Yves here. As of this hour, there is still no joint statement from Russia and the US on their long day of talks in Saudi Arabia yesterday. But in a bit of serendipity, the post below discusses a useful background issue to the talks, which is the openly expressed US desire to pry Russia away from China. With characteristic US hubris, it’s dumb to think this can readily be accomplished (modern Russia and China’s economies have significant complementarities, plus Putin and Xi are tight friends, with Putin even making pancakes for Xi on Xi’s birthday) and even dumber to talk about it.
This piece usefully gives a perspective of this US clever scheme from the Chinese side. One might criticize this discussion as a tad simplistic, but the US ploy is so shallow, a more serious treatment might wind up attributing a level of design to it that simply is not there.
By Linggong Kong, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, Auburn University. Originally published at The Conversation
Is the U.S. angling for a repeat of the Sino-Russian split?
In an Oct. 31, 2024, interview with right-wing pundit Tucker Carlson, President Donald Trump argued that the United States under Joe Biden had, in his mind erroneously, pushed China and Russia together. Separating the two powers would be a priority of his administration. “I’m going to have to un-unite them, and I think I can do that, too,” Trump said.
Since returning to the White House, Trump has been eager to negotiate with Russia, hoping to quickly bring an end to the war in Ukraine. One interpretation of this Ukraine policy is that it serves what Trump was getting at in his comments to Carlson. Pulling the U.S. out of the European conflict and repairing ties with Russia, even if it means throwing Ukraine under the bus, can be seen within the context of a shift of America’s attention to containing Chinese power.
Indeed, after a recent call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump told Fox News: “As a student of history, which I am – and I’ve watched it all – the first thing you learn is you don’t want Russia and China to get together.”
The history Trump alludes to is the strategy of the Nixon era, in which the U.S. sought to align with China as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union, encouraging a split between the two communist entities in the process.
Yet if creating a fissure between Moscow and Beijing is indeed the ultimate aim, Trump’s vision is, I believe, both naive and shortsighted. Not only is Russia unlikely to abandon its relationship with China, but many in Beijing view Trump’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine war –- and his foreign policy more broadly – as a projection of weakness, not strength.
A Growing Challenge
Although Russia and China have at various times in the past been adversaries when it suited their interests, today’s geopolitical landscape is different from the Cold War era in which the Sino-Soviet split occurred. The two countries, whose relationship has grown steadily close since the fall of the Soviet Union，have increasingly shared major strategic goals – chief among them, challenging the Western liberal order led by the U.S.
Both China and Russia have, in recent years, adopted an increasingly assertive stance in projecting military strength: China in the South China Sea and around Taiwan, and Russia in former Soviet satellite states, including Ukraine.
In response, a unified stance formed by Western governments to counter China and Russia’s challenge has merely pushed the two countries closer together.
Besties Forever?
In February 2022, just as Russia was preparing its invasion of Ukraine, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping announced a “friendship without limits” – in a show of unified intent against the West.
China has since become an indispensable partner for Russia, serving as its top trading partner for both imports and exports. In 2024, bilateral trade between China and Russia reached a record high of US$237 billion, and Russia now relies heavily on China as a key buyer of its oil and gas. This growing economic interdependence gives China considerable leverage over Russia and makes any U.S. attempt to pull Moscow away from Beijing economically unrealistic.
That doesn’t mean the Russian-Chinese relationship is inviolable; areas of disagreement and divergent policy remain.
Indeed, there are areas that Trump could exploit if he were to succeed in driving a wedge between the two countries. For example, it could serve Russia’s interests to support U.S. efforts to contain China and discourage any expansionist tendencies in Beijing – such as through Moscow’s strategic ties with India, which China views with some alarm – especially given that there are still disputed territories along the Chinese-Russian border.
Putin Knows Who His Real Friends Are
Putin isn’t naive. He knows that with Trump in office, the deep-seated Western consensus against Russia – including a robust, if leaky, economic sanctions regime – isn’t going away anytime soon. In Trump’s first term, the U.S. president likewise appeared to be cozying up to Putin, but there is an argument that he was even tougher on Russia, in terms of sanctions, than the administrations of Barack Obama or Joe Biden.
