On June 25, Russian President Vladimir Putin displayed the substantial results from the short Chinese state visit. During the visit, Xi Jinping and Putin signed three joint declarations to strengthen global strategic security, showing that on core issues, both China and Russia hold an attitude of mutual support. They spoke bluntly, unanimously criticizing the deployment of the shore-based Aegis missile system in Eastern Europe and the THAAD missile program in Northeast Asia. The joint declarations also advocated that all of the controversy surrounding the South China Sea should be negotiated and solved by the countries actually involved; they are against the internationalization of the South China Sea problem and external interference with the issue. Furthermore, the foreign ministers of both countries also signed another declaration, bilaterally agreeing to a series of economic and trade agreements.
The joint declarations essentially avoided mentioning the United States, but the issues they touched upon were strongly focused on the country and it would be very fitting for the U.S. to take the comments as a personal attack. The wording, “strengthening global strategic security,” is relatively new, and it makes people think the U.S. is the world’s largest current source of strategic risk. This joint declaration is an extremely candid criticism of America; it is a reflection of the weariness both Beijing and Moscow feel toward Washington’s stubborn pursuit of world hegemony.
In the joint declaration, both China and Russia indicated that their bilateral relationship does not have the characteristics of an alliance and is not directed against a specific third country; we ought to say this is the true opinion of Beijing and Moscow. An alliance between China and Russia would bring an epoch-making shock to the current world structure. Both countries do not hope for this, but instead are willing to develop their all-around diplomacy to maintain normal relations with the West.
However, the U.S. has unceasingly squeezed its China-Russia strategy with increasing intensity, making mutual support on core issues by China and Russia more and more of a necessity. In the joint declaration between China and Russia, the word “support” was mentioned 18 times; we must say this element is thanks to the U.S.
The United States has manifested its ambition to create a global empire; its “global real-time combat system plan” is a threat to the safety of all nations of the world, and its strategy to approach China and Russia from two directions – Europe and Asia – so as to squeeze them and force them to take this provocation back to back is an arrogant move.
The Chinese-Russian positions are all highly unanimous; they oppose using human rights as an excuse to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, oppose setting up a double standard when it comes to fighting terrorism, and oppose carrying out regime change in any nation by external intervention. America and the West should understand that when China and Russia oppose some of the West’s one-sided viewpoints, it means the so-called universality of those viewpoints is fake and phony. China and Russia have the bulk of the developing countries behind them; the “Western World” is actually quite narrow.
Western media loves to magnify the differences between China and Russia, for example, emphasizing how Russia developing relationships with Japan and Southeast Asian countries is making China lose face, or making something up about how China developing relationships with the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (former Soviet Union) is making Russia nervous. The Western media is unable to understand the openness of the Chinese-Russian relationship. The importance and vitality of the China-Russia comprehensive cooperative strategy lies in the fact that neither country wants to restrict the other.
The U.S. cannot swallow the Chinese Dragon and the Russian Bear at the same time, of course. These two countries do not have the same offensive spirit as the Soviet Union did back in the day, but the scope of their strategies make it so America still cannot wholly digest either one of them. There is still a lot of room to take Chinese-Russian mutual strategic support a step further, and as the U.S. increases its pressure on both countries, their mutual support will also increase. The best strategic balance for all three countries is not likely to be replaced by absolute American hegemony.
Western public opinion often confuses whether Russia is looking East or looking West, and whether it is China or Russia asking more of the other. Trying to quantify the characteristics of the China-Russia relationship like this shows the West’s failure to grasp the main points. The relationship between these two great powers has a high degree of equality and mutual respect. Both countries also have many strengths, and the new comprehensive and cooperative strategy benefits both of them – it is not a burden. The formula used by the two nations to calculate their interests is very different from that of popular Western international political scientists.
The strategic relationship between China and Russia has already been defined; they have very high aspirations for strengthening cooperation in both the economic and trade domains. For the time being, a few concrete details on some parts of cooperation have not yet been completed or are difficult to implement. However, these issues will not destabilize the overall relationship. Because everything has yet to be completed, the Western media repeatedly chants that the China-Russia relationship is becoming weak and is incapable of coming about in the way the two nations predicted.
Outside of China, there are people who believe the principle reason for the current China-Russia relationship is Vladimir Putin, but this is an erroneous view. The start of the current relationship was during the time of Boris Yeltsin. Despite Yeltsin being one of the most disliked Russian leaders by Chinese political society, the relationship still improved. This was one of the great accomplishments of the time. It is an accurate portrayal of the world’s structure in that the situation is often more influential than the individual people.