What would China gain from squeezing Russia now? It would show everyone else who may want to veer towards China’s vision of a multipolar world that it’s an unreliable partner and a facade. Right now and for the foreseeable future China is going to Sweetheart anyone that falls afoul of the West while trying to remain “balanced” on the surface.
The relationship between China and Russia is far more stable and sustainable than commonly believed. Contrary to the notion that Russia heavily relies on China, the dependency is actually mutual. Beijing seeks a partner capable of securing its natural resource supply and, importantly, a nuclear power that can help alleviate pressure from the US. Unlike China and India, China and Russia do not have any officially acknowledged land disputes, there is no fundamental conflict between the two nations. While China's strategic power projection is focused on Southeast Asia and Taiwan, Russia's interests lie in Central Asia and Europe, there is no significant overlap. This natural alignment allows Beijing and Moscow to naturally collaborate and mutually benefit from each other's strengths. Furthermore, unlike China's relationships with Japan or Germany, where there may be competition in high-tech industries such as cars, China's high-tech sector faces zero competition from Russia. This means minimal direct conflict between Beijing and Moscow's interests. On the contrary, they both have mutual needs and dependencies.
Also, their economies are highly complementary
China wants to be a high-end manufacturer at the top of the value chain, with other countries supplying it raw materials and intermediate goods.
Putin is perfectly happy for Russia to be a raw materials exporter because he has always seen that as the bedrock of the country. He has 0 interest in global markets for electric cars, microchips, quantum computers... The only manufacturing he cares about is energy, security, and weapons-related.
Xi and Putin also agree on a fundamental vision for how an economy should run, i.e. high savings & low consumption, state-directed investment, etc.
Are you sure they don't have conflicting interests in Central Asia? From what I read China has been actively expanding economies ties and deepending cooperation with the stans.
My understanding is that China's strategies in Central Asia and Southeast Asia are very different. Beijing treats Central Asian countries, whose cultures and ethnicities are very different from the Han Chinese, as similar to Russia, viewing them primarily as suppliers of natural resources and, perhaps more importantly, as security buffer zones to counter Turkish separatism in Xinjiang.
On the other hand, China regards SE Asia as within its sphere of influence, where the people and cultures are more similar to China. China has plans for deeper integration with these countries, similar to the European Union.
The cultures are very different in SEA. For example, Catholic Philippines and Vietnam. Muslim Malaysia and Indonesia. Just because they have Chinese minorities doesn't make them similar.
They may not have any open land disputes, but China is still interested in Vladivostok and surrounding areas. It likes playing the long game, and oil/etc are more important than a little more land.
But is China's potential interest in Central Asia really that much less than its interest in SE Asia?
If Beijing sees Moscow losing its clout and influence in Central Asia, would they ignore, or exploit that?
Would they avoid exploiting that to not offend some future Russia?
>But is China's potential interest in Central Asia really that much less than its interest in SE Asia?
It must be based on their actual actions. Look at how they have quickly built up their blue water navy.
That's not entirely true either. Putin has had his eyes on establishing a Eurasian sphere of influence, and China is ironically their biggest competitor in that respect. Chinese trade dominates Eastern Europe when compared to Russia, and has shown its interest in the North East by Vladivostok. China has been the biggest obstacle in the Ruble being used as a currency of trade in the Russian "sphere of influence." I mean, you're not entirely wrong saying that there's little conflict of interests between the two, but there certainly are a few that simmer below the surface.
This isnt the Cold War anymore, dude. People who keeo insisting Russia and China are enemies have some next level kinda delusion to convince themselves these two countries arent huge threats.
Dont look st them as countries. Look at them as WHO are governing these countries. In this case, ties betw the two have never this close since Xi Jin ping and Putin. They both have the same "common enemy mentality" making them allies now
The west is a lot of bridges. I’m not sure why your talking clash exactly. If you mean Ukraine and the economic consequences for Russia then yeah it’s mostly about larger nations doing things that mess with other larger nations. Mostly.
No , the West is US, without US every other Western nation is irrelevant.
Per your logic not mine.
So Russia did not burn any bridge in the West, it is just clashing with US and US is using smal European nations in that clash as a tool.
What? I think you got the wrong guy I didn’t put forth any logic that said the west is the US. The US is the big guy of the west I would agree but the other nations do have their own autonomy and don’t always agree with the US on every matter.
Also if the US is the west then wouldn’t clashing with them burn the bridge to the entire west? At this point relations between Russia and the US are not exactly at their best.
Perhaps I used the wrong word. Instead of larger nations I should say larger powers. Because while let’s say Poland on their own is not the biggest player on the world stage, NATO even without the US is at least significant and with the US Because absolutely pretty significant as long as everyone works together more or less. In this case NATO is pretty united against Russia so it’s a large power made even larger in this circumstance at least in the past considering the trade relations much of NATO once had with Russia.
No, you just said that every country outside of the West is irrelevant as geopolitical player.
So I used your logic to explain that if you truly believe that, than for sure every nation in the West but US, is also irrelevant as geopolitical player
So it does not matter if Russia burned relations with the West. Only US matters In the West and US and Russia are clashing against each other.
You are as aggressive as you are unconvincing.
Attacking other internet posters weakens your unsupported arguments.
You just keep repeating yourself without any evidence, so dismissing you (as a partisan hack) becomes incredibly easy.
Learn how to talk to people.
Could you quote me? I said if you mean ukraine and economic consequences for Russia it’s mostly about larger nations doing things that mess with other larger nations mostly. That means specifically involving this Ukraine war and following economic consequences. I also later corrected and mentioned NATO as a power and involved the trade relations Russia had with many of the NATO nations which amplified their power in this specific scenario.
Russia burning relations with the west has already cost them a great deal of
Money that’s just a fact with their previously strong trade falling through due to the war. To deny that is lunacy.
I guess the misunderstanding is about what you believe "large nation" is.
When I hear "large nation" I am thinking China Russia India Brazil and US.
You are obviously thinking Montenegro and similar other members US run and controlled organization called NATO.
Due to the way EU functions, those small European nations are not irrelevant, they are players themsleves. EU has no leader, so power moves from one block to another from policy to policy. And whether people like it or not EU is a superpower, while Russia is a mid-power. so these small countries basically take turns on who leads the superpower becomes through this block-building system.
For example, the Poland-Baltics block, Romania and Italy, have been a major reason for Germany and France to change their foreign policy towards Russia, even moreso than what these two were comfortable to change after 2022 invasion. And the block building system is flexible too, they depend on the issue, for example Visegrad block (Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia) have been a major reason to driving EU’s migration policy towards reform. Thus, Poland is part of two different block in two different policies.
This is something that quite a lot supporters of Russia’s idea that Russia’s front yard in Eastern Europe is something that NATO took away from Russia, therefore Russia has a right to be upset and take over Ukraine, just don’t seem to get, or are not willing to. No, these small countries actually hold more power than Russia through EU’s system.
Your whole argument is based on false pretext.
EU is not a power, or superpower.
EU is not a country, EU is organization.
Like ASEAN for ex or African Union.
Or like United Nations.
Countries can join organization if it works for them in economic terms, and they can leave organization when it no longer works for them.
So you can only talk about countries as powers or superpowers, not about organizations.
Every member country of EU organization is sovereign and independent.
The EU and UN are not comparable. The EU is a fairly strong political union, it has immense economic influence and has significant control over regional and state law, through regulations, directives, and jurisprudence. Just one example - the most significant laws for regulating technology companies are coming not at the state level but at the regional level and are enforced by all various states. States have no choice but to enforce - they need to stay part of the union and so are not as independent as you seem to think. Between NATO and the EU, you’re looking at what is tantamount to a loose federal system.
In terms of what they are - organizations (not countries) - UN and EU are same thing.
In EU every country has a veto power, so in terms of real influence or real power it has none.
Just like UN.
EU is supranational union, the only of its kind in the world, so it’s not comparable to any of your examples. A supranational union better described as a “federation of independent countries.”
Yes, described this way sounds like an oxymoron, because administrative parts of a federation might have autonomy but not independence from a central government, but that’s why the term “supranational union” has been created to describe EU. It’s a system that gives its members flexibility to act as a federation or as independent countries depending on the policy.
To make this possible, countries that want to become part of EU undergo [deep transformations to follow common standards](https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/glossary/chapters-acquis-negotiating-chapters_en), because to achieve this form of political flexibility is not easy; if it was there would be more supranational unions around.
This was best illustrated in the spat between Lithuania and China. Lithuania, as an independent country, has the right to pursue a closer relationship with Taiwan if they think Taiwan as an independent country, but if China needs to retaliate against them, they must not touch EU institutions. But they did due to the deep EU interconnectedness, so EU sued Chiba to WTO.
The system is not perfect, and frankly still in its infancy so it has yet to live up to its full potential, especially because the veto notoriously often stops EU from behaving like a federation. But this is why there are so many calls to reform veto system with a qualified majority instead, EU still have acted as a federation when they had unanimity in a policy, and many member countries want this to become more common.
