Some in Washington see Moscow as a “junior partner” to be drawn away from Beijing’s orbit and into its own
It’s just projection as usual from the west.
Western experts often speak about Russia becoming China’s ‘junior partner’ and even a ‘vassal state’. This narrative has dominated nearly all Western discussions about Russia-China relations for a long time.
[…]
Another popular argument in favor of this theory is the difference in the size of the population and economy of the two countries (China’s population is ten times larger than that of Russia, and the same goes for its economy). While this is true in terms of statistics, reducing the complexities of interstate relations to mere statistics is either foolish or a deliberate oversimplification. Firstly, Russia maintains a decisive advantage in other areas, such as military-strategic potential
[…]
US President Donald Trump’s recent attempts to normalize relations with Moscow are interpreted as an effort to replicate the ‘Nixon effect’, but in reverse. In the early 1970s, then-President Richard Nixon’s visit to China strengthened US-China relations amid their shared opposition to the Soviet Union. Now, it is believed that American diplomacy could lure Russia away from China, enabling the US to deliver a strategic blow to China.
However, this comparison does not stand up to scrutiny. Firstly, during the 1970s, China and the USSR were already in a state of confrontation; Nixon’s actions didn’t cause this confrontation, but he capitalized on the favorable circumstances to open up the Chinese market for America and gain leverage in the struggle against the USSR. Today, neither Russia nor China wants to distance themselves from the US. If anyone is to blame for their closer alliance, it’s America itself – which has labeled them ‘existential adversaries’ and, out of arrogance and miscalculation, initiated a policy of ‘dual containment’.
Within this framework of dual containment, the US sees China as a far more dangerous rival and Russia as merely an ‘appendage’ that will align with either the US or China in the struggle for global dominance. However, this isn’t true; this perspective exists solely in the minds of the American elite.
[…]
The Chinese perspective
China sees the escalating tensions in the world and does not want to get involved in a bipolar confrontation – at least, that is China’s official stance. China considers America’s increasing obsession with containing it the result of “a Cold War mentality” and wonders why a profitable economic partnership, which has benefited both nations, should be jeopardized.
Unlike American politicians who believe that China might replace the US as the global leader, the Chinese have a more modest assessment of their own capabilities. They see the struggle for supremacy that unfolded between the Soviet Union and the United States as a cautionary tale. The USSR poured vast resources into this rivalry which, as many Chinese experts note, ultimately exhausted the nation, leading to a deep crisis and the collapse of the USSR.
China is determined not to repeat the USSR’s mistakes. Socio-economic development remains its top priority; foreign policy is considered a tool for advancing this development, but not an end in itself. China believes that expanding economic ties and increasing the significance of former colonies and semi-colonies will inevitably diminish the influence of former colonial powers, particularly the US.
Nothing that revolutionary here.
But I once again have the foreboding thought that if Trump were somehow able to lure Russia into an alliance, perhaps by sacrificing Europe to Russia, specifically abandoning and destroying NATO, letting Russia have Ukraine, etc to show good faith on the part of the US with expendable gestures that it’s not out of the realm of possibility that Russia could foolishly team up with the US at arm’s length against China to contain them. Greed is a defining character of capitalists and those like the Russian capitalists who are tantalized by the idea of imperialism but have never experienced it may find it hard to resist especially if offered real concrete gestures from the US.
This could also be I’m alarmed to say setting the stage for a post-climate change world order where Europe will be as much a liability as anything whereas Russia due to its latitude is poised to benefit or at least survive climate change just like the US from a position of advantage compared to say the UK or Germany. As such the capitalist planners could consider Europe’s useful days limited and be trying to cash out early to get a new and better alliance that helps them more directly against China compared to the EU which despite being subservient has no real help to offer against China. Having successfully blown up EU industry with the Ukraine war and getting them to shoot themselves in the foot further with more military spending and austerity they US may have done all it needs to prevent Europe from being of any use or aid to China in 10 years.
I would assume the Russian govt can’t possibly be foolish enough not to see that:
A) US foreign policy is no longer essentially stable between administrations as it was during the 20th and early 21st century. These friendly gestures from the US are almost certainly very temporary—especially due to Trump’s insane thought that Americans are willing to endure any struggle whatsoever, meaning his people aren’t going to be sticking around in govt for very long after his term.
B) Trump’s own inclination to make these geopolitical moves is largely because of his frustration with Zelensky’s refusal to dish on Biden’s kid.
