Not Really Shipmates
China and Russia are holding joint naval exercises in the Yellow Sea. This comes at an interesting time. China has been involved in a serious of confrontations with virtually every nation bordering the South China Sea, including one currently ongoing with the Philippines. Chinese obstreperousness has had an effect quite the opposite of what its leadership likely intended. It has driven all of these littoral nations into deeper relationships with the United States.
China is a striving naval power, and Russia is a declining one, so Russia is definitely playing Sancho Panza in these exercises. Moreover, China and Russia are rivals in many spheres. Russia is deeply concerned about China’s rise, and the threat that poses to its vast Siberian territories. Moreover, China’s rise, and Russia’s absolute and relative decline, is deeply humiliating to Russia. For its part, China believes that it should exercise far more influence than Russia, given its greater economic heft. There are also longstanding grievances between the countries, and China in particular has a very long memory.
Consequently, these joint exercises (like other ones the countries have put on) don’t presage the development of an enduring alliance based on deep common interests. There are more points of contention than common goals. But in the short run, both share an antipathy for the nation they perceive to be the hegemon that is thwarting their ambitions. So they can come together to form a common front against the US.
But if anything, this is only likely to reinforce the concerns that east Asian nations have about China. Moreover, the decrepitude of the Russian fleet makes this gesture purely symbolic. Even if this is more than just a one-off display of solidarity against the US, Japan, South Korea, and other American allies in the region, it will have virtually no effects on the balance of sea power in Asia.
Everyone knows that about the only thing that China and Russia have in common is a desire to overcome American hegemony, especially in areas they perceive to be their special spheres of influence. These exercises are merely a reflection of that well-known fact, and little more.
I am NOT concerned by China’s “threat” to Siberia (because I’m not a paranoiac) or feel humiliated by its rise (because I do not have superiority complexes).
I would say that based on my reading of Internet comments, and general political rhetoric, Americans are a lot more Sinophobic than Russians. I suspect that much of this post is based on projection.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 23, 2012 @ 10:30 pm
(because I’m not a paranoiac) (because I do not have superiority complexes)
Are you sure about that?
Comment by Basilisk — April 23, 2012 @ 10:41 pm
Yeah. Americans are so much more Sinophobic than Russians. Uh-huh. “Internet comments.” Wow. What a source. No selection bias there, no siree! Uhm, tell me where Chinese people are far more accepted on a personal and professional level. Hint. Take a look around the Bay area.
And would you give the “phobic” crap a rest? You are just a phoba-phobe.
Glad to see that you are working out the identity issues. By becoming an obnoxious Russian chauvinist. Living in Berkeley.
Yes, they are trying to band together to hedge U.S. power, but no, these two characters have never been able to follow through effectively on anything together. It’s merely political farce. China has already stolen everything they need from Russia and who is going to be the alpha male in this relationship, a country of 1.4 billion or a country with 143 million? As for Siberia? I’ve actually failed to come up with a reasonable prediction. I think whatever may happen will be slow. Gradual migration may cause problems, but it could actually help the Russian economy. It’s a double-edged sword.
Comment by Howard Roark — April 23, 2012 @ 11:43 pm
> I am NOT concerned by China’s “threat” to Siberia
– an armchair warrior safely out of reach of People’s Liberation Army, why would you be?
Comment by Ivan — April 23, 2012 @ 11:54 pm
[…] China and Russia are playing […]
Pingback by FT Alphaville » Further reading — April 24, 2012 @ 1:33 am
* Because Russia has a lot of things called “nukes”
* Because China does not have much of a history of imperialistic expansion
* Because China and Russia have good relations
* Because China’s strategic posture is directed towards SE Asia
* Because Russia has nukes, oh wait, I already mentioned that. It’s a rather big factor though.
* Need I go on?
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 24, 2012 @ 2:17 am
No selection bias there, no siree!