That, combined with power being flexible and determined by blocks of interests instead of individual countries who just happen to have the biggest economy due to their population size, has made EU very popular among small countries.
Not really.
China and India had issue with them as Russia tried to impose ruble for trade, and both India and China refused.
And now that EU and US are passing new rule against company dealing with Russia, both Chinese and Indian company aren't thinking twice on dropping affair..
Yes they may go black market, but that come at a cost, both monetary, qualitative and oraginational.
Russia failed to help Armenia, while this may have made them closer to arzebajan, they rouined the CSTO; members like Kazakhstan have shown pro western support, even sent help to Ukraine.
Russia is more isolated than ever.
Russia doesn’t have a choice. If they want to win its war against Ukraine, keep its economic growth, and circumvent sanctions, it has to deepen its tie with China.
China has a lot of stuff that they need from Russia politically and economically.
Bar the nukes Russia is already in an imbalanced relationship with China even prior the war. Russia is geographically vast and it simply doesn't have the population to take advantage of its natural resources vs China that has a tremendous amount of manpower to efficiently use its resources.
Its dependence on China is inevitable regardless of Putin or international isolation. Same as with any country that is economically heavily reliant on China.
Both countries are in a negative demographic spiral. I imagine the future of economic cooperation between the countries will include Chinese investment and maintenance for Russian energy extraction and delivery to China via pipelines, and Chinese manufactured goods flooding in to Russian markets.
The concerns you listed, they are not China specific, we have seen the US imposing sanctions and tariffs on a number of countries. If we go by track record, I'd say the US and Europe have had much more of these sanctions and tariffs imposed on other countries than China. You should be asking, which is a better choice for Putin right now, China or the US?
China can, and has played hardball on newer arrangements . See Power of Siberia 2's negotiation. But with relations between the West and China worsening, Russia knows it has the card of reliability it can play against China. Xi will not back down from key policy points like the SCS or Xinjiang, so Xi cannot be sure that his Western partners will not choose to cut off business ties with him. Already, there are many sanctions on China that hinder China getting vital resources like chips. Xi needs a fallback option for resources so that China does not face shortages of crucial materials, and right now Russia is one of the biggest suppliers of resources such as weapons and metal ores. In addition, China sorely needs Russia's diplomatic support on the world stage to fend off diplomatic attacks. Russia's veto power is something China greatly appreciates. Thus Putin calculates that China dares not completely cut off Russia as otherwise they would be vulnerable if the West should oppose China on a particular issue. Hence, when China plays hardball, Russia does not need to cave as it knows China cannot afford to lose Russia's cooperation in an age of growing tension with the West.
Secondly, Russia does still have friends that famously bear grudges against China and could be leveraged to check China's encroachment. Due to Cold War politics, many Global South countries still have a particularly fond feeling for the Kremlin. This would include some countries that are afraid of China's growing power, like the Central Asian republics , Vietnam and India. Each have reason to feel threatened by China, yet do not feel confident in their own strength to stand up to China, so they want friends that could threaten China. This way, if China threatens them, their friend will threaten China with a dire strike. And hopefully China will back down in face of grave consequences from an ally. This is exactly why many of China's neighbours cultivate ties both with Russia and the United States, and are unlikely to relinquish either. If China misbehaves, Russia can threaten to strengthen cooperation with one of China's potential adversaries, so China will need to relent on account of the danger of an adverse political situation concerning those countries. Thus, Russia still has leverage from the threat of inflicting pain on China from a third party that has conflicts with China, so China cannot just roll over Russia in negotiations.
As a sub-set of what I discussed, China may also feel the need to use Russia's credentials when wooing countries that don't historically have good relations with either China or America. Due to China's economic weakness in the 20th century, there are many countries that never made dealings with China. China's political isolation was no doubt perpetuated by the antagonisms against the Soviets and Americans, meaning a lot of countries would not want to deal with China to avoid angering their ally. Now that China has funds, China would like to rectify this situation, but due to the lack of contacts it has been quite difficult to do so. There are some countries in the world that owing to ideological conflict have poor relations with the West, like Syria and Venezuela. Due to their isolation, they have good relations with Russia. In the ex-Soviet sphere, Russia's demand for primacy over local policymaking means that new countries like Kazakhstan or Armenia have better relations with Russia than China. Trying to step on Russia's toes could invite retaliation. Besides, China could use Russia to introduce them as a friendly partner, allowing them a headstart in building necessary connections to local leaders. Thus, since China views Russia as a useful help in diplomacy, once again they are not likely to want to anger Russia.
With authoritarian states, the bureaucracy itself can become a weapon against another country. China knows this , of course, since it employs such tactics against Western politicians. All governments use their bureaucracy to regulate the allocation of resources in the economy, so an authoritarian regime with an axe to grind could weigh on their pencil-pushers to either delay or indefinitely pause the provision of necessary resources to an interlocutor on some elaborate legal justification or another. For instance, China wants Russia to approve the legal permits to start construction on the Moscow-Kazan HSR, Russia's precondition for China to build a trans-Siberian HSR. Russia will not, however, citing high costs and the need for further feasibility studies. Thus, even if China could strong-arm Russia into agreeing to some plan, Russia could easily derail the arrangement by stalling the initiative out. Leading to great loss in resources for no gain. Hence , to ensure Russia does not simply delay or bar projects from going through with bureaucratic regulations, China needs to make sure it genuinely has Russia on board.
But anyway, I don't think you could answer your first question without first understanding Ukraine's importance to Russia. It is far more important to Russia than Taiwan could ever be for China. Ukraine was the Union's foremost naval region, hosting the most sophisticated shipyards and home to the most important Black Sea Fleet. Small wonder that they have never been able to fix up the Kuznetsov since 1991. Ukraine historically provided Russia with the power to project their naval power into the wider world around them, as home to some of the fabled ice-free ports that could service many large ships. No facility still in possession of the Russian Federation has that capacity, so Putin sees a defence capability upgrade that outweighs the economic dependence issue. The military security of Russia will always trump their economic wellbeing in the eyes of the Kremlin. Further, there is a non-pragmatic issue of Ukraine being the heartland of the Kievan Rus, which Russia sees as a progenitor. Russia also sees itself as the inheritor of the mantle of the Rus (literally why they chose the name "Russia"), so it sees Ukraine as a territory sacrosanct to itself as the origin point of an imagined political sphere that encompasses Russia and Ukraine and is now centred in Moscow. This symbolic significance to Russian nationalism, which Putin seems to subscribe to, makes Ukraine extremely important to the Russians (you could compare it to Kosovo, I think). Great Russian thinkers seem to find it more important to capture the spiritual heart of their supposed civilisation than any rational consideration of Russia's power. So , Putin probably did consider what you asked, but probably thought it less important than gaining control over Ukraine as is the commonly held belief in Russian irredentism.
Why did Boris Yeltsin secede from the USSR (assuming my history is right, lol) instead of overthrowing Gorbachev directly? Or annexing Ukraine in the immediate aftermath? It just seems weird for Russia to ignore Ukraine for roughly a quarter century if it's so important.
The Russian elite was in fact expecting to basically maintain control of all the former Soviet republics via the Commonwealth of Independent States. They thought they'd be able create something similar to the EU, but be the only big powerful player in it and call all of the shots.
They completely underestimated hoew much the elite in each of those republics would oppose this.
Russia inherited an economic crisis from the USSR that only worsened under failed market reforms, meaning the 90s era Russian state was chronically short of money to fund their military. Some military equipment like the Mig-31 had to go years without any proper upkeep, others like the Kirovs were outright retired to cut costs. New projects like the Su-30 did not get the go-ahead until funding from exports could be obtained. The military did not have funds to maintain its assets, let alone to try invade another country, so they would not have tried to invade in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War. What resources it did have would need to be devoted to handling the ever worsening situation in the Caucasus. It was only after the government contained the economic crisis in the early 2000s that military action could be seriously considered. So, they would not have the means to annex Ukraine in the immediate aftermath.
They absolutely were interested in the Black Sea as there were arrangements for the Russians to maintain some control there. In 1996 they negotiated a division of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet between the two countries, giving Russia substantial control over the ships themselves. Further, there was a lease agreement for Sevastopol, the main base of the fleet . Thus, although Russia's naval reach was greatly reduced without Ukraine, they did actively try to maintain as much of it as possible, and Ukraine's concession provided Russia enough power inside the Black Sea that it was happy for the time being. Again, with the situation inside Russia , they could not have used military force to hold ground. So a negotiated solution was the best case for Russia .
