Follow us on social

Has 'Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia' come full circle?

Has 'Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia' come full circle?

The new China-Russia friendship 'without limits' is being put to the test, the latest chapter in nearly 80 years of shifting power relations.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 featured a world of constantly shifting, two-against-one alliances between three major power centers: Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. It is hard not to see a resemblance between Orwell’s fiction and the steady re-alignment between the United States, Russia, and China over the past 70 years.

The second half of the 20th century began with Mao Zedong’s victory in the Chinese Civil War, which cemented the alignment of China and Russia against the West. The two Communist powers were to be as “close as the lips to the teeth,” as the Chinese were wont to say. Then China and Russia began falling out with border clashes, so much so that the Russians even sounded out the Americans as to how the United States might react if the Russians attacked China to destroy its nascent nuclear arsenal. 

This split led to President Nixon’s historic visit to China 50 years ago, when Nixon and Mao restored relations between their countries to create leverage against Russia. 

Then, with the end of the Cold War and the ascendancy of China as a great power the United States and China began falling out, a process which accelerated once Xi Jinping took the helm of the Chinese state. When President Biden entered office, he spoke of trying to achieve a stable and predictable relationship with Russia so that he could concentrate on America’s competition with China. Back then, there was talk in diplomatic circles of being nicer to Russia so as not to push Vladimir Putin into Xi’s arms. 

But in February of this year, China and Russia drew even closer. When Putin was visiting the Olympic Games in Beijing, Xi and Putin signed a joint statement finalizing the divorce between China and America and announcing the re-marriage of China and Russia in a friendship “without limits.” So, with Russia massing troops on its borders for an imminent invasion of Ukraine, the talk in diplomatic circles changed to trying to push Xi out of the arms of Putin.

The United States shared its intelligence with China showing that Putin was preparing to invade Ukraine. The Chinese refused to believe it. Beijing’s foreign ministry spokesman, Hua Chungying, blamed America for trying to stir up trouble between the newlyweds. “If someone keeps pouring oil on the flame while accusing others of not doing their best to put out the fire, such kind of behavior is clearly irresponsible and immoral,” Hua said. But then came Russia’s invasion. 

It is unclear whether Putin told Xi about his intentions to invade Ukraine when the two met in February. But now that so much of the world has reacted in horror against Russia’s war in Ukraine, China has the beginnings of bridegroom’s remorse. 

Xi may be delighted to have its huge northern neighbor bound to China “without limits” and the ties that bind them — the autocratic couple against the hapless democracies of the world — appear to hold firm, for now. But, then again, national sovereignty has been one of China’s most cherished values, and invading a neighbor during the honeymoon doesn’t look good. China is the European Union’s biggest trading partner, and China has reasons to keep hostility to the United States within bounds. 

China wants to project to the world the image of a growing, stable and benevolent superpower, an example for the world to imitate, and an advertisement for autocracy against the sloppiness and inefficiency of democracy. With that in mind, Russia has suddenly become the leprous pal that you don’t want to take to the party. 

Given the sanctions the West has already imposed, it is Russia’s dependence on China that is almost without limits. It is a dependency China might rather not have, given that breaking sanctions to help Russia could hurt China.

Diplomatically, China abstained on resolutions denouncing Russia on votes in both the U.N. Security Council and the General Assembly, just as China did when Russia took Crimea from Ukraine. China continues urging a diplomatic solution to Russia’s war on Ukraine. On Monday, speaking at a virtual meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Xi reportedly encouraged the three countries to jointly support peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, according to state broadcaster CCTV.

But, given Putin’s apparent obsession with restoring, if not the Soviet Union, then perhaps imperial Russia’s domains, the room for diplomacy is narrow.

Xi may wish he had insisted on a prenuptial agreement with Russia before announcing his partnership “without limits.” 

Then there is the conflict between China’s views on national sovereignty and its desire to extinguish any aspirations for such by Taiwan. Surely Putin is anxious to have China consider Ukraine as Russia’s Taiwan, a lost province that must be returned to the motherland.  

The quid pro quo in Nixon’s deal with Mao was that China would cool its relationship with Russia and turn its affections to the West in exchange for the U.S. adoption of its “One China” policy. Now that China has seemingly renounced the quid, some might wonder whether the West should remain bound by the quo.

It would be unwise at this point for Biden to renounce the One China policy of the past 50 years. But the West, and the United States in particular, should reiterate its own long standing policy that Taiwan’s return to the motherland must be voluntary and not achieved by the same methods Putin is using to reintegrate Ukraine with Russia. Indeed, the world’s reaction against Putin might be causing Xi to rethink his threats to take Taiwan by force. 

In the meantime, Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia have once again shifted their alliances just as George Orwell depicted, the results of which will absorb the world for the next half century. The betting is that the Xi-Putin marriage will survive the Ukrainian crisis. Mutual hostility towards the United States is more important than any differences over Ukraine.


President Biden (Hadith 26/Shutterstock)) Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin (Frederic Legrand-COMEO/Shutterstock)|President Biden (White House) Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin (Frederic Legrand-COMEO/Shutterstock)|President Biden (Hadith 26/Shutterstock)) Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin (Frederic Legrand-COMEO/Shutterstock)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

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.