I read a wide variety of news, both in English and Russian, and occasionally Chinese as I’m learning the language, and it is absolutely clear that American and Chinese views of each other are more mutually negative than Russian and Chinese views of each other.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 24, 2012 @ 2:29 am
I would also note that it is ironic (and hilarious) in the extreme that I’m the one being called a “Russian chauvinist” and “armchair warrior” for NOT being a paranoid wingnut as regards China.
I do however appreciate the “phoba-phobe” title. I don’t like bigots, and it feels extra genuine coming from one. 🙂
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 24, 2012 @ 2:36 am
He is neither paranoiac nor has superiority complexes, but just a little brat in need of constant attention (and obviously he gets it) and discharging his discomfort associated with his own identity struggle.
He has nothing to do with Russia and Russians. He is not representative of them in anyway other than superficially. It is just a subject of choice for asserting his overblown ego.
While there are plenty of pro- and anti-establishment sentiments in all layers of the Russian society, none of the arguments that he advances in this forum spring out of these sentiments. He is a chip imitation of a Russian-patriot wannabe – one that wantes to be accepted.
I wonder why I am even bothering… I guess his squeaking is at times getting to me, too… But I will try to stay away in the future – much like in the past … 😉
Comment by MJ — April 24, 2012 @ 6:17 am
He is neither paranoiac nor has superiority complexes, but just a little brat in need of constant attention (and obviously he gets it) and discharging his discomfort associated with his own identity struggle.
He has nothing to do with Russia and Russians. He is not representative of them in anyway other than superficially. It is just a subject of choice for asserting his overblown ego.
While there are plenty of pro- and anti-establishment sentiments in all layers of the Russian society, none of the arguments that he advances in this forum spring out of these sentiments. He is a chip imitation of a Russian-patriot wannabe – one that wants to be accepted.
I wonder why I am even bothering… I guess his squeaking is at times getting to me, too… But I will try to stay away in the future – much like in the past … 😉
Comment by MJ — April 24, 2012 @ 6:19 am
sorry for the double post… had server problems…
Comment by MJ — April 24, 2012 @ 6:19 am
Because China does not have much of a history of imperialistic expansion
There are Tibetans, Indians, Taiwanese, and Vietnamese who would likely argue with that.
Comment by Tim Newman — April 24, 2012 @ 6:24 am
The communist imperialism are no problem for the funny Berklye Boy -As long er the Putin-mafia can make profitt – Some Uighurs call China’s presence in Xinjiang a form of imperialism, and they stepped up calls for independence — sometimes violently
East Turkestan, and at the end of the 19th century most of its territory was conquered by the Quing Empire. In 1884, a Chinese province with the name Xinjiang (or “New Frontier”) was created out of this territory. Although the borders between Russia and China were drawn, the Islamic people who had been living on both sides of the south of Soviet Turkestan and the north and west of China made it difficult to keep these borders under control.
http://the_uighurs.tripod.com/ChineseCultPolicy.htm
Sino-Soviet border conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_conflict_(1929)
Comment by Anders — April 24, 2012 @ 7:53 am
One hypothesis is that China is willing to work with the Russians because they no longer see Russia as any kind of threat. Russia’s willingness is explained in that it makes a proud nationalistic noise without costing much, and dissuades the Chinese from being tempted to directly take over the eastern empire (they are doing it by economic development).
Russia is about the only State on the Chinese border that doesn’t hate them or fear them (openly); it has been a mainstay of the Chinese press that America is surrounding China with enemies (kind of sounds Soviet, doesn’t it?). While this may or may not be true, let us not underestimate China’s own success in making enemies: The destruction of Manchuria which was an independent state until the Manchus took over China (the Ch’in Dynasty), India, a war and occupied territory, the Han – ification of Tibet and the western provinces, the attack on Vietnam, The support to the end for Pol Pot, etc. etc.
The mention that China has not been an imperial power is ridiculous – Whenever they have been able to they have, unless it was viewed as too dangerous. Look at he expansions under the Eastern Han, T’ang and Sung dynasties which created the area we now call China.
