastern states, willing to pay substantial sums for U.S. protection. The war has not only expanded America’s global influence but has also reinforced its image as the “world’s policeman” and guardian of peace.

For the U.S., the war is strategically manageable. Whether it ends in negotiation or continues, America’s core interests remain intact—thanks to a correct strategic choice and the backing of a broad alliance network.

China, by contrast, has bound itself to a partner that increasingly resembles a heavy strategic burden. Should Sino-Russian relations sour in the future, Beijing risks losing security space and potentially creating a formidable adversary. The upcoming U.S.–Russia summit underscores this danger for China.

Moreover, China could have sought to unite with the EU and Japan in countering U.S. pressure in trade, finance, and technology. But its wartime stance has instead pushed Europe and Japan firmly into America’s camp. Given the already asymmetrical U.S.–China power balance, the formation of a “U.S.–EU–Japan” bloc against a “China–Russia–Iran” grouping leaves China more isolated and strategically constrained.

The war’s damage goes beyond geopolitics—it has dragged China’s already fragile economy into deeper uncertainty. What began as a U.S.–China trade and tech rivalry has escalated into a multi-front confrontation between China and most major economies. Even China’s neighbors are inviting U.S. military presence to offset Beijing’s influence—an instinctive geopolitical “hedging” move.

Russia’s neighbors are pursuing “de-Russification.” China’s neighbors are inviting America in. Middle Eastern nations are trading wealth for U.S. protection. These are all byproducts of the Russia–Ukraine war.

The conclusion is clear: a nation’s true influence is inversely proportional to its imperial ambitions. The stronger the imperial mindset, the greater the centrifugal force pushing its neighbors away.

In the end, choice determines destiny.

Peter Lee in Toronto