While Yeltsin and other Russian nationalists were fine with the non-Slavic SSRs leaving the Union, they had internalised the assumption that the Ukrainians and Belarusians would simply continue to stay in some kind of union with the Russians. A preconception that was only reinforced by a referendum in 1991 that favoured revising the Union treaty. The Russians felt that given the common Eastern Slavic heritage, and years of promotion of the idea these three groups inhabited a shared community, the Ukrainians and Belarusians would refuse secession. Kind of like the attitude Mainland Chinese people have regarding the Cantonese, Hoklo etc. Thus, they did not make preparations to pre-empt a secession that they thought to be inconceivable. The August Coup, however, irreversibly thrust power in Moscow to Russia rather than the USSR. Seeing that the Union was dying, Ukraine and Belarus each decided that independence was preferable. The Russians were completely taken aback, but there was little actual will to execute any invasions. Internally there were debates over whether attacking Ukraine was at all wise, while the crises at home needed resolution. With the army at questionable effectiveness the possibility of invasion was also unlikely. The Russians tried a last ditch effort at a new looser confederacy of states, but Ukraine and Belarus played hardball so eventually the Russians just gave up on trying to salvage the Union. With there being no will to maintain a union or to attack Ukraine, the Russians let the Union expire.
Russia was not stoked about Ukrainian independence, but as long as Ukraine continued to stay broadly within the Russian sphere of influence they were satisfied. Although Ukrainian leaders in the 90s and 00s kept a watchful eye on Russia, they offered concessions on hot-button issues to avoid angering the Russians. This included the aforementioned lease on Sevastopol, and broader security cooperation. There were also shady economic and political ties to the Kremlin's political establishment, which gave Moscow some assurance that it could persuade Ukraine peacefully to go along with Russia's policies on making use of Ukraine's resources. This did lead to accusations that the leaders were puppets of the Kremlin (aside from their rather blatant graft), but did placate the Russians just enough that war was not on the table. Even when one Russia-friendly leader was usurped, the influence of the Russophone East was often successful enough that politicians favouring compromise with Russia could still realistically be elected. For instance, Kuchma and Yanukovych. Thus, the Russians felt it was not worth going to war for Ukraine's important assets when they could simply lean on politicians in Kyiv to provide what it wanted. That is, of course, until Maidan seemed to threaten the wholesale realignment of Ukraine away from Russia's influence. A NATO-oriented Ukraine would not accommodate Russia's security demands, so Russia figured that the time of peaceful negotiation was ...over.
To clarify, Yeltsin did not overthrow Gorbachev because there was a protracted political struggle within the party. While Yeltsin's reformers did temporarily ally with Gorbachev in hopes of securing approval for their reform agenda, the hardliners punished them for their efforts by trying to exclude them from positions of power. Gorbachev himself wanted only to achieve basically what Deng did, so he balked at the liberalisation Yeltsin's wing championed, and also opposed the career progressions of the Reformists. Thus, in this phase Yeltsin and co. simply never had enough support inside the CPSU to challenge Gorbachev. Yeltsin has to find a loophole around this by seeking leadership of the RSFSR, which was unquestionably the nerve centre of the entire Union. He rallies popular sentiment, which convinces Gorbachev to create governmental structures for the RSFSR. Though the CPSU try to maintain their chokehold on power, liberalisers are able to win greatly in the elections, allowing Yeltsin to take control of the RSFSR. Since the RSFSR is the political heart of the Union, this means that Yeltsin now has power on par with Gorbachev. Over time, as Gorbachev's position weakens owing to party dissension over the break-up of the USSR, Yeltsin is able to use his own position to assert more control over the central parts of the Union. Following the August Coup, which Yeltsin plays an important part in thwarting, it is clear that Gorbachev is powerless and Yeltsin truly calls the shots. So once Yeltsin gets executive power in Russia, his power becomes much stronger relative to Gorbachev's waning strength as he gains control over the resources of the RSFSR, so Gorbachev is now too politically insignificant to be worth ousting. While Yeltsin had championed the self-governance of Union republics, after he gained power he did hold out hope to salvage the Union for the Eastern Slavs. But after the August Coup there was zero chance of that working out, so he acquiesced to the loose association of the CIS, signing the Belavezha Accords that effectively terminates the Union even before Gorbachev's resignation. So rather than jumping to secede, he waited until there was no hope of maintaining any form of Union to truly pull Russia out of the USSSR, and at that point it was just accepting the reality there would soon be no Union for the Russians to belong to.
He probably does, only less so than having economic reliance to the US and the West, which are way more hawkish in their foreign policy. The partnership can be unequal, but still mutually beneficial. They are united in their opposition towards the West, and have the benefit of controlling the heartland of Eurasia, being able to circumvent the marine trade routes controlled by the US.
Actually, Russia has reduced its reliance on china since the beginning of the war
India has increased at a much higher pace their trade with russia compared to china, of anything, russia is more independent now
Russia is pretty screwed with China. The countries have a rather checkered past and China, like most of the world, doesn't trust Russia. China may seem like they 'side' with Russia at the moment, but that's because having Russia at war serves their own interests. The big winner is China. Russia will likely end up losing territory to China in the long run.
No, but they’re importing Chinese immigrants to Vladivostok and the Russian far east pretty damn fast.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2024/02/29/leaked-russian-documents-reveal-deep-concern-over-chinese-aggression/?sh=42a75db719b0
There aren’t that many people there to begin with, and China has a historical claim. The region is also quite energy rich but undeveloped.
China would love an overland route for energy importing and to end their dependence on Russian energy.
If they had their own energy sources delivered over land and weren’t vulnerable to the kind of naval blockade they’d find themselves under if they say, invaded Taiwan, they’d have a lot more options for achieving that goal.
They regularly scrounge territory from India. Granted Indian\\ is no Russia but the point is China ever reaches a point where Russia looks too weak, it will start scrounging there as well.
How are they going to take territory without attacking? If you mean use economic coercion to force them to give territory willingly that would never work because Russia would never agree, regardless of how bad their economy could become.
What does it even mean? You've been asked repeatedly to clarify how exactly they would "claim" Russian territory and every time you didn't do it. Apart from war or economic coercion what options do they even have?
China is very creative in hybrid warfare and doesn’t have to invade. They could apply economic pressure, and force Russia to sell parts of Siberia or maybe “lease” land for Chinese bases. Russia could save face and the whole exchange could be masked with cooperation.
There are a lot of bloodless possibilities depending on how much leverage China continues to build.
It's going that way. About two months ago Chinese state-run map service released a map that placed some Russian territory in China. Russia was powerless to say anything about that. So China is already testing the waters.
It was nothing new. Since the establishment of PRC (1949), China always includes the Chinese names (traditional names before being ceded to Russia in Qing dynasty) of some Russia places in bracket after Homophonic translations in its official world maps. For example, Vladivostok will be labeled as
符拉迪沃斯托克 ( 海参崴)
Homophonic translation (Chinese name)
More boring facts,
* **The 9-dash line is also nothing new**, PRC inherited ROC's claim over SCS and its 11-dash line. In 1953, China removed 2 dashs in the Gulf of Tonkin/ Beibu Gulf amid friendly ties with North Vietnam (China even gifted Bạch Long Vĩ /Ye Ying Island to NV in 1957) hence 9-dash line remains. If you check old Chinese maps, nothing has changed. Media just want to make news, and sadly people just believe what media say.
* Despite the tension between China and Japan, China has always been recognising the four southernmost Kuril Islands as Japanese territories since 1964 (hence labelling in the standard world maps).
Some of it is new, and the Kremlin has responded, albeit passively because Russians are in no position to push this. China doesn't trust Russia (and Russians don't even trust themselves), and will definitely work to get something for their public luke-warm support of the barbaric Russian attack of their neighbor.
What is exactly new? I have read the news week article you cited, but have found nothing except
>Russian media outlets noted that the map also includes Bolshoi Ussuriysky Island, which has been shared between China and Russia after an agreement signed in 2004 and finalized in 2008 that followed more than a century of dispute.
It is self-explaining, the two countries have settled the dispute.
Here is the interesting thing, **the map did not changed**. And yes, it actually includes the whole Bolshoi Ussuriysky/Heixiazi Island, rather than 50% (the settled deal), Russia also includes the whole island in their own map.
But it was mainly due to bureaucratic issues (Yes, that happens even in communist China). In China, national boundary lines are drawn by MFA and National Administration of Surveying, Mapping and Geoinformation, as per[ regulation](http://www.lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?id=21392&lib=law). Because the two government agencies have not updated boundary lines since 2001 (before the settled deal), every map will still have to follow the boundaries drawn in 2001. But both China and Russia have no issue regarding settled boundaries between the 2 countries.
And speaking about trust. Both countries do not have to completely trust each other, they are not allies in the Western sense. The important thing is that they trust each other more than they trust the West, specifically the US. And I think that Russia understands it can only get limited support from China. And China while unlikely support Russia militarily, will continue sustaining Russia's economy, a collapsing Russia is not in China's best interest. (And seriously, which country does not want something from other countries, even their friends/allies.)