Prior dynasties had been also very aggressive in expanding beyond what we would recognize as China today. Included are an occupation of most Indo China (how do you think it got that name?) – hence the historic hatred by the Vietnamese, who kicked them out. The shut down of foreign expansion that occurred during the Ming dynasty was possibly a decision based on the fear of loss of control: Ming policy, which had begun with great explorations and fleets was shut down(the exception being the subjugation of Taiwan), was a policy carried on by the Manchus, and at great variance to the historic openness and sometime aggression of prior dynasties. By the 1780’s, When Lord McCarthy was told that China was closed, the Manchu bureaucrats new they were in trouble. Within 30 years the first visible disasters began – Heavy trade penetration from and enrichment of Canton (a center of anti Manchu plots), the Opium war followed by the Taiping rebellion, and so on until the collapse in 1911.
In other words for most of it’s recent history China has been unable to carry out any imperial ambitions – this changed with Mao, until internal strife stopped it again. Now they are feeling their oats, they are left wit only the Russians as friends: not a great place to be.
Finally the thing that connects Russia and China besides a hatred of everyone else is the need for an enemy: what better way to divert attention that braying against the foreign aggressors?
Comment by sotos — April 24, 2012 @ 8:25 am
knew, not new, sorry.
Comment by sotos — April 24, 2012 @ 8:26 am
in that spirit, cheap, not chip… 🙂
Comment by MJ — April 24, 2012 @ 9:30 am
S/O-that defense was risibly absurd and weak, even by your standards. You selected the websites, a process that is beset by myriad biases, even if unintentional. And websites generally are not a representative sample of opinions or beliefs.
Let’s look at behavior. How many Americans adopt Asian, and specifically Chinese, children? What about rates of intermarriage? What about acceptance at colleges and universities? One could go on and on.
S/O-since you are so fond of “phobaphobe” let me remind you that a phobia is an irrational fear. You accuse people of phobia because they disagree with you. It’s a cheap and dishonest rhetorical trick.
And re my being a bigot. You don’t even know me, so your trash talk is just that, and says far more about you than me.
I suggest you read MJ’s comment quite closely. He knows of what he writes. From experience. Experience that you would be a fool to gainsay, which of course means that you will.
@MJ – I don’t think you really made an error – “cow chip” is the natural path in any sane person’s gestalt when thinking of our buddy.
Comment by sotos — April 24, 2012 @ 11:33 am
And I should heed MJ why? Amateur psychoanalysts spewing their diarrhea from anonymity are a dime a dozen.
Let’s look at behavior. How many Americans adopt Asian, and specifically Chinese, children? What about rates of intermarriage? What about acceptance at colleges and universities?
Apples and orages and you (probably) know it. Asian-Americans are 5% of the US population (Chinese-Americans: 2%). Chinese in Russia are about 0.1%-0.2% of the population. Of course they will be far less prevalent in Russian everyday life.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 24, 2012 @ 11:48 am
Russians treat anyone who looks Asian as a second class citizen. Only someone who has never lived in Russia would deny this truth. Doesn’t the University of California, Berkeley have a very high Asian student body? Is there a university in Russia with comparable admissions?
Mocking MJ. Indeed. You just never know when to stop embarrassing yourself, Anatoly. Some of us are growing very tired of your games.
Comment by Basilisk — April 24, 2012 @ 11:57 am
Normally, I don’t comment on S/O’s rants mainly because I understand he’s a Russian nationalist who interprets things from a realist great power perspective. It predicts 99% of the things he says, and so I also ignore any of his obviously self-serving tu quoque arguments. But his arguments in favor of China seem very bizarre.
First, if Russian possession of nukes means it can afford good relations with China, they why doesn’t possession of those nukes create good relations with Georgia or Estonia? Why does it view the US as a threat? Seems like having nukes alone doesn’t mean Russia can’t feel threatened.
