Western efforts to drive a wedge between Russia and China falter as their partnership grows stronger than Cold War-era dynamics would suggest.
At a Glance
- The Russia-China relationship isn’t a formal alliance but a durable partnership based on mutual interests and opposition to U.S. hegemony
- Historical “Nixon to China” diplomatic strategies cannot be reversed today as the current alliance lacks the ideological divides present during the Sino-Soviet split
- Economic interdependence, particularly in energy trade, has strengthened their ties despite challenges from Russia’s war in Ukraine
- Military cooperation between Russia and China has increased significantly, with joint exercises and collaboration in missile warning systems
Not Your Grandfather’s Cold War: A New Strategic Reality
The strategic partnership between Russia and China presents a fundamentally different challenge to American interests than the Soviet-Chinese relationship of the Cold War era. Unlike the ideological rifts that characterized the Sino-Soviet split, today’s Moscow-Beijing axis is built on practical alignment and mutual benefit. This partnership allows Russia to reduce troop deployments along its Chinese border, redirecting military resources toward Ukraine, while China secures a reliable energy supplier and strategic ally against Western pressure.
The relationship has evolved considerably since the border tensions of the Soviet era. Both nations have resolved territorial disputes and expanded cooperation across military, economic, and diplomatic fronts. While not bound by a formal defense treaty, their partnership has deepened significantly over the past decade, raising legitimate concerns in Washington about a powerful authoritarian bloc challenging the rules-based international order that has benefited America for decades.
Energy Bonds and Economic Ties
Energy trade forms the backbone of Russia-China economic relations. China imports substantial oil and coal from Russia, a relationship that has only intensified since Western sanctions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While the economic relationship remains somewhat lopsided, with Russia more dependent on Chinese markets than vice versa, both nations find strategic value in their growing commercial ties and are increasingly conducting trade in their national currencies to reduce reliance on the dollar-based financial system.
“The partnership with Russia is big priority for China despite the fallout for certain foreign policy goals from the war in Ukraine, and that’s because there’s a certain amount of interdependence between China and Russia, shared goals, despite differences in many areas.” said Elizabeth Wishnick.
This economic interdependence provides a buffer against Western attempts to isolate either nation. China has maintained a carefully calculated posture regarding Russia’s Ukraine invasion – publicly neutral while providing significant economic support. Beijing views the conflict through the lens of a proxy war against Western hegemony, a perspective that aligns with its own strategic concerns about American-led containment efforts in the Indo-Pacific region.
The “Reverse Nixon” Fallacy
Some foreign policy analysts, particularly on the right, have proposed a “reverse Nixon to China” approach – making concessions to Russia over Ukraine to separate Moscow from Beijing’s orbit. This strategy fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the current Russia-China relationship. Unlike the Sino-Soviet split, which emerged naturally from deep ideological and strategic divides, today’s partnership is strengthened by shared authoritarian governance models and mutual opposition to what both perceive as American global dominance.
“Ultimately this certainly is not just a transactional relationship; it’s a relationship that’s been evolving for quite some time.” said Natasha Kuhrt.
The personal relationship between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping further cements their strategic alignment. Xi has called Putin his “best friend and colleague,” and the two leaders have met regularly to coordinate their approach to global challenges. Their declaration of a partnership with “no limits” just weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrates their commitment to maintaining a united front against Western pressure, even when facing significant international backlash.
Military Coordination and Strategic Ambiguity
Military cooperation between Russia and China has expanded substantially in recent years. Joint exercises have grown more complex and frequent, while technical collaboration extends to sensitive areas like missile warning systems and space technology. Though China has avoided directly supplying military hardware for Russia’s war in Ukraine, it has provided substantial indirect support through dual-use technologies and components, allowing Russia to sustain its defense industrial base despite Western sanctions.
Both nations deliberately maintain strategic ambiguity about the extent of their relationship. This ambiguity enhances the deterrent value of their partnership without forcing either country into commitments that might limit their freedom of action. Their cooperation in multilateral forums like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization further demonstrates their shared vision of a multipolar world order that dilutes American influence in global governance.
Potential Fault Lines
Despite their strengthening ties, potential tensions in the Russia-China relationship persist. These include divergent approaches to nuclear security, competing interests in Central Asia, and Russia’s concerns about China’s growing influence in the Arctic, a region Moscow has traditionally considered within its sphere of influence. Lingering historical grievances and limited people-to-people exchanges also create space for mutual suspicion beneath the surface of official friendship.
These fault lines, however, remain secondary to the strategic benefits both nations derive from their partnership. Unlike during the Cold War, when fundamental ideological differences drove Moscow and Beijing apart, today’s Russia and China find common cause in opposing what they view as Western attempts to impose liberal democratic norms and maintain unilateral dominance of the international system – a shared perspective that makes historical diplomatic strategies for fracturing their alliance increasingly unrealistic.