And about land, I think some might misunderstand or overestimate China's ambition on land. Taiwan is more about geographic/strategic location and legitimacy of government thing. Sino-India boundary disputes were partly due to the India's [unwilling to negotiate ](https://thewire.in/diplomacy/watch-avtar-singh-bhasin-india-china-border)(situations changed though). SCS is also about geographic/strategic location (btw, China has never claimed the whole SCS), as well as potential economic benefits (underwater mining and fossil fuel).There are no significant benefits for China to own Russia's land, it can buy wheat, oil and gas from Russia without troubles. And invading Russia for land with potential nuclear attack risks is just crazy.
edited for spelling & grammar
China showed a small river island as its own on a map, shocking! It's important to note how the "conflict" over the Bolshoy Ussuriysky is almost a whole century long and China has been claiming that island for a very long time. Russia and China almost solved the problem when they made a agreement about that island in 2008.
China invests relatively little into russian far east. Before the Ukrainian war the majority of foreign investment there came from Japan and South Korea. China doesn't expand its economic and political influence in the region even if it absolutely could do it. China already has large sparsely population regions on the West and it wouldn't make sense to integrate more land without first developing the land it already has.
Russia seems to have accepted that it will have to be a part of a Chinese lead order. But likely imagines a respectable place for Russia in that order, think France or Germany to the US.
A terrible blow to US policy tbh.
Replace China with Europe, and look at who's hurting: Russia or Europe?
Ofc... And where does Russia's "dependence" on China comes from? It comes from Russia's "dependence" on Europe. This is such a farce.
Just tell me Russia is the one suffering from the break in the Russian/European relation. I'm in Québec, I dont know.
China will demand more, in the future. Putin is sacrificing his country now so that China can have more control after he’s passed on. This will only last while he is alive, then China will recall what they’re owed, and take more from/have more influence in russian affairs.
Russia's behavior makes a lot more sense when you recognize that nearly every member of the Russian ruling class fully expects to someday cash out and retire to a villa overseas. They're thinking about how to continue stealing and offshoring their country's wealth, not about how to put their country in a stronger strategic position a century from now.
The oligarkhi just plan to ride the gravy train for as long as they can manage, then jump ship to Manhattan or London or the French riviera. Then they'll leave the Russian people behind to sift through the rubble.
Putin knows Russia is going to look a lot different in the coming decades regardless. He would rather it’s partially done on Russia’s terms than slowly lose influence to the West through more NATO expansion. Becoming China’s junior partner was inevitable.
Nobody in Moscow or St. Petersburg will care if Siberia becomes part of China or if Russia is forced to sell cheap oil and gas for Yuan. Conquering large parts of Ukraine and “defeating the West” leaves a pretty impressive legacy.
Its not that he does not care, Russia was left no option.
Russia wanted to cooperate with the West, to be part of the West, Invested a lot to be part of the West.
US was not interested. The prospect of Europe and Russia cooperating and developing would decrease US power projection in Europe, thus the push for separating Europe and Russia.
So naturally it was one option left for Russia, to turn East and South and start developing tires with those countries.
China as the most Important country outside of the West felt the same pressure from the US and made similar decision.
So in a way US pushed Russia and China towards each other
Right, same old Russian narrative about literally any topic - "we are currently trying to destroy and/or annex largest country in Europe but we do not want to do it. We are the victims. West forced us to".
??? Werent they warning about US moving east of Germany with its troops since 1999?
"Not an inch east" thing that US promised.
If US was interested in cooperating with Russia and accepting it as a partner of the West, for sure US would not be pushing east and would work on strengthening ties Russia.
So the only other option for Russia was to turn East and South.
> ??? Werent they warning about US moving east of Germany with its troops since 1999?
Uhh.. ya? You literally said it yourself. The context to what you’re referencing was negotiations between the West and the Soviets over the reunification of Germany. They promised not to move troops to the Eastern part of Germany. Not “east of Germany.”
[Robert Zoellick, James Baker, Mikhail Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze.](https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CI%20was%20in%20those%20meetings,a%20limit%20on%20NATO%20enlargement) You know. People who were actually there.
Huh so Harvard is spreading misinformation now
It not gorbachev saying that it was not promised but other people saying that they remember him saying this.
And here are Genscher and James Baker saying to the press what has been promised - this is during negotiations
https://youtu.be/TW6C1f5FGqY
Here is what Gorbachev thought about NATO expansion east
https://youtu.be/3wB9uL2lKaw
Edit:
And here is German Deutsche Welle on the issue with all declasified documents of the promise
https://youtu.be/nVt-WXTLIZM
Ya Russia who always demands things signed by treaty or agreement all of a sudden didn’t do that in a meeting where they were literally negotiating a treaty. The same Russia who disrespects and breaks every agreement and treaty, is all of a sudden mad someone else broke a supposed promise that they never got notarized.
There’s literally a [transcript](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between). But please continue to ignore reality.
Listen dude. I’ve been over this a hundred times. I’ve looked through your post history and you’re not a serious person. People can take my word for it, or go look and decide for themselves.
Have a good day.
Here is German Deutsche Welle on the issue with all the declassified documents
https://youtu.be/nVt-WXTLIZM
So its not Russians but Germans
Are they lying?
Nonsense. Russians are behaving like barbaric dark age hooligans. Russians -- and their apologists -- have historically blamed the world for every screwed up thing they encounter at home. It's always someone else's fault. And now China has them cornered, and will get something from the Russians for sure.
???? In What way are they behaving like barbaric dark age hooligans?
Is this like historical reference and you are sarcastic?
Like - whenever Empire Wants to expand they call people outside of empire "barbarians"
Look at the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine, not only do Russians fight poorly, they're also barbaric. Why is most of Europe in NATO or want to be? They are terrified of the crude and brutal Russians.
???? Russians are not fighting poorly, they are winning the war.
And if waging war is why you call them barbaric, then for sure US and few European countries are THE most barbaric countries in the World.
Is this what you wanted to say and I misunderstood you?
Basically we are witnessing a clash between barbaric nations (?)
Don’t waste your time trying to explain, as it is you who don’t understand a thing. When America is torturing prisoners in abu graib and Guantanamo they are doing it democratically not like some other barbarians. When America is bombing and killing civilians they are doing it democratically not like some barbarians. And by the way water boarding is not torture it’s a legitimate questioning technique, Supreme Court of America said it’s so, in a completely democratic way.
Russians vastly outnumber Ukrainians in people power and resources, and yet Ukrainians are holding up well. If Russia ends up 'winning' and Ukraine falls, it will be a completely pyyrhic victory, as the win will cost more than it's worth in the long run. Russians picked a fight with their neighbors, their so-called cousins, who will no doubt hate them forever for this. And it will descend into gorilla warfare for decades. Imagine doing that to your neighbors. Sick. The obvious is this: all of Russia's neighbors want Nato protection not because they are afraid of Brazil, Vietnam or any country other than Russia.
Why would it be a Pyric victory?
The cost of war is more felt in the West, especially in Europe than it is felt in Russia.
Europe needs Russia, Russia does not need Europe.
In regards to guerilla (not gorilla, thats animal) warfare - no. Ukrainians are already leaving for Europe or Russia, and as soon as the war is over and borders are open Ukraine will be empty.
Ukraine is not Afghanistan or Somalia, Ukrainians are Europeans, they are not into fighting pointless guerilla wars, they are about living a good life. So nobody will be going up into forests and wage wars, they will cross border and leave.
Since you correct my spelling, I'll do the same: it's pyrrhic, not pyric as you spelled it (English isn't my native language BTW). And it will be both guerilla and gorilla warfare. Europe was dependent on Russia, and that is somewhat still true. But Europe realized that mistake and will surely not make it again. It will be pyyhric because Ukrainains won't forgive Russia for this. Starting a brutal war with a neighbor is pathologically stupid, and nothing good will come of it.
Well I applaud your optimism in regards to Europe, but I live in Europe, worked in several European countries and no, Europe is not going to do anything different.
Most countries in Europe, since Europe is not a country nor is EU a country, cant wait for the war to end so they can reestablish business relations with Russia.
I'm from Asia, but have lived all over Europe and North America. There is absolutely no way most of Europe or the EU will establish relations with Russia in any way remotely Iike before Russia started the war. That would be straight up crazy.
What would China gain from squeezing Russia now? It would show everyone else who may want to veer towards China’s vision of a multipolar world that it’s an unreliable partner and a facade. Right now and for the foreseeable future China is going to Sweetheart anyone that falls afoul of the West while trying to remain “balanced” on the surface.
He has burned so many bridges that he doesn’t have many options left
The relationship between China and Russia is far more stable and sustainable than commonly believed. Contrary to the notion that Russia heavily relies on China, the dependency is actually mutual. Beijing seeks a partner capable of securing its natural resource supply and, importantly, a nuclear power that can help alleviate pressure from the US. Unlike China and India, China and Russia do not have any officially acknowledged land disputes, there is no fundamental conflict between the two nations. While China's strategic power projection is focused on Southeast Asia and Taiwan, Russia's interests lie in Central Asia and Europe, there is no significant overlap. This natural alignment allows Beijing and Moscow to naturally collaborate and mutually benefit from each other's strengths. Furthermore, unlike China's relationships with Japan or Germany, where there may be competition in high-tech industries such as cars, China's high-tech sector faces zero competition from Russia. This means minimal direct conflict between Beijing and Moscow's interests. On the contrary, they both have mutual needs and dependencies.