Second, it is untrue that China does not have a history of expansion. While it has remained in its core area for thousands of years, it has attacked and invaded lots of foreign lands – such as Korea, Vietnam, and Turkestan – historically. Furthermore, a substantial amount of Russian land is in areas historically claimed by China – anything south of the Amur river as well as Tuva. Now I don’t believe the PRC makes any existing claims to these areas, but claims can be renewed. Given the rise of China and relative decline of Russian power, and that Beijing has used Chinese nationalism to whip up support in defense of its rule (something autocratic powers do when faced with decline in support), this gives a reason to be concerned. Maybe not to the point where it would affect foreign policy at the moment, but at minimum something to consider. One doesn’t know how Chinese nationalism will continue to develop. Will it remain satisfied as is, or become irredentist at some point?
Third, while China and Russia currently have good relations, it does not mean that future foreign policy will ensure those good relations. It depends on what happens in the future. Since foreign policy is based on pure political interest, the question is whether it’s possible that the interests of both countries will remain as they are now, or if there are areas where they will diverge as China’s relative power to Russia grows.
Fourth, Chinese foreign policy certainly has a current priority on Taiwan and SE Asia. It also has strong interests in Central Asia (which Russia also considers critical)sine historically China has been involved there, and it provides access to energy assets there and as transit route to the Middle East energy supplies. Currently, both China and Russia have seen it is in their best interest to cooperate there. So China doesn’t directly challenge Russian influence there. But this seems likley a future area of contention.
Fifth, the Chinese have nukes too.
Russian comity with China and antagonism against the US is based on one thing, the US support of democratic norms, while China doesn’t care at all how Russia is ruled. One potentially undermines the control of Russia (and China) byt its current rulers, and the other doesn’t. It’s similar to the Holy Alliance/Three Emperor’s League of 19th Century Europe when the Tsar allied with Berlin and Vienna against the liberal powers of Europe to preserve their autocratic powers. In the end, that didn’t turn out well. Political interests of the leadership classes in all three countries were outmatched by popular, nationalist feelings that saw the Germanic and Slavic peoples as being antagonistic. The rise of German power relative to Russia generated fears that eventually consumed Russian (and German) foreign policy.
It’s not 100% certain similar fears will generate such tension and antagonism in the coming decades between China and Russia, but it is a serious possibility. What happens when one of the Central Asia countries “defects” from Russia to China (in terms of which country has the most say over the others policies)? It’s almost bound to happen (I predict at least one country will become noticeably more pro-China than pro-Russian sometime in 2020s). It doesn’t mean that the country has become anti-Russian, but it would go against Russian commercial interests, be somewhat humiliating, and encourage future “defections”. It could be the 21st century’s version of the Balkan crisis if handled poorly.
None of this makes China an enemy of Russia, or says that antagonism is destined. It simply means China and Russia have a lot less in common and more future areas of contention than on first appearance.
Comment by Chris Durnell — April 24, 2012 @ 12:04 pm
“Diarrhea”-how mature. Imitating your hero again. What next? Threats to drown people in the shithouse?
And Asian-Americans are 5 percent of the population . . . precisely because we are not Asia phobic. God you are a moron.
And re MJ. Like I predicted. You would indeed be a fool and gainsay MJ. Like I said, he has experience and wisdom that you could never even hope to attain. It’s certainly your right to ignore his observations. You’ll be the worse for it. Not that I care.
I think that the vituperative vulgarity of your response just indicates that he hit very close to the mark.
And insofar as anonymity is concerned, and speaking of wisdom, people are quite wise to retain their anonymity from the likes of you and your ilk.
And Asian-Americans are 5 percent of the population
I said Sinophobic, first. Second, as regard China as a state, not Chinese people, as should be quite clear from the context of my post.
The rest of your scurrilous associations are unworthy of a response. It is I who got (unsolicited) hate mail from a person connected with the SWP Hive, not the reverse.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 24, 2012 @ 12:26 pm
First, if Russian possession of nukes means it can afford good relations with China, they why doesn’t possession of those nukes create good relations with Georgia or Estonia? Why does it view the US as a threat? Seems like having nukes alone doesn’t mean Russia can’t feel threatened.