In US govt presently, the kind people you mention who think about the impact of actions and plan for the future are brought in after arbitrary decisions are made on the basis that the thinkers and planners already agree with the arbitrary decision so will get the job done. What’s happening now in US govt isn’t meaningfully strategic in its planning. Trump is both sundowning like crazy and uniquely empowered in his administration. It’s purely reactionaries being reactionary.
I would assume the Russian govt can’t possibly be foolish enough
Points to decades of broken promises. Points to Minsk 1 and 2. Points to Russia taking so long after 2014 to act even while the US armed them and radicalized their population into Nazism.
It’s not just foolishness, it’s material interests, they would rather believe what’s better for their material interests than make hard and confrontational choices against those who they want to join with (capitalist west).
I do agree that Russia is skeptical given the fact presidents change in the US so don’t think they’ll hop on board right away. But I feel there is a chance in 4 years we abandon any pretext of democratic rule because it’s more useful to do that for among other things having a steady foreign policy plan. As right now the bourgeoisie have been tossing the reigns back and forth between different camps of thinking on the grand plan and I think there might be a faction (the one backing Trump now) that’s decided they don’t have time to fuck around with this show of electoral liberal democracy, with chances of the other camp getting power and wasting time, that having a consistent plan and foreign policy and implementing it without disruption is more important than the electoral theater at home.
Trump won’t declare himself an emperor I’m pretty sure so they’ll still have this thin veneer that oh the supreme court ruled he can be president again so it’s legal and fine and rule of law still applies even if he can operate with incredible latitude beyond that any president has ever exercised and IF they’re doing this they’ll have the fallback of blaming it all on Trump and a few sycophants, that if need be to go back to pretending to be a “democracy” they can just wait for Trump to die or abdicate and set things back the way they were with a triumphant return of a significantly reigned in and more openly reactionary Democratic party to power being used to reassure everyone that era is in the past. So it’s not even something where once they make that choice they can’t go back. Trump as aberration was one of the most popular narratives last time around so it’ll sell to those who want to believe and the rest will mostly be trapped in cynicism and beliefs in the end of history or gommunism failed system propaganda so it hardly matters.
What you’re saying could certainly come to pass, but I don’t think the conservatives are capable of maintaining a stable hold without Trump, not to mention, detente with Russia is possibly the only decision he’s made that’s received substantial pushback from his own party. Americans supporting reactionary ideology certainly isn’t an aberration but Trump himself cannot help but do everything in his power to humiliate any successor he may have, ensuring his political mission doesn’t meaningfully outlive him. Trump is 78 and doesn’t take his health seriously—he’s not long for this world. Hell, I’m not even sure what it would mean to continue Trump’s political mission without him. His only concrete policy positions are racism and anti-lgbt+ discrimination, which was very much already in vogue among conservatives prior to his ascent. Otherwise, everything else is seemingly completely malleable. Even if Trump does manage to get his people behind someone to take over for him, I can’t imagine his supporters will bat an eye at a complete about face on Russia. Friendlier relations with Russia doesn’t excite the base like ending DEI programs, so can be discarded without any major political repercussions.
I think you’re extremely delusional if you think there is more than a 0.01 percent chance of Russia accepting the U.S.'s offer to turn on China. And that’s me being polite. I can’t fault you for thinking that though.
The veneer of democracy in this country is over, for most rational people. Get out while you can.
I think you’re extremely delusional if you think there is more than a 0.01 percent chance of Russia accepting the U.S.'s offer to turn on China. And that’s me being polite. I can’t fault you for thinking that though.
It profits to be skeptical of fair-weather friends. Russia is whether you like it or not, whether I like it or not, whether China likes it or not a capitalist nation that’s been cultivating a reactionary “return to tradition” ideology and culture. In a Marxist sense the only reason for Russia to not betray China is if they believe there are more profits to be made not doing that, if they truly believe the west’s grip on unipolar power being destroyed is their only hope for survival and increasing profits then they’ll stick with China. In recent years because of the west’s attacks on Russia and the strength of the west they’ve been unable to engage in imperialism or really do anything but trade friendship and support for arms sales and returned friendship with the outcasts club of countries the US hates which one might say they’re cynically using to counter-balance US influence and power more than helping ideological friends.
We just don’t know if the west gave Russia a deal that they wouldn’t take it if the US actually gave them real concessions and not just empty promises, if the US said behind closed doors basically they’re going to drop Europe because it’s too “radical” and embrace Russia and they’ll be partners, equal partners in controlling the world and Russia will have its sphere (including the US pushing Europe to allow the election of more Russia sympathetic rabidly reactionary parties) which the US won’t encroach on and the US will have a larger sphere but promises to share some of the exploitation profits from Africa, etc with Russian companies and bourgeoisie.
