Was Sino-Russian rapprochement inevitable from Gorbachev on?

Was Sino-Russian rapprochement was inevitable from Gorbachev onward?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 36.7%
  • No

    Votes: 19 63.3%

  • Total voters
    30

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
There's been alot of discussion of whether the Sino-Soviet split was an inevitable thing or a contingent thing.

Much less discussion of Sino-Soviet, and then Sino-Russian, relations over the last thirty years.

To me, the last thirty years, especially the last 25, have been a golden age of Sino-Russian relations.

The countries have not had security incidents or proxy struggles, they trade in arms and other sectors, very often coordinate on UN votes, have a loose cooperative organization (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) that's now 22 years old. Although at times border disputes and border conflicts have been a big factor in Sino-Soviet relations, the leadership in both countries seem to have decided for the last couple decades that these are not relevant. Both seem to accept the status quo of the Mongolian state between them.

Do they "trust" each other? No. Do they have identical interests? No. Are there racists on each side with stereotypes of the other? Yes. Does that mean they are secret enemies? Only if you set the bar really, really low.

Looked at from the perspective of 1965, 1975 or 1985, today's Russia and China are practically BFFs.

Was this inevitable? Or was it contingent on specific efforts to get along?

An argument for inevitability might go like this: Once Russia forefeited the Cold War and greatly weakened as a global power, and America "won" it, it became inevitable weaker Russia and China would cooperate to play against the "winner".

An argument for contingency might go like this: Russian or Chinese leaders since the 1980s had plenty of negative lifetime experiences and a record of historic slights, claims and counterclaims that could easily have been exploited to justify fear and hostility to one another. That this did not happen is a reflection of good policy judgement and good diplomacy on both sides, at least on the issue of their mutual relations.
 
I think the Russo-Chinese/PRC (Russia properly deserves top billing in my opinion) rapprochement is overplayed and does not really exist. Yes, the PRC and Russia often support the same players but I see no collaborative effort to "be on the same side" in a supportive role to each other. If anything, as time goes on in the next 4 years you will see the US and Russia being in lockstep against PRC interests.
 
It's an alliance created by a lack of choices.

The new Russia, weak and corrupt for all it's posturing, has two choices: either side with the West and lose all of its dignity, or ally with the Chinese and maintain a facade of power. They simply have no other choice, seeing as how Russian doctrine has always been one of stubbornness.

China, on the other hand, treats Russia as a useful and temporary sidekick. And lets make it clear, Russia is the side kick. Whilst Russia rattles its saber, receiving devastating sanctions in exchange for measly kilometers of worthless territory, China can use the distraction as a way to continue it's relatively assertive foreign policy. There's also the fact that China has an interest in Siberia, which the Russians hopelessly understand and can do nothing about.
 
It's an alliance created by a lack of choices.

The new Russia, weak and corrupt for all it's posturing, has two choices: either side with the West and lose all of its dignity, or ally with the Chinese and maintain a facade of power. They simply have no other choice, seeing as how Russian doctrine has always been one of stubbornness.

China, on the other hand, treats Russia as a useful and temporary sidekick. And lets make it clear, Russia is the side kick. Whilst Russia rattles its saber, receiving devastating sanctions in exchange for measly kilometers of worthless territory, China can use the distraction as a way to continue it's relatively assertive foreign policy. There's also the fact that China has an interest in Siberia, which the Russians hopelessly understand and can do nothing about.
I assume by "China" you mean the PRC govt, I was confused because if you said Korea, I'd automatically assume you were talking about a pre-1910 nation such as Silla, since today there are two Korean, just as there are two govts in China.

The PRC using Russia's adventures as a distraction is hardly making Russia a sidekick. There is no evidence of Russia purposely engaging in being a distraction, which would be the case of a sidekick (there's a reason Batman is in a dark costume and Robin is a red and green bullseye).

Now if there was evidence of the PRC being involved jointly with Russia in state sponsored hacking instead of running their own program separate then I'd say you're right. But the last year of evidence of their goals in the US election show they had different wishes on the outcome.
 
I assume by "China" you mean the PRC govt, I was confused because if you said Korea, I'd automatically assume you were talking about a pre-1910 nation such as Silla, since today there are two Korean, just as there are two govts in China.

The PRC using Russia's adventures as a distraction is hardly making Russia a sidekick. There is no evidence of Russia purposely engaging in being a distraction, which would be the case of a sidekick (there's a reason Batman is in a dark costume and Robin is a red and green bullseye).