So, while Putin would likely gladly accept a Trump-brokered peace deal that sacrifices Ukraine’s interests in favor of Russia, that doesn’t mean he would be rushing to embrace some kind of broader call to unite against China. Putin will know the extent to which Russia is now reliant economically on China, and subservient to it militarily. In the words of one Russian analyst, Moscow is now a “vassal” or, at best, a junior partner to Beijing.
Transactional Weakness
China for its part views Trump’s peace talks with Russia and Ukraine as a sign of weakness that potentially undermines U.S. hawkishness toward China.
While some members of the U.S. administration are undoubtedly hawkish on China – Secretary of State Marco Rubio views the country as the “most potent and dangerous” threat to American prosperity – Trump himself has been more ambivalent. He may have slapped new tariffs on China as part of a renewed trade war, but he has also mulled a meeting with President Xi Jinping in an apparent overture.
Beijing recognizes Trump’s transactional mindset, which prioritizes short-term, tangible benefits over more predictable long-term strategic interests requiring sustained investment.
This changes the calculation over whether the U.S. may be unwilling to bear the high costs of defending Taiwan. Trump, in a deviation from his predecessor, has failed to commit the country to defending Taiwan, the self-governing island claimed by Beijing.
Rather, Trump had indicated that if the Chinese government were to launch a military campaign to “reunify” Taiwan, he would opt instead for economic measures like tariffs and sanctions. His apparent openness to trade Ukraine territory for peace now has made some in Taiwan concerned over Washington’s commitment to long-established international norms.
Insulating the Economy
China has taken another key lesson from Russia’s experience in Ukraine: The U.S.-led economic sanctions regime has serious limits.
Even under sweeping Western sanctions, Russia was able to stay afloat through subterfuge and with support from allies like China and North Korea. Moreover, China remains far more economically intertwined with the West than Russia, and its relatively dominant global economic position means that it has significant leverage to combat any U.S.-led efforts to isolate the country economically.
Indeed, as geopolitical tensions have driven the West to gradually decouple from China in recent years, Beijing has adapted to the resulting economic slowdown by prioritizing domestic consumption and making the economy more self-reliant in key sectors.
That in part also reflects China’s significant global economic and cultural strength. Coupled with this has been a domestic push to win countries in the Global South around to China’s position. Beijing has secured endorsements from 70 countries officially recognizing Taiwan as part of China.
China’s Turn to Exploit a Split?
As such, Trump’s plan to end the Russia-Ukraine war by favoring Russia in the hope of drawing it into an anti-China coalition is, I believe, likely to backfire.
While Russia may itself harbor concerns about China’s growing power, the two country’s shared strategic goal of challenging the Western-led international order — and Russia’s deep economic dependence on China — make any U.S. attempt to pull Moscow away from Beijing unrealistic.
Moreover, Trump’s approach exposes vulnerabilities that China could exploit. His transactional and isolationist foreign policy, along with his encouragement of right-wing parties in Europe, may strain relations with European Union allies and weaken trust in American security commitments. Beijing, in turn, may view this as a sign of declining U.S. influence, giving China more room to maneuver, noticeably in regard to Taiwan.
Rather than increasing the chances of a Sino-Russia split, such a shift could instead divide an already fragile Western coalition.
The whole thing is so infantile that it is hard to believe that grownup adults come up with ideas like this. There has been moves to split China from Russia as well with demands on China that they order Russia to stop their war in the Ukraine to which China could have replied ‘We’re not the boss of them.’ And I think that it was Germany’s Annalena Baerbock that promised China that they would not go so hard on sanctioning Chinese products if the dumped Russia. Yes, this was a serious offer. What could the US under Trump possible offer Russia to abandon it’s closest ally? Sanction relief – that could be re-imposed in minutes? The US has reneged on so many things over the decades with Russia that their word means nothing anymore.
Shhhh…the plan to split China and Russia is a US national security SECRET! If Russia and China hear about it, it might not work.
“Does Macy’s Tell Gimbels?”