We just don’t know as well how much the Russian bourgeoisie yearn to be able to go to the west and enjoy their wealth, to do luxury shopping, to attend exclusive events, to own mansions in exclusive locales and park yachts there. They’ve lost all of this. A promise for more wealth and regained access could be enough to sway them.
It’s best to at least consider possibilities like this and keep them in mind when evaluating developments rather than be taken by surprise because we live in denial and have blinders on where we believe the only course forward is Russia sticking with China and the US collapsing. I certainly hope that’s what we see. I’d rather it be so.
I didn’t mean to sound like an asshole, and I’m sorry if I did.
You have very good and reasonable points.
I also agree that while Russia is and very likely will remain a strong friend of China, Russia is probably closer to being a fair-weather friend more than not.
Yet, I think that people are way too skeptical of Russia.
I’m not saying to not be skeptical or to not prepare or plan for if Russia decides to turn against China, or to not prepare for the worst.
But I think that if Russia were to become imperialist, or was secretly hiding it’s goals for decades straight, which is unlikely, it would have done so by now.
Russia for decades has been building mutually beneficial relationships with the rest of the Global South, no doubt following China’s example as well.
And there is no doubt that the Russian government is a far-right shithole cluster, just way more reasonable than the first world imperialist colonialist fascist west.
Elements of socialism are slowly returning to Russia and I’ve read that people are beginning to agitate for the eventual return of socialism and hopefully the overthrow of the oligarchy.
It’s in the Russian oligarch’s best interests to follow Putin’s and China’s leads. It would be incredibly stupid for the oligarchs to betray Russia now, at least without years and years of promises and schmoozing that haven’t started yet, and they would face mass resistance from the Russian populace.
Putin is just one man, and he is a dictator, but he and his administration and supporters somewhat keep the oligarchs in line.
I didn’t mean to sound like an asshole, and I’m sorry if I did.
You’re fine comrade. You came off strongly but you’re passionate about it, you went to the top but not much over and I understand.
Yet, I think that people are way too skeptical of Russia.
Perhaps. I’m skeptical in general so don’t take it as too much of a slight against Russia in my case. I was rooting for them month 1 of their fight back against the west but it’s given me much to chew on. I even worry about the planners in China and the penetration of liberalism there. I hope it’s being combated, I think there are those trying but only time will tell. As to Russia, they’re non-AES, actively pushing reactionary ideology to recuperate and erase their socialist past specifically against women’s rights and sexual minorities and Putin is a moderating influence from what I can see. I read RT frequently. I know they do tend to at times highlight fringe reactionary figures for stories but they also have more prominent people who write opinion pieces (that RT just translates for English speakers like myself) and their thinking is often not great. I’m not going to pretend to be the Russia-understander but from where I sit in the west things are not going in the right direction in Russia in terms of superstructure but they’re not going as badly as they could be either.
I hope Putin lives another 10 years just for stability’s sake.
As to the return of socialism. It would be nice, it would be great but it seems a tall order in the near future. Hope springs eternal.
I think that while improvement is always possible, I think that the Communist Party of China is nearly perfect. They have a very strong work ethic and goals and are willing to take and adjust ideas from everyone, while still having resolute ideals, and the party self-corrects to root out neoliberalism. I think that liberalism is kept at a distant reach in China, from my years of study. Not discarded or dismissed, but kept at a distance.
It pisses me off that Russia elevates often reich-wing figures and concepts as well.
I think that in terms of economic superstructure, Russia is definitely moving in the right direction. It’s socially/politically speaking that concerns me.
I know what it’s like to be a skeptical person, for what it’s worth.
I hate Putin and I think he is definitely a dictator, but he is also Russia’s best option for now.
There’s no way for the us to give Europe to Russia in any meaningful way. Russia cannot militarily invade and defend that much territory. Russia cannot destroy the meager production of Europe and become it’s dominant producer of commodities. At best, Russia could create free trade agreements that lock the European economy into dependence on Russia, but it doesn’t really need an alliance with the USA to do that and it can’t get any guarantees from the USA that will ensure continued trade dominance.
I don’t think the USA has anything it can give to Russia. It can only agree to not take, which requires a level of trust the USA has eroded entirely.