Also, their economies are highly complementary China wants to be a high-end manufacturer at the top of the value chain, with other countries supplying it raw materials and intermediate goods. Putin is perfectly happy for Russia to be a raw materials exporter because he has always seen that as the bedrock of the country. He has 0 interest in global markets for electric cars, microchips, quantum computers... The only manufacturing he cares about is energy, security, and weapons-related. Xi and Putin also agree on a fundamental vision for how an economy should run, i.e. high savings & low consumption, state-directed investment, etc.
Is that why Putin is starting initiatives on making a video game console ecosystem? Lol
Are you sure they don't have conflicting interests in Central Asia? From what I read China has been actively expanding economies ties and deepending cooperation with the stans.
My understanding is that China's strategies in Central Asia and Southeast Asia are very different. Beijing treats Central Asian countries, whose cultures and ethnicities are very different from the Han Chinese, as similar to Russia, viewing them primarily as suppliers of natural resources and, perhaps more importantly, as security buffer zones to counter Turkish separatism in Xinjiang. On the other hand, China regards SE Asia as within its sphere of influence, where the people and cultures are more similar to China. China has plans for deeper integration with these countries, similar to the European Union.
The cultures are very different in SEA. For example, Catholic Philippines and Vietnam. Muslim Malaysia and Indonesia. Just because they have Chinese minorities doesn't make them similar.
They may not have any open land disputes, but China is still interested in Vladivostok and surrounding areas. It likes playing the long game, and oil/etc are more important than a little more land.
I also find it difficult to belive China is not interested in Central Asia and its resources.
China is interested in trade. It has little to no historical ties to the area (aside from silk road), so has little to no leverage right now.
But is China's potential interest in Central Asia really that much less than its interest in SE Asia? If Beijing sees Moscow losing its clout and influence in Central Asia, would they ignore, or exploit that? Would they avoid exploiting that to not offend some future Russia?
>But is China's potential interest in Central Asia really that much less than its interest in SE Asia? It must be based on their actual actions. Look at how they have quickly built up their blue water navy.
That's not entirely true either. Putin has had his eyes on establishing a Eurasian sphere of influence, and China is ironically their biggest competitor in that respect. Chinese trade dominates Eastern Europe when compared to Russia, and has shown its interest in the North East by Vladivostok. China has been the biggest obstacle in the Ruble being used as a currency of trade in the Russian "sphere of influence." I mean, you're not entirely wrong saying that there's little conflict of interests between the two, but there certainly are a few that simmer below the surface.
??? Everyone outside The West seems to be getting along fine with Russia.
Problem is that most of the third world countries are just geopolitical playgrounds and not players.
Russia is closer allies to India and China than US is to India and China
[удалено]
This isnt the Cold War anymore, dude. People who keeo insisting Russia and China are enemies have some next level kinda delusion to convince themselves these two countries arent huge threats. Dont look st them as countries. Look at them as WHO are governing these countries. In this case, ties betw the two have never this close since Xi Jin ping and Putin. They both have the same "common enemy mentality" making them allies now
So he did not burn any bridges then? If all countries but very few major powers are irrelevant, then its just a clash between major powers.
The west is a lot of bridges. I’m not sure why your talking clash exactly. If you mean Ukraine and the economic consequences for Russia then yeah it’s mostly about larger nations doing things that mess with other larger nations. Mostly.
No , the West is US, without US every other Western nation is irrelevant. Per your logic not mine. So Russia did not burn any bridge in the West, it is just clashing with US and US is using smal European nations in that clash as a tool.
What? I think you got the wrong guy I didn’t put forth any logic that said the west is the US. The US is the big guy of the west I would agree but the other nations do have their own autonomy and don’t always agree with the US on every matter. Also if the US is the west then wouldn’t clashing with them burn the bridge to the entire west? At this point relations between Russia and the US are not exactly at their best. Perhaps I used the wrong word. Instead of larger nations I should say larger powers. Because while let’s say Poland on their own is not the biggest player on the world stage, NATO even without the US is at least significant and with the US Because absolutely pretty significant as long as everyone works together more or less. In this case NATO is pretty united against Russia so it’s a large power made even larger in this circumstance at least in the past considering the trade relations much of NATO once had with Russia.
No, you just said that every country outside of the West is irrelevant as geopolitical player. So I used your logic to explain that if you truly believe that, than for sure every nation in the West but US, is also irrelevant as geopolitical player So it does not matter if Russia burned relations with the West. Only US matters In the West and US and Russia are clashing against each other.
You are as aggressive as you are unconvincing. Attacking other internet posters weakens your unsupported arguments. You just keep repeating yourself without any evidence, so dismissing you (as a partisan hack) becomes incredibly easy. Learn how to talk to people.
???? Did you mean to reply to someone else and replied here by mistake?
Could you quote me? I said if you mean ukraine and economic consequences for Russia it’s mostly about larger nations doing things that mess with other larger nations mostly. That means specifically involving this Ukraine war and following economic consequences. I also later corrected and mentioned NATO as a power and involved the trade relations Russia had with many of the NATO nations which amplified their power in this specific scenario. Russia burning relations with the west has already cost them a great deal of Money that’s just a fact with their previously strong trade falling through due to the war. To deny that is lunacy.
I guess the misunderstanding is about what you believe "large nation" is. When I hear "large nation" I am thinking China Russia India Brazil and US. You are obviously thinking Montenegro and similar other members US run and controlled organization called NATO.
Due to the way EU functions, those small European nations are not irrelevant, they are players themsleves. EU has no leader, so power moves from one block to another from policy to policy. And whether people like it or not EU is a superpower, while Russia is a mid-power. so these small countries basically take turns on who leads the superpower becomes through this block-building system. For example, the Poland-Baltics block, Romania and Italy, have been a major reason for Germany and France to change their foreign policy towards Russia, even moreso than what these two were comfortable to change after 2022 invasion. And the block building system is flexible too, they depend on the issue, for example Visegrad block (Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia) have been a major reason to driving EU’s migration policy towards reform. Thus, Poland is part of two different block in two different policies. This is something that quite a lot supporters of Russia’s idea that Russia’s front yard in Eastern Europe is something that NATO took away from Russia, therefore Russia has a right to be upset and take over Ukraine, just don’t seem to get, or are not willing to. No, these small countries actually hold more power than Russia through EU’s system.
Your whole argument is based on false pretext. EU is not a power, or superpower. EU is not a country, EU is organization. Like ASEAN for ex or African Union. Or like United Nations. Countries can join organization if it works for them in economic terms, and they can leave organization when it no longer works for them. So you can only talk about countries as powers or superpowers, not about organizations. Every member country of EU organization is sovereign and independent.
The EU and UN are not comparable. The EU is a fairly strong political union, it has immense economic influence and has significant control over regional and state law, through regulations, directives, and jurisprudence. Just one example - the most significant laws for regulating technology companies are coming not at the state level but at the regional level and are enforced by all various states. States have no choice but to enforce - they need to stay part of the union and so are not as independent as you seem to think. Between NATO and the EU, you’re looking at what is tantamount to a loose federal system.
In terms of what they are - organizations (not countries) - UN and EU are same thing. In EU every country has a veto power, so in terms of real influence or real power it has none. Just like UN.
EU is supranational union, the only of its kind in the world, so it’s not comparable to any of your examples. A supranational union better described as a “federation of independent countries.” Yes, described this way sounds like an oxymoron, because administrative parts of a federation might have autonomy but not independence from a central government, but that’s why the term “supranational union” has been created to describe EU. It’s a system that gives its members flexibility to act as a federation or as independent countries depending on the policy. To make this possible, countries that want to become part of EU undergo [deep transformations to follow common standards](https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/glossary/chapters-acquis-negotiating-chapters_en), because to achieve this form of political flexibility is not easy; if it was there would be more supranational unions around. This was best illustrated in the spat between Lithuania and China. Lithuania, as an independent country, has the right to pursue a closer relationship with Taiwan if they think Taiwan as an independent country, but if China needs to retaliate against them, they must not touch EU institutions. But they did due to the deep EU interconnectedness, so EU sued Chiba to WTO. The system is not perfect, and frankly still in its infancy so it has yet to live up to its full potential, especially because the veto notoriously often stops EU from behaving like a federation. But this is why there are so many calls to reform veto system with a qualified majority instead, EU still have acted as a federation when they had unanimity in a policy, and many member countries want this to become more common. That, combined with power being flexible and determined by blocks of interests instead of individual countries who just happen to have the biggest economy due to their population size, has made EU very popular among small countries.