Now if there was evidence of the PRC being involved jointly with Russia in state sponsored hacking instead of running their own program separate then I'd say you're right. But the last year of evidence of their goals in the US election show they had different wishes on the outcome.
Americans such as me usually refer to the RoC as Taiwan, seeing as how they control no part of the mainland and their claims to be China are impractical.

Russia's role as a distraction is not what makes them a side kick, but why China accepts them as such. Whether Russia wants to be a side kick or not is irrelevant, they have no other choice.
 
I think anyone post Khrushchev would have created rapproachment. Hell, Brezhnev helped it just by not banging on about the evils of Stalinism. Then again Brezhnev could not bang about anything since that would requiring banging. The general feeling in the Soviet Union in the '80s was one of, "the Hell was that?" when thinking back to the Sino-Russian split. There was even a movie (TV or feature, I do not recall) set in the '60s, where the two young lovers are a Russian girl and a Chinese boy who meet cute in college and have their lives nearly destroyed by Khrushchev making the international situation worse, with the gist of the movie really being, "Moscow and Peking are friends, but sometimes things get in the way."

I think it was inevitable given the geopolitical situation. It was not Gorbachev. Romanov would have done the same. As would the extended shelf life of Chernenko, or the idiot who dragged his terminally ill body out for a vote to shore up his support that backfired on him Grishin. Or Ligachev. Barring some wild eyed loon getting into Soviet power, Russia would eventually drift towards China.
 
I think anyone post Khrushchev would have created rapproachment. Hell, Brezhnev helped it just by not banging on about the evils of Stalinism. Then again Brezhnev could not bang about anything since that would requiring banging. The general feeling in the Soviet Union in the '80s was one of, "the Hell was that?" when thinking back to the Sino-Russian split. There was even a movie (TV or feature, I do not recall) set in the '60s, where the two young lovers are a Russian girl and a Chinese boy who meet cute in college and have their lives nearly destroyed by Khrushchev making the international situation worse, with the gist of the movie really being, "Moscow and Peking are friends, but sometimes things get in the way."

I think it was inevitable given the geopolitical situation. It was not Gorbachev. Romanov would have done the same. As would the extended shelf life of Chernenko, or the idiot who dragged his terminally ill body out for a vote to shore up his support that backfired on him Grishin. Or Ligachev. Barring some wild eyed loon getting into Soviet power, Russia would eventually drift towards China.

The only geopolitically sane situation where USSR and PRC patch up would be a situation where the Soviet's are becoming weaker (so, OTL really) and the Chinese are experiencing a resurgence (so, again, like OTL, a reformist takes power). In a situation where either the Soviet Union becomes stronger (Stronger push by Kosygin for reforms, no Brezhnev, and Andropov comes in earlier with an anti-corruption campaign) or the Chinese remain weak (implying that they remain under a Maoist regime, aka Gang of Four remains) makes such an occurrence impossible.
 
I think today many people overestimate (mostly the Russians themselves) their good relations with China. China cares only about raw resources to fuel its economy so they can export goods to the United States. However China and Russia have no significant disputes that make any rapprochement impossible. The Chinese make a big show of being with Russia against the United States, but when it comes down to it, the Chinese need America more than anyone needs Russia (which of course, no one really does or ever has).
 
I'd say _a_ rapprochement is inevitable. Even if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed, too much tension between the USSR/Russia and China is simply bad for the governments in Moscow and Peking achieving their goals.

There's plenty of room for a rapprochement to be better or worse though.

fasquardon
 
I think as long as China got out of its ideological fanaticism in the 1960/70s, there would bound to be more rational thinking about relations with Russia, despie all the hostilities.
 
The only geopolitically sane situation where USSR and PRC patch up would be a situation where the Soviet's are becoming weaker (so, OTL really) and the Chinese are experiencing a resurgence (so, again, like OTL, a reformist takes power). In a situation where either the Soviet Union becomes stronger (Stronger push by Kosygin for reforms, no Brezhnev, and Andropov comes in earlier with an anti-corruption campaign) or the Chinese remain weak (implying that they remain under a Maoist regime, aka Gang of Four remains) makes such an occurrence impossible.

I'd disagree with that. If anything, a weaker USSR is going to feel more threatened by a rising China and react as such, given that other things in the Cold War are as OTL. If the Chinese stay under a Maoist regime, they aren't going to let the Russians call the shots, that's just how it is.