True, Lavrov could say this to “take the piss” but it would not be very diplomatic, or maybe it is?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl3VSTcQaRs&ab_channel=EricChappell
One might think that seeing how the US treats its allies, well, it is safer not to unite with the US. American exceptionalism might be so ingrained in its PMC to blind them into childish looking behaviour.
https://prowrestling.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_professional_wrestling_terms
A
A-Show
A wrestling event where generally a company’s biggest “draws” perform.
A-Team
A group of a wrestling promotion’s top stars who compete at a given event. (Compare “B-Team”)
Abortion (or abort)
To discontinue a feud, angle, or “gimmick” suddenly, usually without explanation or due to a lack of fan interest. This is an older term, not generally used today because of its objectionable basis.
Agent (road agent)
Management employee, often a former veteran wrestler, who helps wrestlers set up matches, plans storylines, and relays instructions from the bookers. Often acts as a liaison between wrestlers and higher-level management. Referred to as “producers” by WWE. Sometimes they help train and teach younger active wrestlers and give criticism.
Angle
A fictional storyline. An angle usually begins when one wrestler attacks another (physically or verbally), which results in revenge. An angle may be as small as a single match or a vendetta that lasts for years. It is not uncommon to see an angle become retconned due to it not getting “over” with the fans, or if one of the wrestlers currently involved in the angle is released from his contract……..
The irony here is that if one simply looks at a map, Russia sits between Europe and China. Logically they should be far more concerned with China, especially as the globe warms and Siberia starts looking more habitable. Yet the entire strategy of the West is that short term greed and ego far outweighs any long term perspective. So we have done Russia and China an enormous favor, in forcing them to work together and plan for that long term.
As for the West, you can’t cure stupid with logic. It simply has to keep bashing its head against the walls until some sense starts to prevail.
Though the puppet masters have been firing the smart ones that wouldn’t do what they were told and hiring dumb ones that would for so long the current crop of talking heads couldn’t beat their way out of a wet paper bag. Now we are to the point the crazies are starting to push the idiots out of the way and grab the levers of power for themselves. At least it will speed up the feedback loops spiralling into the vortex/abyss.
Trump’s transactional mindset = United States of Amnesia
– so exceptional history doesn’t matter
(except that grown-ups know it always does).
Trump’s first moves seem more relevant to un-uniting Russia and Iran
Trump’s first moves seem more relevant to un-uniting Russia and Iran
There you go. This makes more sense in the Real World and is strategically less juvenile than the US expecting to create any distance between Russia and China at this point.
Indeed, would it be worth it to the Russians to continue sending their air defense and EW systems to Iran if Trump & co. gave them an easier, earlier cessation to the Ukrainian war provided they stopped sending those systems there? Maybe it would.
Certainly, Alastair Crooke and others believe that the US helping Israel attack Iran — a la Netanyahu’s fondest heart’s desire — is something the Trump administration is all in on, with tactical nukes on the table.
Whether it’s something that makes sense in Trump World, who knows?
Of course, an attack on Iran would be strategically deeply stupid, nevertheless, as in terminally self-destructive for Israel and possibly the US too. But both countries’ leaderships continue to operate in a delusional narcissistic mindset of They Are Weak, and We Are Strong. So it’s within the realm of possibility.
I do think that China will be willing to entertain these overtures because it allows them to buy time before new administration takes over in 4 years. Right now, they have a major chip in play with Musk, as Tesla would crash and burn if barred from China (1/3 of its sales), but this is likely to change in 4 years and new administration on either side is likely to be hawkish on China. So they can drag out different sorts of negotiations, looking for some short-term trade relief while agreeing to nothing of substance.
Thanks. A little bit of dialectics and realism, among so much idealism
The West achieved the Neocon fantasy of establishing a military alliance with countries directly bordering Russia…from Finland to the 1/2 or so of Rump Ukraine after the peace deal. This is like a dog chasing a car…what is it going to do with its prize? And more importantly, who is going to pay to defend the new border?
There are compelling reasons to change our policy towards Russia, regardless of any aspirational goals with respect to the China-Russia alliance.
The new US goal of thawing the US-Russia relationship is a good idea, and will benefit both the US and Europe.
Trump is committed to reducing the US share of Europe’s collective defense. Was the US ever going to use its nuclear umbrella to defend the Baltics or North Macedonia? The entire project was wrongheaded from the start.