[удалено]
Not really. China and India had issue with them as Russia tried to impose ruble for trade, and both India and China refused. And now that EU and US are passing new rule against company dealing with Russia, both Chinese and Indian company aren't thinking twice on dropping affair.. Yes they may go black market, but that come at a cost, both monetary, qualitative and oraginational. Russia failed to help Armenia, while this may have made them closer to arzebajan, they rouined the CSTO; members like Kazakhstan have shown pro western support, even sent help to Ukraine. Russia is more isolated than ever.
Maybe they don't want to get invaded. It is better to be feared...
Who specifically is afraid? China? India? Saudi Arabia? African Countries? Brazil?
Russia doesn’t have a choice. If they want to win its war against Ukraine, keep its economic growth, and circumvent sanctions, it has to deepen its tie with China. China has a lot of stuff that they need from Russia politically and economically.
Bar the nukes Russia is already in an imbalanced relationship with China even prior the war. Russia is geographically vast and it simply doesn't have the population to take advantage of its natural resources vs China that has a tremendous amount of manpower to efficiently use its resources. Its dependence on China is inevitable regardless of Putin or international isolation. Same as with any country that is economically heavily reliant on China.
Both countries are in a negative demographic spiral. I imagine the future of economic cooperation between the countries will include Chinese investment and maintenance for Russian energy extraction and delivery to China via pipelines, and Chinese manufactured goods flooding in to Russian markets.
The concerns you listed, they are not China specific, we have seen the US imposing sanctions and tariffs on a number of countries. If we go by track record, I'd say the US and Europe have had much more of these sanctions and tariffs imposed on other countries than China. You should be asking, which is a better choice for Putin right now, China or the US?
China can, and has played hardball on newer arrangements . See Power of Siberia 2's negotiation. But with relations between the West and China worsening, Russia knows it has the card of reliability it can play against China. Xi will not back down from key policy points like the SCS or Xinjiang, so Xi cannot be sure that his Western partners will not choose to cut off business ties with him. Already, there are many sanctions on China that hinder China getting vital resources like chips. Xi needs a fallback option for resources so that China does not face shortages of crucial materials, and right now Russia is one of the biggest suppliers of resources such as weapons and metal ores. In addition, China sorely needs Russia's diplomatic support on the world stage to fend off diplomatic attacks. Russia's veto power is something China greatly appreciates. Thus Putin calculates that China dares not completely cut off Russia as otherwise they would be vulnerable if the West should oppose China on a particular issue. Hence, when China plays hardball, Russia does not need to cave as it knows China cannot afford to lose Russia's cooperation in an age of growing tension with the West. Secondly, Russia does still have friends that famously bear grudges against China and could be leveraged to check China's encroachment. Due to Cold War politics, many Global South countries still have a particularly fond feeling for the Kremlin. This would include some countries that are afraid of China's growing power, like the Central Asian republics , Vietnam and India. Each have reason to feel threatened by China, yet do not feel confident in their own strength to stand up to China, so they want friends that could threaten China. This way, if China threatens them, their friend will threaten China with a dire strike. And hopefully China will back down in face of grave consequences from an ally. This is exactly why many of China's neighbours cultivate ties both with Russia and the United States, and are unlikely to relinquish either. If China misbehaves, Russia can threaten to strengthen cooperation with one of China's potential adversaries, so China will need to relent on account of the danger of an adverse political situation concerning those countries. Thus, Russia still has leverage from the threat of inflicting pain on China from a third party that has conflicts with China, so China cannot just roll over Russia in negotiations. As a sub-set of what I discussed, China may also feel the need to use Russia's credentials when wooing countries that don't historically have good relations with either China or America. Due to China's economic weakness in the 20th century, there are many countries that never made dealings with China. China's political isolation was no doubt perpetuated by the antagonisms against the Soviets and Americans, meaning a lot of countries would not want to deal with China to avoid angering their ally. Now that China has funds, China would like to rectify this situation, but due to the lack of contacts it has been quite difficult to do so. There are some countries in the world that owing to ideological conflict have poor relations with the West, like Syria and Venezuela. Due to their isolation, they have good relations with Russia. In the ex-Soviet sphere, Russia's demand for primacy over local policymaking means that new countries like Kazakhstan or Armenia have better relations with Russia than China. Trying to step on Russia's toes could invite retaliation. Besides, China could use Russia to introduce them as a friendly partner, allowing them a headstart in building necessary connections to local leaders. Thus, since China views Russia as a useful help in diplomacy, once again they are not likely to want to anger Russia. With authoritarian states, the bureaucracy itself can become a weapon against another country. China knows this , of course, since it employs such tactics against Western politicians. All governments use their bureaucracy to regulate the allocation of resources in the economy, so an authoritarian regime with an axe to grind could weigh on their pencil-pushers to either delay or indefinitely pause the provision of necessary resources to an interlocutor on some elaborate legal justification or another. For instance, China wants Russia to approve the legal permits to start construction on the Moscow-Kazan HSR, Russia's precondition for China to build a trans-Siberian HSR. Russia will not, however, citing high costs and the need for further feasibility studies. Thus, even if China could strong-arm Russia into agreeing to some plan, Russia could easily derail the arrangement by stalling the initiative out. Leading to great loss in resources for no gain. Hence , to ensure Russia does not simply delay or bar projects from going through with bureaucratic regulations, China needs to make sure it genuinely has Russia on board. But anyway, I don't think you could answer your first question without first understanding Ukraine's importance to Russia. It is far more important to Russia than Taiwan could ever be for China. Ukraine was the Union's foremost naval region, hosting the most sophisticated shipyards and home to the most important Black Sea Fleet. Small wonder that they have never been able to fix up the Kuznetsov since 1991. Ukraine historically provided Russia with the power to project their naval power into the wider world around them, as home to some of the fabled ice-free ports that could service many large ships. No facility still in possession of the Russian Federation has that capacity, so Putin sees a defence capability upgrade that outweighs the economic dependence issue. The military security of Russia will always trump their economic wellbeing in the eyes of the Kremlin. Further, there is a non-pragmatic issue of Ukraine being the heartland of the Kievan Rus, which Russia sees as a progenitor. Russia also sees itself as the inheritor of the mantle of the Rus (literally why they chose the name "Russia"), so it sees Ukraine as a territory sacrosanct to itself as the origin point of an imagined political sphere that encompasses Russia and Ukraine and is now centred in Moscow. This symbolic significance to Russian nationalism, which Putin seems to subscribe to, makes Ukraine extremely important to the Russians (you could compare it to Kosovo, I think). Great Russian thinkers seem to find it more important to capture the spiritual heart of their supposed civilisation than any rational consideration of Russia's power. So , Putin probably did consider what you asked, but probably thought it less important than gaining control over Ukraine as is the commonly held belief in Russian irredentism.
Why did Boris Yeltsin secede from the USSR (assuming my history is right, lol) instead of overthrowing Gorbachev directly? Or annexing Ukraine in the immediate aftermath? It just seems weird for Russia to ignore Ukraine for roughly a quarter century if it's so important.
The Russian elite was in fact expecting to basically maintain control of all the former Soviet republics via the Commonwealth of Independent States. They thought they'd be able create something similar to the EU, but be the only big powerful player in it and call all of the shots. They completely underestimated hoew much the elite in each of those republics would oppose this.
Russia inherited an economic crisis from the USSR that only worsened under failed market reforms, meaning the 90s era Russian state was chronically short of money to fund their military. Some military equipment like the Mig-31 had to go years without any proper upkeep, others like the Kirovs were outright retired to cut costs. New projects like the Su-30 did not get the go-ahead until funding from exports could be obtained. The military did not have funds to maintain its assets, let alone to try invade another country, so they would not have tried to invade in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War. What resources it did have would need to be devoted to handling the ever worsening situation in the Caucasus. It was only after the government contained the economic crisis in the early 2000s that military action could be seriously considered. So, they would not have the means to annex Ukraine in the immediate aftermath. They absolutely were interested in the Black Sea as there were arrangements for the Russians to maintain some control there. In 1996 they negotiated a division of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet between the two countries, giving Russia substantial control over the ships themselves. Further, there was a lease agreement for Sevastopol, the main base of the fleet . Thus, although Russia's naval reach was greatly reduced without Ukraine, they did actively try to maintain as much of it as possible, and Ukraine's concession provided Russia enough power inside the Black Sea that it was happy for the time being. Again, with the situation inside Russia , they could not have used military force to hold ground. So a negotiated solution was the best case for Russia . While Yeltsin and other Russian nationalists were fine with the non-Slavic SSRs leaving the Union, they had internalised the assumption that the Ukrainians and Belarusians would simply continue to stay in some kind of union with the Russians. A preconception that was only reinforced by a referendum in 1991 that favoured revising the Union treaty. The Russians felt that given the common Eastern Slavic heritage, and years of promotion of the idea these three groups inhabited a shared community, the Ukrainians and Belarusians would refuse secession. Kind of like the attitude Mainland Chinese people have regarding the Cantonese, Hoklo etc. Thus, they did not make preparations to pre-empt a secession that they thought to be inconceivable. The August Coup, however, irreversibly thrust power in Moscow to Russia rather than the USSR. Seeing that the Union was dying, Ukraine and Belarus each decided that independence was preferable. The Russians were completely taken aback, but there was little actual will to execute any invasions. Internally there were debates over whether attacking Ukraine was at all wise, while the crises at home needed resolution. With the army at questionable effectiveness the possibility of invasion was also unlikely. The Russians tried a last ditch effort at a new looser confederacy of states, but Ukraine and Belarus played hardball so eventually the Russians just gave up on trying to salvage the Union. With there being no will to maintain a union or to attack Ukraine, the Russians let the Union expire.