Because what you are speaking of is a prospective Chinese land grab of Siberia, which is the (extremely unlikely) scenario in which nukes will come into play.
Obviously Russia is not going to use nukes against Estonia for oppression its Russian minority, or Georgia for trying to massacre the Ossetians and Abkhaz.
Second, it is untrue that China does not have a history of expansion. While it has remained in its core area for thousands of years, it has attacked and invaded lots of foreign lands – such as Korea, Vietnam, and Turkestan – historically.
It’s the scale that matters. When Europeans went forth they tried to subject all the peoples of the world. When the Chinese went forth, e.g. under Cheng Ho, they made do with symbolic tribute.
Unlike most of the Europeans, they did not massacre the indigenous inhabitants of Taiwan when they settled it.
It’s not 100% certain similar fears will generate such tension and antagonism in the coming decades between China and Russia, but it is a serious possibility. What happens when one of the Central Asia countries “defects” from Russia to China (in terms of which country has the most say over the others policies)?
That might well be a source of tension in the future but what does that have to do with the military dimension which is the object of the SWP Hive’s paranoia (or more likely hope… now that I think about it, they’d love nothing more but for China and Russia to nuke each other into oblivion).
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 24, 2012 @ 12:43 pm
S/O. Don’t be such a weasel. Seriously. Americans could be accepting of Asians, but Sinophobic? How does that work exactly? And Sinophobia relates to China as a state? Really? So I guess whenever you claim that I am Russophobic, that means that I am just being critical of the Russian state, but not of Russians as a people? Which is in fact true, but definitely not the way you use the term.
OK, Humpty-dumpty. Words mean just what you want them to.
Putlers shithous philosopher on Berkleye are thinking or just projects his own dark approach ? now that I think about it, they’d love nothing more but for China and Russia to nuke each other into oblivion . The sinistre and cynical approach of Putlers serfs are to well known
Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings .
Almost unknown is the genocide of 2 million of the USSR’s Muslim peoples: Chechen, Ingush, Crimean Tatars, Tajiks, Bashkir, Kazaks. The Chechen independence fighters today branded “terrorists” by the US and Russia are the grandchildren of survivors of Soviet concentration camps.
Comment by Anders — April 24, 2012 @ 1:44 pm
You are the weasel.
Your Hive constantly calls me anti-American, even though I only ever speak of the US government. One can however find any number of examples where you launch hate-filled tirades against the Russian 99%.
PS. Acceptance rates at universities are irrelevant. They are higher for Asian-Americans because on average they have high rates of educational attainment. Once those are adjusted for, Asians actually have a harder time getting in than average Americans because of affirmative action.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 24, 2012 @ 1:50 pm
Mr. Oblivion: You really don’t know when to shut up, do you?
Comment by Basilisk — April 24, 2012 @ 2:27 pm
Need to work on the comebacks, Anatoly. And your revisionism is rather tiresome.
Re acceptance rates. High educational attainment is not solely caused by (obviously), but does reflect, social acceptance.
Hey, don’t stop him now – he is on a roll. Internally contradictory arguments (I am not criticizing Americans just the government – and your all anti Asian racists), projection ( You would love to see the Chinese and Russians nuke each other – no mass destruction genocide and promoting conflict is your (Putinesque) bag, scatology (diarrhea, etc.), Ad hominem attacks (if I am part of a hive -where is the damned honey?) – the list goes on and on. It is like watching a one man psychological demolition derby – can he really be so oblivious to the ass he is making of himself? This is a lobotomized illustration from the picture book version of Civilization and It’s Discontents.
Comment by sotos — April 24, 2012 @ 2:58 pm
Re acceptance rates. High educational attainment is not solely caused by (obviously), but does reflect, social acceptance.
So by your own logic, Americans viciously hate and repress Blacks and Hispanics (whose levels of educational attainment are far below those of whites and Asians). Weird, coming from a Republican.
