Follow us on social

Shutterstock_634594754-scaled

Is Putin really not worried about a rising China?

A China that Russia is increasingly dependent on could serve to limit Moscow’s — indeed, Putin’s own — freedom of action internationally.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has pursued an increasingly assertive — even aggressive — foreign policy. In addition to rebuilding Moscow’s influence over most, if not all, the non-Russian republics of the former Soviet Union, he has also revived Moscow’s great power role not just in the Middle East, but even in Africa and Latin America, which it had lost at the end of the Cold War. Putin has also gained friends in many European countries that have been American allies since World War II. Finally, Putin has arguably gained a greater influence for Moscow in the domestic politics of the United States than the Soviets ever had. Yet despite the general success of Putin’s assertive foreign policy approach toward so much of the world, there is one country that has not received this treatment: China.

When it comes to Russia’s relations with China, Putin has been remarkably deferential and respectful. Putin has even described Chinese President Xi Jinping as “a good and reliable friend.” An important reason for this, of course, is Russia’s increasing economic dependence on China, which has partly been brought about by Western economic sanctions on Russia over Crimea and other issues. But being the hard-headed realist that he is, Putin must surely see that China has been growing more and more powerful economically while Russia has been stagnating, and that China’s greater economic strength as well as population size could soon result in Beijing becoming stronger than Moscow militarily. And a China that Russia is increasingly dependent on could serve to limit Moscow’s — indeed, Putin’s own — freedom of action internationally.

Putin, though, does not even seem to acknowledge the possibility that China could ever pose a threat to Russia. Why is this?

One explanation might be that Putin is so focused on what he is convinced is the principal threat from America and the West that he is not paying sufficient attention to the threat potential from China. Sitting in Moscow with his gaze focused westward, he is not looking back over his shoulder to the southeast. But given Putin’s reputation for being sensitive to the possibility of any kind of threat, this seems highly unlikely.

Another possible explanation is that Putin actually understands that China is becoming more powerful than Russia, but sees it as better for Moscow to be subordinate to Beijing than to Washington. For whatever else China wants from Russia, it is not trying to democratize it through “color revolution” like Putin seems to fear that the U.S. has sought to do. Yet while the “color revolutions” in Georgia and Ukraine during the Bush years and again in several Arab countries and Ukraine during the Obama years may have, however unrealistically, contributed to such a fear, it is difficult to believe that Putin sees Donald Trump, with his great admiration for strongmen in general and Putin in particular, as posing any such threat. Even if a Democrat becomes president, the U.S. and the West are in such disarray internally — thanks in part to Putin’s actions — that Putin himself must see that the West is hardly in a position to organize a democratic revolution against him.

Yet another possible explanation for Putin’s continuing deference to Xi is that he believes that China will never threaten Russia so long as Beijing regards Washington as its principal threat. Further, if and when China does pose a threat to Russia, it will also pose a threat to America and the West. And if and when that occurs, it will be very much in American and Western interests to ally with a weaker Russia against a stronger China — no matter how difficult Russian relations with America and the West may have been earlier.

It is this cynical logic that appears more in keeping with Putin’s personality. And if this is indeed what he thinks, he may well be right. No matter how much they loathe him, Western leaders engaged in a global competition with China may well prefer Russia on their side rather than on Beijing’s.

On the other hand, Western leaders long at odds with Russia may not recognize that Putin or his successor is no longer hostile to them right when Moscow wants or needs them to. It is also possible that if and when Moscow turns to the West for support against China, Western leaders may cynically prefer to stand aside and let Moscow and Beijing focus on their rivalry with each other instead of their rivalries with the West.

Is this destined to occur? Not at all. But the possibility that it could should encourage even an anti-Western Russian leader like Putin to hedge against it through balancing between China and America instead of siding with the former against the latter in the expectation that Moscow can switch alliances whenever it chooses to. The fact that he is not doing this suggests that animosity and cynicism play a greater role in Putin’s calculations than rationality.


Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine
Top image credit: The Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine USS Tennessee (SSBN 734) gold crew returns to its homeport at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia, following a strategic deterrence patrol. The boat is one of five ballistic-missile submarines stationed at the base and is capable of carrying up to 20 submarine-launched ballistic missiles with multiple warheads. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication 2nd Class Bryan Tomforde)

More nukes = more problems

Military Industrial Complex

These have been tough years for advocates of arms control and nuclear disarmament. The world’s two leading nuclear powers — the United States and Russia — have only one treaty left that puts limits on their nuclear weapons stockpiles and deployments, the New START Treaty. That treaty limits deployments of nuclear weapons to 1,550 on each side, and includes verification procedures to hold them to their commitments.

But in the context of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the idea of extending New START when it expires in 2026 has been all but abandoned, leaving the prospect of a brave new world in which the United States and Russia can develop their nuclear weapons programs unconstrained by any enforceable rules.

keep readingShow less
 Netanyahu Ben Gvir
Top image credit: Israel Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Itamar Ben Gvir shake hands as the Israeli government approve Netanyahu's proposal to reappoint Itamar Ben-Gvir as minister of National Security, in the Knesset, Israeli parliament in Jerusaelm, March 19, 2025 REUTERS/Oren Ben Hakoon

Ceasefire collapse expands Israel's endless and boundary-less war

Middle East

The resumption of Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip and collapse of the ceasefire agreement reached in January were predictable and in fact predicted at that time by Responsible Statecraft. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, driven by personal and domestic political motives, never intended to continue implementation of the agreement through to the declared goal of a permanent ceasefire.

Hamas, the other principal party to the agreement, had abided by its terms and consistently favored full implementation, which would have seen the release of all remaining Israeli hostages in addition to a full cessation of hostilities. Israel, possibly in a failed attempt to goad Hamas into doing something that would be an excuse for abandoning the agreement, committed numerous violations even before this week’s renewed assault. These included armed attacks that killed 155 Palestinians, continued occupation of areas from which Israel had promised to withdraw, and a blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza that more than two weeks ago.

keep readingShow less
Iraq war Army soldiers Baghdad
Top photo credit: U.S. Army Soldiers assigned to weapons squad, 1st Platoon, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, pose for a photo before patrolling Rusafa, Baghdad, Iraq, Defense Imagery Management Operations Center/Photo by Staff Sgt. Jason Baile

The ghosts of the Iraq War still haunt me, and our foreign policy

Middle East

On St. Patrick’s Day, March 17, 2003, President Bush issued his final ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. Two nights later, my Iraq War started inauspiciously. I was a college student tending bar in New York City. Someone pointed to the television behind me and said: “It’s begun. They’re bombing Baghdad!” In Iraq it was already early morning of March 20.

I arrived home a few hours later to find the half-expected voice message on my answering machine: “You are ordered to report to the armory tomorrow morning no later than 0800, with all your gear.”

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.