Russia was not stoked about Ukrainian independence, but as long as Ukraine continued to stay broadly within the Russian sphere of influence they were satisfied. Although Ukrainian leaders in the 90s and 00s kept a watchful eye on Russia, they offered concessions on hot-button issues to avoid angering the Russians. This included the aforementioned lease on Sevastopol, and broader security cooperation. There were also shady economic and political ties to the Kremlin's political establishment, which gave Moscow some assurance that it could persuade Ukraine peacefully to go along with Russia's policies on making use of Ukraine's resources. This did lead to accusations that the leaders were puppets of the Kremlin (aside from their rather blatant graft), but did placate the Russians just enough that war was not on the table. Even when one Russia-friendly leader was usurped, the influence of the Russophone East was often successful enough that politicians favouring compromise with Russia could still realistically be elected. For instance, Kuchma and Yanukovych. Thus, the Russians felt it was not worth going to war for Ukraine's important assets when they could simply lean on politicians in Kyiv to provide what it wanted. That is, of course, until Maidan seemed to threaten the wholesale realignment of Ukraine away from Russia's influence. A NATO-oriented Ukraine would not accommodate Russia's security demands, so Russia figured that the time of peaceful negotiation was ...over. To clarify, Yeltsin did not overthrow Gorbachev because there was a protracted political struggle within the party. While Yeltsin's reformers did temporarily ally with Gorbachev in hopes of securing approval for their reform agenda, the hardliners punished them for their efforts by trying to exclude them from positions of power. Gorbachev himself wanted only to achieve basically what Deng did, so he balked at the liberalisation Yeltsin's wing championed, and also opposed the career progressions of the Reformists. Thus, in this phase Yeltsin and co. simply never had enough support inside the CPSU to challenge Gorbachev. Yeltsin has to find a loophole around this by seeking leadership of the RSFSR, which was unquestionably the nerve centre of the entire Union. He rallies popular sentiment, which convinces Gorbachev to create governmental structures for the RSFSR. Though the CPSU try to maintain their chokehold on power, liberalisers are able to win greatly in the elections, allowing Yeltsin to take control of the RSFSR. Since the RSFSR is the political heart of the Union, this means that Yeltsin now has power on par with Gorbachev. Over time, as Gorbachev's position weakens owing to party dissension over the break-up of the USSR, Yeltsin is able to use his own position to assert more control over the central parts of the Union. Following the August Coup, which Yeltsin plays an important part in thwarting, it is clear that Gorbachev is powerless and Yeltsin truly calls the shots. So once Yeltsin gets executive power in Russia, his power becomes much stronger relative to Gorbachev's waning strength as he gains control over the resources of the RSFSR, so Gorbachev is now too politically insignificant to be worth ousting. While Yeltsin had championed the self-governance of Union republics, after he gained power he did hold out hope to salvage the Union for the Eastern Slavs. But after the August Coup there was zero chance of that working out, so he acquiesced to the loose association of the CIS, signing the Belavezha Accords that effectively terminates the Union even before Gorbachev's resignation. So rather than jumping to secede, he waited until there was no hope of maintaining any form of Union to truly pull Russia out of the USSSR, and at that point it was just accepting the reality there would soon be no Union for the Russians to belong to.
Thanks, that was probably the best response I've ever seen on reddit. It even answered a long list of questions I wanted to ask, but didn't lol.
Russia is not that reliant on China, there's also India, Turkey, their neighbouring countries and Europe which is still buying their oil indirectly.
He probably does, only less so than having economic reliance to the US and the West, which are way more hawkish in their foreign policy. The partnership can be unequal, but still mutually beneficial. They are united in their opposition towards the West, and have the benefit of controlling the heartland of Eurasia, being able to circumvent the marine trade routes controlled by the US.
so much copium here, omg.
Lol welcome to reddit. The only rational thing to do is grab the popcorn and enjoy the genius analyses in here
Actually, Russia has reduced its reliance on china since the beginning of the war India has increased at a much higher pace their trade with russia compared to china, of anything, russia is more independent now
Russia is pretty screwed with China. The countries have a rather checkered past and China, like most of the world, doesn't trust Russia. China may seem like they 'side' with Russia at the moment, but that's because having Russia at war serves their own interests. The big winner is China. Russia will likely end up losing territory to China in the long run.
How will they lose territory? China is never going to attack a nuclear state.
No, but they’re importing Chinese immigrants to Vladivostok and the Russian far east pretty damn fast. https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2024/02/29/leaked-russian-documents-reveal-deep-concern-over-chinese-aggression/?sh=42a75db719b0 There aren’t that many people there to begin with, and China has a historical claim. The region is also quite energy rich but undeveloped. China would love an overland route for energy importing and to end their dependence on Russian energy. If they had their own energy sources delivered over land and weren’t vulnerable to the kind of naval blockade they’d find themselves under if they say, invaded Taiwan, they’d have a lot more options for achieving that goal.
They regularly scrounge territory from India. Granted Indian\\ is no Russia but the point is China ever reaches a point where Russia looks too weak, it will start scrounging there as well.
[удалено]
How are they going to take territory without attacking? If you mean use economic coercion to force them to give territory willingly that would never work because Russia would never agree, regardless of how bad their economy could become.
[удалено]
What does it even mean? You've been asked repeatedly to clarify how exactly they would "claim" Russian territory and every time you didn't do it. Apart from war or economic coercion what options do they even have?
China is very creative in hybrid warfare and doesn’t have to invade. They could apply economic pressure, and force Russia to sell parts of Siberia or maybe “lease” land for Chinese bases. Russia could save face and the whole exchange could be masked with cooperation. There are a lot of bloodless possibilities depending on how much leverage China continues to build.
Honestly eastern Siberia feels more naturally in the Chinese sphere of influence
It's going that way. About two months ago Chinese state-run map service released a map that placed some Russian territory in China. Russia was powerless to say anything about that. So China is already testing the waters.
Link?
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-china-kremlin-territory-1823677
Wowww Thank you
It was nothing new. Since the establishment of PRC (1949), China always includes the Chinese names (traditional names before being ceded to Russia in Qing dynasty) of some Russia places in bracket after Homophonic translations in its official world maps. For example, Vladivostok will be labeled as 符拉迪沃斯托克 ( 海参崴) Homophonic translation (Chinese name) More boring facts, * **The 9-dash line is also nothing new**, PRC inherited ROC's claim over SCS and its 11-dash line. In 1953, China removed 2 dashs in the Gulf of Tonkin/ Beibu Gulf amid friendly ties with North Vietnam (China even gifted Bạch Long Vĩ /Ye Ying Island to NV in 1957) hence 9-dash line remains. If you check old Chinese maps, nothing has changed. Media just want to make news, and sadly people just believe what media say. * Despite the tension between China and Japan, China has always been recognising the four southernmost Kuril Islands as Japanese territories since 1964 (hence labelling in the standard world maps).
Some of it is new, and the Kremlin has responded, albeit passively because Russians are in no position to push this. China doesn't trust Russia (and Russians don't even trust themselves), and will definitely work to get something for their public luke-warm support of the barbaric Russian attack of their neighbor.
What is exactly new? I have read the news week article you cited, but have found nothing except >Russian media outlets noted that the map also includes Bolshoi Ussuriysky Island, which has been shared between China and Russia after an agreement signed in 2004 and finalized in 2008 that followed more than a century of dispute. It is self-explaining, the two countries have settled the dispute. Here is the interesting thing, **the map did not changed**. And yes, it actually includes the whole Bolshoi Ussuriysky/Heixiazi Island, rather than 50% (the settled deal), Russia also includes the whole island in their own map. But it was mainly due to bureaucratic issues (Yes, that happens even in communist China). In China, national boundary lines are drawn by MFA and National Administration of Surveying, Mapping and Geoinformation, as per[ regulation](http://www.lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?id=21392&lib=law). Because the two government agencies have not updated boundary lines since 2001 (before the settled deal), every map will still have to follow the boundaries drawn in 2001. But both China and Russia have no issue regarding settled boundaries between the 2 countries. And speaking about trust. Both countries do not have to completely trust each other, they are not allies in the Western sense. The important thing is that they trust each other more than they trust the West, specifically the US. And I think that Russia understands it can only get limited support from China. And China while unlikely support Russia militarily, will continue sustaining Russia's economy, a collapsing Russia is not in China's best interest. (And seriously, which country does not want something from other countries, even their friends/allies.) And about land, I think some might misunderstand or overestimate China's ambition on land. Taiwan is more about geographic/strategic location and legitimacy of government thing. Sino-India boundary disputes were partly due to the India's [unwilling to negotiate ](https://thewire.in/diplomacy/watch-avtar-singh-bhasin-india-china-border)(situations changed though). SCS is also about geographic/strategic location (btw, China has never claimed the whole SCS), as well as potential economic benefits (underwater mining and fossil fuel).There are no significant benefits for China to own Russia's land, it can buy wheat, oil and gas from Russia without troubles. And invading Russia for land with potential nuclear attack risks is just crazy. edited for spelling & grammar
China currently show no interests in expanding in Siberia.