A more likely situation is if Deng and his wing ally with a reformist Kosyginite Soviet Union against the Gang of Four. This would be helped along by a more hostile US administration which, like Kennedy, see's Maoist Third Worldism as a greater long-term threat than the Soviets.

Anyways, addressing the OP, I feel like at least a partial rapprochement is necessary in an OTL US-dominated 90s. China and Russia are essentially two authoritarian (though in different ways), continental Eurasian states that oppose the hegemony of the sea-dominant US. This is essentially how most of the Russian foreign policy elite view the situation, with the Chinese appreciating the West as a trading partner, but suspicious of them and chafing at US encirclement and hell-bent on using their economic leverage over Southeast Asia to break the US' traditional dominance (but not hegemony) over the region.

The most likely points of friction between Russia and China are small border disputes (which become a national pride issue and are blown out of proportion) and the situation in Central Asia. With a New Union treaty going through, this won't occur, as the Central Asian 'stans' will remain in the resultant Eurasian Union. But even in OTL situation, China and Russia are surprisingly amiable despite Chinese inroads into Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan in particular. This hints at a greater realignment of Russian priorities away from the reinstatement of USSR borders towards a more 'efficient' power projection strategy.
 
The only geopolitically sane situation where USSR and PRC patch up would be a situation where the Soviet's are becoming weaker (so, OTL really) and the Chinese are experiencing a resurgence (so, again, like OTL, a reformist takes power). In a situation where either the Soviet Union becomes stronger (Stronger push by Kosygin for reforms, no Brezhnev, and Andropov comes in earlier with an anti-corruption campaign) or the Chinese remain weak (implying that they remain under a Maoist regime, aka Gang of Four remains) makes such an occurrence impossible.

That is assuming reform would automatically makes the USSR stronger-it wouldn't. Even with a China-like authoritarian capitalism model there's still the price of oil tanking, an oversize military to wind down, and in all likelihood political concessions to the west/Japan so that investment will actually occur. The Soviets are still in for a rough time.

I think today many people overestimate (mostly the Russians themselves) their good relations with China. China cares only about raw resources to fuel its economy so they can export goods to the United States. However China and Russia have no significant disputes that make any rapprochement impossible. The Chinese make a big show of being with Russia against the United States, but when it comes down to it, the Chinese need America more than anyone needs Russia (which of course, no one really does or ever has).

I detect some bitterness. And I can think of a number of countries that would historically disagree with you-Serbia, most obviously.
 
Now if there was evidence of the PRC being involved jointly with Russia in state sponsored hacking instead of running their own program separate then I'd say you're right. But the last year of evidence of their goals in the US election show they had different wishes on the outcome.

Your last point is one that intrigues me. Russia and Putin were clearly hoping for a Trump victory. OTOH Trump has been less than friendly to the PRC (not to mention Trump has also opposed other erstwhile Russian partners such as Iran). While I can't see Putin throwing decades of ties with the PRC and Iran under the bus for unpredictable Trump, there is potential for *some* realignment here.
 
That is assuming reform would automatically makes the USSR stronger-it wouldn't. Even with a China-like authoritarian capitalism model there's still the price of oil tanking, an oversize military to wind down, and in all likelihood political concessions to the west/Japan so that investment will actually occur. The Soviets are still in for a rough time.



I detect some bitterness. And I can think of a number of countries that would historically disagree with you-Serbia, most obviously.
Who cares about Serbia???


In all seriousness though, is it not true that China's economy is reliant on U.S trade? The Chinese will back the Russians in the U.N but they will not be sticking their necks out anytime soon.
 
I think it's mostly a case of both sides not having anything to loose by cooperating. They are both nuclear powers, so neither side has anything to gain by being aggressive against one another, so pragmatism says they might as well work together when it's advantageous to do so. And when it comes to international relations them merely being seen as friendly by itself is already useful regarding dealings with 3rd parties.
It's only when you have spoiled middle class who's constantly whining about human rights, that cooperating with unpleasant regimes despite it being advantageous to do so becomes politically difficult :winkytongue:.
 
In all seriousness though, is it not true that China's economy is reliant on U.S trade? The Chinese will back the Russians in the U.N but they will not be sticking their necks out anytime soon.
That's certainly true. US-China relations would have to deteriorate quite a bit for an open Russian alliance to be worthwhile for China. Of course countries don't always pick the most worthwhile ally (looking at you, Dual Alliance), but so far China's been pretty meticulously neutral in things like the Ukrainian conflict.
 
Top