The China Factor in U.S.-Russia Relations

There is a surprising lack of substantive discussion within U.S. and Russian policymaking communities on the influence of China on U.S.-Russia relations. After several influential books and journal articles on the subject appeared from 2008 to 2011, a consensus has seemingly been reached on the tactical nature of the developing ties between Beijing and Moscow. Most observers remain skeptical about the prospects of Sino-Russian relations evolving into a full-fledged alliance, given the number of policy contradictions between the two countries. According to this line of reasoning, Washington need not be concerned with the potential fallout of Russian-Chinese rapprochement on the United States’ policy toward Russia. However, changes in the international strategies of Moscow and Beijing, as well in the international security environment overall, suggest that these earlier conclusions may need to be revised.

Over the last two years, China and Russia have increasingly coordinated their positions on international issues of significance to the United States, including on the civil war in Syria and Iran’s nuclear program. Some observers have also noted the nearly identical language of Chinese and Russian statements on a number of key issues in Asian politics where Russia has followed China’s lead.

Russia’s largest oil company—state-run Rosneft—has become heavily indebted to Chinese state creditors. In 2009, Rosneft received a $25 billion loan from the China Development Bank to build the East Siberia–Pacific Ocean oil pipeline. In June 2013, an agreement was reached between Rosneft and its Chinese counterparts on substantial oil deliveries to China over the next 25 years. Rosneft received $60 billion as an advance payment for future oil supplies to China. That same month, the China National Petroleum Corporation acquired a 20 percent stake in Yamal LNG—an upstream natural gas development project controlled by Novatek, Russia’s second largest natural gas producer and potential exporter. This was the first time that a Chinese company was allowed to hold shares of a joint venture producing natural gas in Russia.

Finally, Russia and China have been jointly conducting a growing number of full-fledged military maneuvers (some of which over the past decade have been presented as Shanghai Cooperation Organization exercises). The latest round of bilateral naval maneuvers took place in July 2013 and was the largest naval drill China has ever carried out with a foreign partner.

Given these and other developments, a new round of discussion about China’s influence on the U.S.-Russia relationship is long overdue, even if both Washington and Moscow have refrained so far from accepting the need for one.

Reasons for Neglect

There are several factors preventing the development in Russia and the United States of diligent and well-informed analyses of the China factor in bilateral relations.

For their part, Russian policymakers are likely refraining from openly discussing the risks of China’s rise in order to avoid the negative effects of a pronounced security dilemma. They generally consider strategic ambiguity to be the safest approach to relations with Russia’s large and powerful neighbor. China might regard exchanges between Moscow and Washington on China’s international conduct as contradictory to the spirit of the 2001 Russo-Chinese Treaty of Good-neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation. This treaty requires bilateral consultations between Moscow and Beijing if one of the sides claims its security is under threat. Finally, while Russian pundits generally have a penchant for triangular geopolitical schemes, few well-trained and internationally-exposed experts have a good grasp of both Russian-U.S. and Russian-Chinese relations.

In turn, U.S. policymakers have sought to avoid antagonizing China with thinly disguised balancing attempts, at a time when the United States is arguably more exposed than ever to the risk of China’s adverse behavior and rising Chinese nationalism is increasingly turning against the United States. Silence on the “China factor” in the United States may also be due to the compartmentalization of policymaking in Washington on, respectively, Russia/Eurasia and China/Asia Pacific. Bureaucrats may not have an incentive to establish causal and other links between two different blocks of bilateral issues. The lack of experts who can address overlapping issues in U.S.-China and U.S.-Russia relations may also play a role—partly determined by the difficulty of learning two arduous foreign languages (Chinese and Russian). Finally, most of the trends and issues that demand weighing the China factor in U.S.-Russia relations are very recent and evolving quickly. However, while Russia is not relevant to a large number of U.S. foreign policy priorities and nothing like their Cold War triangular relationship now exists among Washington, Beijing, and Moscow, it is hard to see how U.S. strategy toward Russia can any longer discount the China factor.

Russia’s Calculus

Despite the spectacular growth in China’s economic and military capabilities, as well as Beijing’s attempts to expand the geographic reach of its naval forces, Moscow officially casts China as the first great power peer in Russian history that Moscow—at least on a declaratory level—does not need to counterbalance. Such statements usually contrast China to the United States, with its programs of advanced weapons development—high-precision conventionally-armed ballistic missiles and missile defenses—that raise significant concerns among Russian policymakers. Confidence-building measures and other costly signals from the United States have so far not been effective in dispelling these fears.

In contrast, costly signaling has worked between Moscow and Beijing, despite their own bilateral differences, such as the contest for influence over Central Asian trade policies and alliance orientations. Russian policymakers think they have secured reliable guarantees of China’s non-expansionist behavior: China sides with Russia on the unacceptability of externally-assisted regime change and other forms of intervention in the affairs of sovereign states.[1] In addition, Moscow believes that Beijing is not interested in applying the same kind of pressure on territorial issues to Russia as it does to Southeast Asian nations on the South China Sea.[2] Observers of China’s Russia policy think that Beijing is not prepared to engage in a costly conflict with Russia for territorial control over the lands of Russian Siberia, given their harsh climate, geographic remoteness, the widespread lack of even basic infrastructure, and, indeed, the likely readiness of Moscow to resort to the threat of nuclear retaliation in the event of an overwhelming military assault. Analysts also assume that China is satisfied with Russia’s friendly neutrality in China’s tug-of-war with the United States and its Asian allies.

Yet there is one area—the Arctic—where Russia may increasingly feel its sovereignty is being challenged by China. Drawing “red lines” for China in the Arctic is more difficult than in Eastern Siberia. Beijing has a solid record of implementing low-profile, consistent, and goal-oriented policies and action programs that are hard to stop or even interfere with before it is too late. Examples include trade liberalization with Central Asian states, pipeline construction, and penetration of natural resource development sectors across the world. Unlike armed conflict, such initiatives do not pose an immediate threat to Russian interests. However, after their consistent implementation over a number of years, a power shift from Russia to China becomes glaring. Moscow feels that the Arctic is one such area where Chinese gradualism could jeopardize Russian sovereignty.

Modeling the Game

In their approach to China, both Russia and the United States are leaving a number of options open. Their final choice, if it is ever made, will depend on the evolution of Beijing’s own international behavior.

In broad terms, the Kremlin is choosing between two courses of action: 1) unequivocally allying with China on the basis of the 2001 Moscow Treaty and allowing Beijing to exert substantial influence on Russian international strategy, especially in Asia, or 2) hedging against potential challenges by China to Russian interests by cooperating at least sporadically with the United States and its allies in areas that are sensitive for Russian-Chinese relations.

U.S. policymakers in turn have the broad options of: 1) engaging China while hedging the risks of Chinese expansionism, or 2) containing (and possibly confronting) China—for example, by reinforcing military ties and expanding the scope of U.S. alliances with China's neighbors in Asia.

Combinations of these strategies lead to four possible outcomes. The chart below outlines the most relevant characteristics of each outcome for U.S.-Russia relations.

[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_large”,”fid”:”1701″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”height”:”450″,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”,”width”:”480″}}]]