Well, Brian Berletic’s most recent video revisits past US “resets” and thaws in relations with Russia. Hillary Clinton is featured. She was actually quite good at pretending to be nice to Putin. And there were other US led pretend niceness at other periods in time. What ties them together? The exact same reality Trump faces today: US out of weapons and or options after Russia intervened militarily or otherwise and US knocked down on its backside needing time to regroup/re-arm/rethink. In this perspective, Trump peace with Russia is just another Blob driven stratigic pause. Trump will be gone in about 3 years and possibly lame duck as sooner.
Sometimes the most basic, and simple explanations are best. And yes, given the cringe-worthy, embarrassing incompetence from the DT2 regime, it is safe to assume that they are not playing 5D chess or whatever the DT faithful claim.
Unlike the memory-holed history in the US, I’m sure the Chinese and Russians recall the DT1 regime’s transparent BS. Talk sweet, bloviate more BS, then stab in back. Boost sanctions and hostilities against China, Iran, Syria (Russia allies), continue and increase “sanctions” on Russia, withdraw from INF treaty, and continue to support Ukraine. Nothing appears to have changed.
I can just imagine Lavrov chuckling to himself, humored by the buffoonery, otherwise he might be angered by the intelligence-insulting performance of the US team.
The grandest of ironies is that if W Bush (or mid-Lewinsky Scandal Clinton), after looking into the soul of Putin, offered Russia full NATO membership and some sort of US-RU free trade deal, 2005 Putin would have whole-heartedly accepted and pulled the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs in line.
The 2008 Russo-Georgian War, totally forgotten in the West, was the Rubicon that cemented the Russia-China path.
Yep, the US is only 20 years too late! What an amount of time to be late by.
It’s only an irony if you assume the underlying goal was (or is) peace, stability, respect or any of the other things Putin / Xi have been harping on for the last 10 or 15 years. That path, treating Russia as an ally, was a blindingly obvious strategic move back then. That it wasn’t taken shows that the goal was something different. You can’t really loot an ally.
(Though Trump / Musk looks like they’re attempting to prove otherwise with Canada and Mexico)
“As a student of history, which I am . . . .” Sayeth Trump. I’m trying to imagine what the Chinese and the Russians might think after seeing this kind of remark.
After so many other inane comments, it’s hard to pay attention to anything he says.
Watching the ‘mightiest military on the planet’ discuss OPSEC over a public chat, on the other hand, likely caused a bit more alarm. Kind of like the reaction you’d have if a monkey picked up a loaded submachine gun.
He’s “watched it all.” What is that supposed to mean? Is he selling himself as an elder statesman, long on the world stage? Referring to that time he watched South Pacific and sang along?
What caught my attention was “I’ve watched it all”. What can this refer to? I like The History Channel, but I don’t think of it as an education.
He watched all seasons of Ancient Aliens.
> Russia in former Soviet satellite states,
Me thinks this is mistaken. The “former satellites” were the Warsaw Pact minor powers, many of which … joined NATO. Perhaps the author means “former smaller constituent republics of the USSR.” Though even some of them joined NATO (the Baltic States).
It seems like everyone, no matter what side they are on, recognizes that heavily populated, continental manufacturing power China and its less populated, but resource rich northern neigbour Russia, are a much stronger force when they work together, rather than being enemies.
Can you imagine if they had been allied for over 100 years and fought multiple wars together on the same side and then out of the blue Xi started talking about how terrible Russia was and how China was going to annex Russia and started raising tariffs on Russia out of the blue. And then the Russians started boycotting China and planning to no longer buy any military equipment from them and relations went sour? Imagine how much the US national security establishment would love that, if it happened.
But you can’t even imagine somebody doing something that dumb, scoring that kind of own goal on their own interests, can you?
Russian far-east strategy seemed to include control over Manchuria until forced out after the Russo-Japanese war. Its re-entry into Manchukuo in 1945 suggests a continuing interest but seems to me that communist doctrine operated to take priority over the previous strategy. With that consideration now gone I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some in Russia see Manchuria as the “22d republic”.