The 2001 words of George W. Bush, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” marked a polarizing era in U.S. foreign policy that seemed to fade into history—until now. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has revived this stark global dichotomy, with the stakes growing as Vladimir Putin’s forces continue a brutal, unprovoked war. The sheer scope of Russia’s actions has galvanized a fractured world into two camps, forcing nations to decide where they stand on national sovereignty, aggression, and the limits of power.
Unlike Crimea’s relatively bloodless 2014 annexation, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine—with its airstrikes, tank offensives, and documented atrocities—triggered an international backlash. Ukrainians’ fierce resistance, led by President Volodymyr Zelensky, defied predictions of a swift collapse, galvanizing global public opinion against the Kremlin’s aggression. Historian Timothy Snyder described it poignantly: “When Russia began its full-scale invasion…the American consensus was that Ukraine would crack within days…Instead, [Zelensky] stayed…rallied his people, and oversaw the successful defense of his country.”
For much of the world, including an overwhelming share of public opinion in Europe and the democratic West, this is a David-versus-Goliath struggle, a moral fight to defend borders and democratic sovereignty. Western nations, particularly those in Europe with the shadow of 20th-century aggressions, responded with unprecedented sanctions, supplying arms to Ukraine and tightening economic nooses around Russian elites. However, this moral clarity has met resistance from global powerhouses like China, which has skirted condemning Moscow outright, even echoing Russia’s view that NATO expansion justified its actions. China’s stance, however, is awkward, given its own rhetoric of sovereignty and non-intervention.
Timothy Snyder points to a peculiar ally for China’s stance: former U.S. President Donald Trump, who not only downplays Russia’s aggression but calls the conflict a “scam.” Trump’s approach mirrors China’s evasiveness on Russian accountability, revealing a strange symmetry between Beijing’s calculations and Trump’s America-centric view, which disregards Ukrainian sovereignty altogether.
As the war drags on, Beijing’s tacit endorsement of Moscow, coupled with China’s pro-Russian media narrative, has become a liability to its image as a “peace-loving nation.” The Sino-Russian “no-limits friendship,” once a strategic partnership against U.S. dominance, now faces global scrutiny. Meanwhile, Trump’s nonchalant dismissal of Ukrainian suffering showcases a broader challenge: how will the world rally to support sovereignty and democracy if influential voices downplay aggression?
With rising pressure, both China and global leaders face the revived question: “Are you with us against aggression and authoritarianism, or will you stand idle?”
