Talks between Russia and US Will Have To Look at China

One more international heavyweight will be invisibly present in the upcoming talks between Russia and the United States: China. Brushing off China’s influence will be especially difficult for Joe Biden. In this case, exactly what are China’s interests? To what degree do they overlap with Russian interests? And why might Beijing be unsatisfied with the results of the talks?

In mere days, Russian-American talks regarding strategic guarantees will begin and take place in both a bilateral format (Russia and the U.S.) and a broader format (Russia, U.S. and NATO). And they promise to be challenging. Accepting Russian proposals will be extremely difficult for Washington, because that would imply the U.S. recognizes Russia as an equal player and rejects the sacred principle of American exceptionalism.

Foreseeing that the U.S. might play the game of “negotiations for the sake of negotiations,” Russian President Vladimir Putin originally demanded that discussions be conducted constructively so that the Americans “don’t bog down” on problematic questions. Putin reiterated this demand during a telephone call to his American counterpart before the new year. Moscow doesn’t need chit-chat, but movement toward results: a written agreement that lays out clear rules for Russian-American engagement and security guarantees.

Will They Play Games?

However, the United States may attempt to play a different game with Russia, simulating not talks, but namely promoting progress from the process of talks: regularly issuing press releases about the achievement of mini-compromises, demonstrating how the most controversial issues have been resolved. And laying out the results of bargaining, normal for the talks process, during which Moscow will soften its positions regarding some issues — for example, waiving demands for the withdrawal and relocating all American nuclear weapons to U.S. territory, limiting them to the necessity of withdrawal from Europe and, in turn, receiving concessions from Washington regarding other issues.

At first glance, this game seems dangerous for the United States. Significant segments of the American foreign policy establishment -- European allies, along with globalists and representatives of the Eastern European elite and a biased press corps — will all speak out against any substantial concessions to Russia. All of them will regard these concessions as Biden’s movement toward capitulation, something that will draw criticism and for its part, could complicate the situation for majority Democrats on the eve of Congressional midterm elections this year.

However, the tactical risks from this behavior pale in comparison to the possible strategic gains: in particular, creating a schism in Russian-Chinese relations.

I Created You

The issue is that today, one of the main fears in Washington’s corridors of power is the prospect of a military-political alliance between Moscow and Beijing, which, according to American experts, could soon occur.

According to The Hill, “China is backing Russian aggression (in Ukraine), and Russia is backing Chinese aggression (in the South China Sea). Beijing and Moscow have been coordinating their international policies and, since 2005, have been conducting joint military exercises … This August, for the first time, Russian troops during an exercise were using Chinese weapons, demonstrating interoperability (with Russian weapons). The United States has to assume, therefore, that the Chinese and Russian militaries will fight as one.”

And oddly enough, the Americans created this alliance. Washington has done everything it can to deny Russia its European and pan-European ambitions (epitomized, for example, by the creation of a system of collective security from Lisbon to Vladivostok).

It was Washington that, in its struggle with the Russian Federation, began abusing its control over worldwide financial institutions (the dollar, the interbank network and so on), giving rise to the Kremlin’s aspiration to either create its own networks or to support Chinese alternatives.

It was Washington that set course for harsh opposition to the PRC — what’s more, opposition on an official level. In December, the U.S. approved a military budget of $770 billion, $7 billion of which will go toward the so-called Pacific Deterrence Initiative, the official goal of which is the containment of China.

Thus, America has crushed the hopes of Beijing’s leadership that the Washington elite will “come around,” away from anti-Chinese sentiments — and has consequently strengthened the positions of those Chinese bureaucrats who speak out in favor of more aggressive foreign policy, since, as they say, “there’s nowhere to retreat — Beijing is right behind us.” They’re also in favor of joint action with Russia to bring the United States back down to earth and force it to develop a global rule book. This is as much about the scandalous training exercises as it is about the creation of alternative financial institutions to American ones, and also the rapprochement of positions regarding key issues in world politics (such as Iran).

And formally, this cooperation is ongoing. Chinese media were very pleased by Putin’s demands that America stop its pressure on the Russian Federation and PRC, and the PRC’s leader, Xi Jinping, has officially supported drafts of Russian agreements for security guarantees pending signature by the U.S. and NATO.

However, upon close reading of these drafts, one can see they are not really about global norms, but the practical development of a rule book for the European theater of Russian-American engagement. The broader points of the agreements (for example, returning the American nuclear arsenal to American territory) are, in the opinions of experts, not so important for Russia and may be exchanged for concessions from the U.S. regarding Ukraine.

They Won’t Allow It

In the end, China may end up in a situation where Russia and the U.S. conclude a separate truce. Or — what’s more important — China may think Russia and the U.S. are close to such a truce because of the very simulation of progress in the talks process that the Americans are promoting.

And how, then, will Beijing conduct itself? Yes, China could demand that its interests also be considered — as it is suggesting in regard to nuclear issues.

“We’ve noticed that Russia and the USA are holding a strategic dialogue. First, I’d like to say that China welcomes the extension of New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), which has become an extremely important step, opposed by the U.S. during Donald Trump’s administration. Second, we don’t believe this is enough, because even after the extension of New START, the USA and Russia collectively possess more than 90% of nuclear weapons on Earth,” stated Fu Cong, director-general of the PRC’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs' arms control department.

The alternative to Chinese noninvolvement is an accelerated forging of nuclear swords. The Americans believe that by 2030, China could have around 1,000 warheads. (Currently, according to various estimates, it has from 200 to 300 warheads.) That’s a striking difference from estimates made by the Pentagon in 2020. (It was believed at the time that in 10 years, China would raise the number of its warheads to only 400 units).

Chinese bureaucrats, for their part, assure us that these numbers are exaggerated — according to their words, this isn’t about a build-up, but about “modernization.” At this very moment, China can threaten alternative “modernizations” in the event that it is not allowed to participate in the security talks.

However, it’s unlikely to be allowed to participate. This isn’t necessary for Russia — talks regarding the European theater are so complex and involved that if combined with the Far Eastern theater, then the format will collapse under the weight of unsolvable problems and the interplay of competing interests. This is even less necessary for the U.S. — America initiated negotiations with Moscow precisely to free up resources for containing China.

On top of this, achieving an American-Chinese compromise will be much more difficult than reaching an American-Russian compromise. Beijing, unlike Moscow (which is only protecting its own sovereignty and its sphere of responsibility along its borders), is genuinely vying for the throne of world leadership.

Of course, Russia will try to smooth over Chinese dissatisfaction through talks and through as thorough a consideration of Chinese interests as possible in the course of these talks. However, in Beijing, they say hard feelings will remain. There’s a fly in the ointment of Russian-Chinese relations, which Biden will carefully put in place. If, of course, he goes down the path of simulating progress.