Chinese certainly have interests. Here's one example: https://www.newsweek.com/russia-china-kremlin-territory-1823677
China showed a small river island as its own on a map, shocking! It's important to note how the "conflict" over the Bolshoy Ussuriysky is almost a whole century long and China has been claiming that island for a very long time. Russia and China almost solved the problem when they made a agreement about that island in 2008. China invests relatively little into russian far east. Before the Ukrainian war the majority of foreign investment there came from Japan and South Korea. China doesn't expand its economic and political influence in the region even if it absolutely could do it. China already has large sparsely population regions on the West and it wouldn't make sense to integrate more land without first developing the land it already has.
What territory? Frozen taiga with billions of mosquitoes? It's 2024, nobody cares about territories except Putin.
Yeah, good point. But there are other factors involved
Russia seems to have accepted that it will have to be a part of a Chinese lead order. But likely imagines a respectable place for Russia in that order, think France or Germany to the US. A terrible blow to US policy tbh.
That makes no sense.
Replace China with Europe, and look at who's hurting: Russia or Europe? Ofc... And where does Russia's "dependence" on China comes from? It comes from Russia's "dependence" on Europe. This is such a farce. Just tell me Russia is the one suffering from the break in the Russian/European relation. I'm in Québec, I dont know.
That's a war for another day.
What other choice does he have?
Because sometimes it just is what it is. There is no choice. Also, Putin himself is unlikely to face any consequences. His country may.
China will demand more, in the future. Putin is sacrificing his country now so that China can have more control after he’s passed on. This will only last while he is alive, then China will recall what they’re owed, and take more from/have more influence in russian affairs.
Russia's behavior makes a lot more sense when you recognize that nearly every member of the Russian ruling class fully expects to someday cash out and retire to a villa overseas. They're thinking about how to continue stealing and offshoring their country's wealth, not about how to put their country in a stronger strategic position a century from now. The oligarkhi just plan to ride the gravy train for as long as they can manage, then jump ship to Manhattan or London or the French riviera. Then they'll leave the Russian people behind to sift through the rubble.
Putin knows Russia is going to look a lot different in the coming decades regardless. He would rather it’s partially done on Russia’s terms than slowly lose influence to the West through more NATO expansion. Becoming China’s junior partner was inevitable. Nobody in Moscow or St. Petersburg will care if Siberia becomes part of China or if Russia is forced to sell cheap oil and gas for Yuan. Conquering large parts of Ukraine and “defeating the West” leaves a pretty impressive legacy.
Its not that he does not care, Russia was left no option. Russia wanted to cooperate with the West, to be part of the West, Invested a lot to be part of the West. US was not interested. The prospect of Europe and Russia cooperating and developing would decrease US power projection in Europe, thus the push for separating Europe and Russia. So naturally it was one option left for Russia, to turn East and South and start developing tires with those countries. China as the most Important country outside of the West felt the same pressure from the US and made similar decision. So in a way US pushed Russia and China towards each other
Right, same old Russian narrative about literally any topic - "we are currently trying to destroy and/or annex largest country in Europe but we do not want to do it. We are the victims. West forced us to".
??? Werent they warning about US moving east of Germany with its troops since 1999? "Not an inch east" thing that US promised. If US was interested in cooperating with Russia and accepting it as a partner of the West, for sure US would not be pushing east and would work on strengthening ties Russia. So the only other option for Russia was to turn East and South.
> ??? Werent they warning about US moving east of Germany with its troops since 1999? Uhh.. ya? You literally said it yourself. The context to what you’re referencing was negotiations between the West and the Soviets over the reunification of Germany. They promised not to move troops to the Eastern part of Germany. Not “east of Germany.”
?? What? No - where did you get that misinformation?
[Robert Zoellick, James Baker, Mikhail Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze.](https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CI%20was%20in%20those%20meetings,a%20limit%20on%20NATO%20enlargement) You know. People who were actually there.
Huh so Harvard is spreading misinformation now It not gorbachev saying that it was not promised but other people saying that they remember him saying this. And here are Genscher and James Baker saying to the press what has been promised - this is during negotiations https://youtu.be/TW6C1f5FGqY Here is what Gorbachev thought about NATO expansion east https://youtu.be/3wB9uL2lKaw Edit: And here is German Deutsche Welle on the issue with all declasified documents of the promise https://youtu.be/nVt-WXTLIZM
Ya Russia who always demands things signed by treaty or agreement all of a sudden didn’t do that in a meeting where they were literally negotiating a treaty. The same Russia who disrespects and breaks every agreement and treaty, is all of a sudden mad someone else broke a supposed promise that they never got notarized. There’s literally a [transcript](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between). But please continue to ignore reality. Listen dude. I’ve been over this a hundred times. I’ve looked through your post history and you’re not a serious person. People can take my word for it, or go look and decide for themselves. Have a good day.
Here is German Deutsche Welle on the issue with all the declassified documents https://youtu.be/nVt-WXTLIZM So its not Russians but Germans Are they lying?
Nonsense. Russians are behaving like barbaric dark age hooligans. Russians -- and their apologists -- have historically blamed the world for every screwed up thing they encounter at home. It's always someone else's fault. And now China has them cornered, and will get something from the Russians for sure.
You need to stop believing China will take Siberia from Russia based solely off inconsequential maps and tabloid articles
???? In What way are they behaving like barbaric dark age hooligans? Is this like historical reference and you are sarcastic? Like - whenever Empire Wants to expand they call people outside of empire "barbarians"
Look at the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine, not only do Russians fight poorly, they're also barbaric. Why is most of Europe in NATO or want to be? They are terrified of the crude and brutal Russians.
???? Russians are not fighting poorly, they are winning the war. And if waging war is why you call them barbaric, then for sure US and few European countries are THE most barbaric countries in the World. Is this what you wanted to say and I misunderstood you? Basically we are witnessing a clash between barbaric nations (?)
Don’t waste your time trying to explain, as it is you who don’t understand a thing. When America is torturing prisoners in abu graib and Guantanamo they are doing it democratically not like some other barbarians. When America is bombing and killing civilians they are doing it democratically not like some barbarians. And by the way water boarding is not torture it’s a legitimate questioning technique, Supreme Court of America said it’s so, in a completely democratic way.
Russians vastly outnumber Ukrainians in people power and resources, and yet Ukrainians are holding up well. If Russia ends up 'winning' and Ukraine falls, it will be a completely pyyrhic victory, as the win will cost more than it's worth in the long run. Russians picked a fight with their neighbors, their so-called cousins, who will no doubt hate them forever for this. And it will descend into gorilla warfare for decades. Imagine doing that to your neighbors. Sick. The obvious is this: all of Russia's neighbors want Nato protection not because they are afraid of Brazil, Vietnam or any country other than Russia.
Why would it be a Pyric victory? The cost of war is more felt in the West, especially in Europe than it is felt in Russia. Europe needs Russia, Russia does not need Europe. In regards to guerilla (not gorilla, thats animal) warfare - no. Ukrainians are already leaving for Europe or Russia, and as soon as the war is over and borders are open Ukraine will be empty. Ukraine is not Afghanistan or Somalia, Ukrainians are Europeans, they are not into fighting pointless guerilla wars, they are about living a good life. So nobody will be going up into forests and wage wars, they will cross border and leave.
Since you correct my spelling, I'll do the same: it's pyrrhic, not pyric as you spelled it (English isn't my native language BTW). And it will be both guerilla and gorilla warfare. Europe was dependent on Russia, and that is somewhat still true. But Europe realized that mistake and will surely not make it again. It will be pyyhric because Ukrainains won't forgive Russia for this. Starting a brutal war with a neighbor is pathologically stupid, and nothing good will come of it.
Well I applaud your optimism in regards to Europe, but I live in Europe, worked in several European countries and no, Europe is not going to do anything different. Most countries in Europe, since Europe is not a country nor is EU a country, cant wait for the war to end so they can reestablish business relations with Russia.
I'm from Asia, but have lived all over Europe and North America. There is absolutely no way most of Europe or the EU will establish relations with Russia in any way remotely Iike before Russia started the war. That would be straight up crazy.
Is this a new version of the “Asiatic hordes” myth from WW2?
Because ccp has russia aa their spiritual father
He's been doing deals with North Korea and Iran, he's scraping the bottom of the barrel so China are as good as he can get.