Much has changed since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin last stood together atop Tiananmen Square in 2015. When they did so again this week, it was supposedly as equal partners. Of course, the reality is far more complex.
The conventional wisdom is that China has cemented its position as the dominant partner, especially since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. After all, it is now Russia’s biggest trading partner, accounting for more than half of Russian imports in 2023, whereas Russia does not even make China’s top five. While Russia relies on China to buy roughly half of its crude oil exports, these purchases account for only 17.5 percent of China’s total oil imports. Simply put, Russia needs China to keep its own economy going.
Yet for all this dependence, China is not dictating outcomes, and the Kremlin is not acting like a junior partner. Consider the war in Ukraine. While it has some significant upsides for China — not least by diverting US resources from the Pacific theater — there is no doubt that Putin is calling the shots on the timing, scope and endgame.
Illustration: Kevin Sheu
On paper, China might have the leverage to influence Russia’s policy, but it is hard to imagine a scenario in which Ukraine could compel China to use it. Doing so would not only jeopardize China’s relations with a key partner, but also contravene its own core foreign-policy principle of “non-interference.” Putin knows that better than anyone.
Although China has consistently pitched itself as a “peacemaker,” that role has been filled by other countries, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia; and now, US President Donald Trump and Putin have proved capable of engaging each other without a broker.
The limits of Chinese influence are even more striking around its own borders, where Russia’s deepening partnership with North Korea is raising alarms. China might welcome Russian meddling in Europe, but potentially destabilizing the Korean Peninsula is quite another matter.
If China is unwilling to influence outcomes in Ukraine and unable to deter potential instability in its own neighborhood, that suggests there is more to China-Russia relations than a simple junior-senior partnership. Although the economic relationship might have changed, the politics have yet to catch up.
Historically, China was long its northern neighbor’s junior partner — and sometimes its victim. Czarist Russia was among the imperial powers that carved up Chinese territory in the 19th century, seizing roughly 1.5 million square kilometers in China’s northeast — an area roughly one-sixth of China’s current territory. Later, in 1969, disputes over the same border sparked a seven-month conflict with the Soviet Union.
Thus, the view in Beijing is that the last 30-odd years of strong relations are an exception, not the norm. Chinese leaders remain reluctant to redefine the relationship, especially when the current posture brings valuable benefits such as cheap energy. Given this potent combination of economic gain and political anxiety, they are unlikely to put meaningful pressure on the Kremlin.
Russia, for its part, is struggling to accept the idea of Chinese dominance. It is still holding out in negotiations over the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, refusing China’s demands that it sell gas at its heavily subsidized domestic price level. Russia has also imposed significant “recycling fees” — which function similarly to tariffs — to counter the sevenfold surge in imported Chinese autos that followed Western carmakers leaving the country.
Meanwhile, the Russian right has been increasingly vocal in urging the Kremlin to resist dependence on China. Noting that Russia’s sparsely populated Far East sits uneasily beside China’s vast population, nationalist commentators warn that the Chinese have not forgotten their “lost territories,” and surely covet Russia’s endowments of cheap energy and raw materials. Their arguments draw on history and identity, not just economics, to bolster a politics that rejects the role of supplicant.
Russia also appears to be keeping China at arm’s length in the Arctic, where China aspires to assert itself as a “near-arctic state.” In North Korea, the more that Russia provides fuel, food and technical assistance, the less leverage that China would have over North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
Still, there are some areas where China is growing bolder. It is increasingly stepping into Russia’s traditional sphere of influence in Central Asia, pledging more than US$25 billion in investment in the region just in the first half of this year. Xi also recently attended the second China-Central Asia Summit in Astana — a clear signal of Chinese priorities, given that he had been limiting his international engagements.
These realities, not hand-on-heart declarations of “no-limits” partnership, offer the best gauge of bilateral ties. China-Russia relations are by no means on the verge of collapse, but their evolution would reflect political, historical and geographical constraints, not trade volumes.
China still harbors a deep-seated fear of instability along its borders, informed in part by Russia’s own history of territorial aggression. That is why neighboring North Korea, not Ukraine, has more potential to serve as a wedge between the two. It is also why China views the fall of Putin’s regime, and the chaos that could ensue along its border, as an intolerable outcome.
For Russia, the same mindset that drove the invasion of Ukraine also shapes its view of China. The Kremlin is struggling to reconcile growing economic dependency with its self-image as an enduring great power. The nationalist right argues that Western sanctions have forced Russia to become more self-reliant and that this hard-won “autonomy” must not be surrendered. The idea that Russia’s future could be dictated on Chinese terms is anathema to the country’s political elite as well.
That makes Russia’s own vision of the future unpalatable to China, which wants to cement itself as a technological powerhouse and lynchpin of the global economy, not join an alliance of isolated, willfully destabilizing rogue actors.
Ten years after Xi and Putin’s previous Tiananmen meet-up, the images depicting unity cannot hide their countries’ historical mistrust and diverging long-term interests.
Ruby Osman is senior policy adviser on China at the Tony Blair Institute. Dan Sleat is senior policy adviser on Russia and Ukraine at the Tony Blair Institute.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
RSS