There’s no way for the us to give Europe to Russia in any meaningful way.
Economically. More-over neutralizing them, leaving them vulnerable so they have to abandon the hawkish Russia hating rhetoric and resume trade and acting reasonably including cultural exchange and assumedly the ability for the Russian bourgeoisie to live in and enjoy their wealth in Europe again.
More than that, pro-Russian, reactionary parties are gaining ground in Europe, displacing the set up to fail liberal fanatics that the US has left in a real bind over Ukraine. The US could stop this, could alter European election outcomes, or they could do what Musk and Trump are doing which is attacking European liberals and demanding the open reactionary parties not be suppressed. That would be a positive for Moscow.
Economically is so abstract that it’s reversible. This is why I said the USA can’t give it. What’s it gonna do, promise to not sanction people? Promise not to bomb centers of production? Promise not to build competition? None of these things are things that the US can “give” as a thing that would cause Russia to break its relationship with China.
Those reactionary parties are in Europe are not Pro-Russian in the sense that Russia would benefit enough to end a relationship with China. Those reactionary parties share a history with the EuroFascists that invaded Russia and killed millions.
These things you have just said demonstrate that the US has nothing it can give to Russia to convince it to join the Empire.
The only thing that gives me some solace, for now, is that SCOTUS hasn’t entirely abandoned the pretext of the constitution still existing. If Trump wins on ending birthright citizenship though, all bets are off. The reason I say that is that as of right now, there’s still national elections in 2026 and 2028 that could, theoretically, install a new regime that would immediately turn their back on Russia again and Russia knows it. They also know that even with change in leadership, if Xi steps down or is removed, the next leader is less likely to be as flakey as USA politicians are.
Now, if SCOTUS decides that birthright citizenship is over and effectively abandons any pretext of the rule of law, we’ll be truly witnessing a fascist dictatorship (I do think that this is a fairly likely scenario) and then I think that Putin would be more likely to engage in your line of thought.
I don’t think birthright citizenship would be the be-all-end-all moment you think it is, and I’m skeptical anymore that there will be any one single “oh shit, we crossed the Rubicon” moment for the U.S. Empire.
I don’t like to make a big deal about my race, but if it helps, I’m Latino, and being an Amerikkkan citizen, I feel like a Jew hiding from the nazis right now.
For me personally, the extremely thin veneer of democracy that the U.S. used to have, is now over. After Trump pushed through the executive order that basically makes him and the executive branch more powerful than a fucking king, I considered this country dead.
There is no fucking way that Russia will be schmoozed by the U.S. That ship sailed fucking years ago.
Thus, the more logical conclusion is the one that directly counters Marco Rubio’s assertions. First of all, China doesn’t want to get too close to Russia; rather, it aims to keep it at a certain distance while maintaining friendly, cooperative ties. Second, the partnership between Russia and China is not a destabilizing factor in global politics. On the contrary, it represents one of the foundations of a new world order where great powers strive for mutual, equitable partnerships that respect sovereignty and refrain from imposing their values on others.
Interestingly, this same model could apply to the Americans if they were to abandon their ambitions of being the ‘global policeman’ and a moral compass for humanity, and stopped categorizing countries as ‘bad guys vs good guys’. Then, America could finally prioritize the interests of its own citizens, who are much more concerned about improving their living standards (which have significantly declined lately) than starting color revolutions around the world or countering an imagined Russia-China alliance.
Love it.
Interestingly, this same model could apply to the Americans if they were to abandon their ambitions of being the ‘global policeman’ and a moral compass for humanity, and stopped categorizing countries as ‘bad guys vs good guys’. Then, America could finally prioritize the interests of its own citizens, who are much more concerned about improving their living standards (which have significantly declined lately) than starting color revolutions around the world or countering an imagined Russia-China alliance.Love it.
Of course the author perhaps doesn’t understand why this could never apply. Because US capitalism is dependent on super-profits of imperialism and hegemonic control and exploitation of the rest of the world, equality threatens the very existence of the US as a capitalist empire.
True. I still like the rhetoric of it though, from the standpoint of highlighting the contrast in global powers and their characteristics.
Russia has economic dependence on China. Their focus are completely different. Because where Moscow and the core population is situated, Russian focus is European. China’s is in East Asia and Indo-Pacific. The two don’t invade each others space. This is different with US where it has military bases in Europe taking up defense of the European NATO countries effectively determining policy. An alliance between China and Russia would have Chinese military bases in Russia forwarded toward adversaries.
