Russia or China don't have to turn to the west. They just have have a falling out.
Bear in mind that Russia was one of the Great Powers that humiliated China in the 19th century, even exploiting China's defeat in the first sino-japanese war to grab port Arthur. The Soviet alliance with Mao lasted roughly 10 years before Mao told Soviets…
Russia or China don't have to turn to the west. They just have have a falling out.
Bear in mind that Russia was one of the Great Powers that humiliated China in the 19th century, even exploiting China's defeat in the first sino-japanese war to grab port Arthur. The Soviet alliance with Mao lasted roughly 10 years before Mao told Soviets to kiss off in 1959--and it was 12-13 years later that Nixon and kissinger figured out that rapprochement with China could tilt the global power balance against Russia.
US influence is not needed for these two countries to have another falling out.
These days the prize is Arctic oil: Russia has it and China would love to access it. That's not exactly the basis for a match made in heaven.
The relationship between China and Russia has always been tenuous. Given their respective hegemonic ambitions, it always will be.
That’s fair but why fight over resources when they can just trade? Both Russia and China are mercantile societies, what’s the benefit to violence? They just watched the US literally destroy ourselves financially “securing the oil” when anyone can see that the oil will flow to anyone who will pay. Why follow in our footsteps?
Russia is a kleptocracy and China is a corporate fascist state. Neither is a healthy basis for trade (there really is no honor among thieves).
But who said anything about violence? That's not necessary for the falling out. It wasn't a part of the 1959 messy divorce, so no reason for it to be a part of this much more cynical second marriage. All it takes is disagreement.
And with China investment in Russia lagging, which makes their trade goals problematic at best, the seeds of potential disagreement are already sown. The only question is whether the seeds will germinate.
You seem passionately persuaded they will not. We shall eventually see.
I just hear this argument almost every day and it has never made any sense to me. Of course there can always be a falling out but both must know that without each other they are infinitely more vulnerable. I would bet that the US ceases to be a global military power before China and Russia have a falling out. But we may not live long enough to see either of those things!
You have an optimistic view of Sino-Russian relations. I do not see where the historical record supports that optimism.
To reiterate what I have already said, Russia and China have a long history of border disputes and other conflicts. Russia invaded Manchuria after the first Sino-Japanese War, which laid the foundation for the Sino-Soviet Border Crisis of 1969. Russia actually backed the Kuomitang in the early period of the China's Civil War.
Russia and China are not mortal enemies, but there are more bases for conflict between them than comity. None of which lends any support for your eternal alliance hypothesis.
Russia or China don't have to turn to the west. They just have have a falling out.
Bear in mind that Russia was one of the Great Powers that humiliated China in the 19th century, even exploiting China's defeat in the first sino-japanese war to grab port Arthur. The Soviet alliance with Mao lasted roughly 10 years before Mao told Soviets to kiss off in 1959--and it was 12-13 years later that Nixon and kissinger figured out that rapprochement with China could tilt the global power balance against Russia.
US influence is not needed for these two countries to have another falling out.
These days the prize is Arctic oil: Russia has it and China would love to access it. That's not exactly the basis for a match made in heaven.
The relationship between China and Russia has always been tenuous. Given their respective hegemonic ambitions, it always will be.
That’s fair but why fight over resources when they can just trade? Both Russia and China are mercantile societies, what’s the benefit to violence? They just watched the US literally destroy ourselves financially “securing the oil” when anyone can see that the oil will flow to anyone who will pay. Why follow in our footsteps?
Russia is a kleptocracy and China is a corporate fascist state. Neither is a healthy basis for trade (there really is no honor among thieves).
But who said anything about violence? That's not necessary for the falling out. It wasn't a part of the 1959 messy divorce, so no reason for it to be a part of this much more cynical second marriage. All it takes is disagreement.
And with China investment in Russia lagging, which makes their trade goals problematic at best, the seeds of potential disagreement are already sown. The only question is whether the seeds will germinate.
You seem passionately persuaded they will not. We shall eventually see.
I just hear this argument almost every day and it has never made any sense to me. Of course there can always be a falling out but both must know that without each other they are infinitely more vulnerable. I would bet that the US ceases to be a global military power before China and Russia have a falling out. But we may not live long enough to see either of those things!
You have an optimistic view of Sino-Russian relations. I do not see where the historical record supports that optimism.
To reiterate what I have already said, Russia and China have a long history of border disputes and other conflicts. Russia invaded Manchuria after the first Sino-Japanese War, which laid the foundation for the Sino-Soviet Border Crisis of 1969. Russia actually backed the Kuomitang in the early period of the China's Civil War.
Russia and China are not mortal enemies, but there are more bases for conflict between them than comity. None of which lends any support for your eternal alliance hypothesis.