@sotos,
I did not say Americans are racists. I said they are Sinophobic, and online Chinese are fairly Americanophobic (relative to Russian – Chinese relations).
And just who started with the ad homs? Why, you lot: SWP Hive for short.
By becoming an obnoxious Russian chauvinist.
an armchair warrior
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 24, 2012 @ 3:10 pm
Uhm, (a) big gap between social acceptance and “vicious hate and repression”; (b) what, you think I would deny historical racism against blacks?; (c) I clearly said educational attainment is *obviously* not a function solely of social acceptance. A hated group is unlikely to achieve high degrees of educational attainment; that does not imply that those who do not achieve educational attainment are hated.
Mr. Oblivion: If someone was interested in having you deported, to which country would you be sent?
Comment by Basilisk — April 24, 2012 @ 3:39 pm
Oakland
Comment by zotos — April 24, 2012 @ 8:50 pm
When the Chinese went forth, e.g. under Cheng Ho, they made do with symbolic tribute.
Jesus Christ, your knowledge of history is shite. Have you ever wondered why the whole of China – over a billion people and covering an area the size of Europe – speaks (pretty much) one language? Hint: it is not because the Chinese were satisfied with “symbolic tributes”.
Comment by Tim Newman — April 24, 2012 @ 11:38 pm
A hated group is unlikely to achieve high degrees of educational attainment
As attested to by Ashkenazi Jews in pre-1960’s Europe and America.
Mr. Oblivion: If someone was interested in having you deported, to which country would you be sent?
Argentina.
Jesus Christ, your knowledge of history is shite. Have you ever wondered why the whole of China – over a billion people and covering an area the size of Europe – speaks (pretty much) one language?
Most people’s historical horizons don’t stretch to 1,500BC for rather obvious reasons.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — April 24, 2012 @ 11:50 pm
Most people’s historical horizons don’t stretch to 1,500BC for rather obvious reasons.
Yours don’t seem to stretch back to the 1950s.
Comment by Tim Newman — April 25, 2012 @ 12:18 am
Russia is doing a lot to build up the navies of India and Vietnam.
Comment by So? — April 25, 2012 @ 5:37 am
That is not much of a threat to China: reliability has been very poor.
Comment by zotos — April 25, 2012 @ 5:58 am
I’m with Tolya on the whole, “nature abhors a vacuum” theory of Sino-Russo forecasting. People aren’t particles. There’s a reason (actually several) that millions of Chinese aren’t flooding into the under-populated environs of Siberia. Nukes may be part of it but the bigger part is probably that it’s Siberia…the Chinese don’t want to live there any more than gulag survivors do.
Besides, the Chinese have precisely zero reason to invade. They’re winning in every category you’d care to select. GDP, business startups, gymnastics, movies… And resources? Pfft. The trade agreements between China and Russia are embarrassing. Why invade a place for their bounteous natural resources when the suckers give the stuff away? Seriously, the Russians get taken to the cleaners every time they sit down at the negotiating table with the Middle Kingdom.
Comment by Swoggler — April 25, 2012 @ 8:05 am
Excellent point – why invade and risk a holocaust when you are the natural buyer and low cost delivery point for raw materials?
Comment by sotos — April 25, 2012 @ 2:00 pm
Sublime retardation, in case you did not notice, Russia has been supporting the Abkhaz and South Ossetians in massacring Georgians.
Comment by Andrew — April 25, 2012 @ 10:04 pm
I kind of don’t think the threat to Russia is from a military invasion by China. At least I never implied it.
The threat is the natural disintegration, let’s say, in the year 2050, as a result of inability to populate vast territories, and paralysis of power and bodies of sovereign governance.
In 1988 only a few could envision disintegration of USSR. They were labeled romantics, if not crazy. We know how fast that happened.
And it happened not because USSR lost its military might (nukes, for that matter). It happened due to demoralization and paralysis of structures of governance, and loss of unifying ideology for nations.
Comment by MJ — April 26, 2012 @ 3:32 am