I've seen some really based summarizations of stuff on 4chan. Could any if you guys give me some sweet musky knowledge on the history of relations between these two red giants? Every time somebody gives a good explanation of stuff like this it really clarifies current day scenarios.
They don't like each other
>>310067
This, IIRC they almost nuked each other.
They like each other
>>310072
There was a Sino-Soviet split in 1961, and Sino-Soviet border clashes in 1968 that nearly turned into a nuclear war.
Chinese foreign policy has always been pragmatic rather than ideological.
They share the mutual enemy (US) and thats what their current relation is based around. They are allies out of necessity only and the alliance is based upon shaky foundations and mistrust of each other.
>>310137
To add to this and the above posters, Russia has fears of growing Chinese influence near the Eastern Russia. Back in the early 60s, the relationship was between a Superior (Russia) and Inferior (China) but after the split, the role reversed gradually. Right now Russia is vary of China but at the same time, needs it as a stable partner.
>>310153
>whitey get all scared of muh yellow peril
maybe its the ghosts of the russo-jap war
>>310158
Not really a ghost but rather a reality about to happen. Many Russians have their head stuck in the sand about this change in reality as well.
In the opposite way, the Chinese know about the reversal of role as well but China hasn't really done much to use that advantage/favor yet. They're keeping Russia on the bound because China needs an ally really badly right now. The old superpower is a strong counter weight to the US/west's pressure. China has been playing the field carefully with good results and will continue to do so if my guesses are any good.
In the same regards, Russia needs China to counterbalance the west/US's sanctions and pressures. However Russia knows its in the weaker position so it will try to play nice with China and gain their favor. If either of the countries fall, both will be doomed (at least politically), because they are each other's counterweight to the US/west .
>>310185
Good shit senpie
>>310185
China has very little to gain from antagonizing Russia so long as it can buy natural gas and raw materials from the russian east. Theyre facing a serious generational issue as their population declines and the workforce dissipates. The most russia has to be afraid of is that russian babushkas will marry wealthy chinks who cant find a bride at home because chink women are somehow worse than western women in terms of being sociopathic psychos.
China is a hard country to understand. They will conduct meetings with US and EU diplomats and military officials to improve relations then the next day they do the same thing with Russia and threaten the US and Japan over empty islands the next day.
Overall, they have little interest in the rest of the world for anything other than economic benefits. Instead of involving themselves in the quarrels of competing countries (like the US and Russia) they will choose both sides. In a planned Chinese pipeline there is going be two routes. One through pro-Russian Kazakhstan and the other through Turkmenistan across the Caspian and into Azerbaijan (pro-NATO). Before the embargo on Iran was lifted, China traded raw materials for oil.
Russia and China are just as threatened by each other as they are by the power of OPEC and NATO. However, relations between all of the world's strongest nations are at an all time high. A Russian plane was downed by Turkey (what's left of the Ottoman Empire), Russias third or fourth greatest enemy of the last 300 years only behind Germany, the US and maybe Austria but they still didn't retaliate or even threaten a change in the status quo between them.
>>310348
They're playing the long game, as they know time is on their side. They can afford to flex their muscle a bit if it's in or near their territory.
There's one thing I don't understand.
There were anti-communist protests in Poland in 1956. Krushchev nearly sent his tanks there but Mao said that if he does it he will regret this because. It was before the "official" split. Why did he do this? What was China's business in that part of Europe?
>>310765
There was an ideological conflict between revisionist Khrushev and anti-revisionist Mao.
>>308666
I will type this out in 2 parts. Essentially, they do not like each other, but their geopolitical situations make them a sort of reluctant allies.
Culturally they see each other as too different from their own: China views Russia as a mostly European state, who they generally mistrust. This leaves Russia in an awkward spot because they've always been viewed as somewhat outside of European culture, but not fully Asian either, making them sort of strange "other". This is not just a matter of history, just look at the recent aggression between Russia and the West.
Their history also is filled with conflict: there is the Sino-Soviet split and their general dislike each other during the Cold War (though its worth mentioning that Mao and Stalin were bros), but also further back in history where we can see Russia siding with European powers on things like unfair trade deals imposed on China during Western imperialism. Going back even further, some of Russia's territory on the East, when they were expanding to Siberia, was conquered from China. These are some of the reasons why they don't like each other.
On matters UN intervention in Syria, which would have likely removed Assad from power years ago (for better or for worse, thats another topic), both Russia and China voted to veto. This speaks for their common geopolitical aims: they do not like Western hegemony and the push from Western countries to exert their influence across borders. Both Russia and China have matters that they do not want the West to meddle in with, for example China has island disputes with other countries in SE Asia, they want more control over Hong Kong, and Russia has problem areas like Chechnya and Crimea, not to mention desires to recapture those Soviet glory days.
Economically speaking, the balance of power is much more in favor of China, which plays an interesting role between the two. Also, heres a picture of Putin and Xi Jinping taking shots together.
>>310856
Now with Western sanctions, China has become Russia's largest trading partner, although Russia is far behind the US, Europe and Japan in terms of their value to China. There are signs that this is growing, like the recent expensive pipeline deal, which works well for China as they need raw materials to fuel their growth, but the value of that deal is still dwarfed by the money that goes on between China and the West.
There is also the BRICS coalition between Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, which are these emerging economies that are working together towards creating a bi-polar world by setting up another financial center to counter the IMF, which overwhelmingly leans towards Western interests. Or at least thats the goal: the details are fuzzy, and there is disagreement. They have a bank already, which they heavily disputed on where it would be located and how it would work.
The BRICS bank is currently up and running in Shanghai. They disagreed on how influence over the bank would work: in the IMF, the largest contributors get the most votes, which, interestingly enough, was something China wanted, since they can afford to buy up the most influence (they do, after all, have the largest economy in the world now), but that is something that India, Russia, Brazil and South Africa fought. After about a decade of negotiations, China gave up, and the members agreed on giving equal number of votes, on the condition that the bank be headquartered in Shanghai.
How that effects their political relations is that Russia is annoyed with having to go from a Western-dominated system to a Chinese-dominated system, while China is reluctant to back Russia in their level of aggressiveness because their partnership with the West is what is bringing in the dough, and they don't want to fuck that up. That is one reason why during Crimea or Syria, China has hardly taken sides.
>>310185
I think you are vastly overestimating China here. They aren't on the brink of becoming a superpower or anything.
>>310966
What makes you think they aren't already?
>>311120
A superpower has global reach. China does not have this. The US is currently the only superpower, and before it was US and USSR. China is still currently a regional power.
>>311120
They have got the economic part locked down but militarily speaking they lack the conventional force projection to be relevant outside of the IOR and South China Sea.
Say for instance a country on the other end of the world, like Brazil is harming Chinese interests. They can do little to project their will upon Brazil , except for launching ICBMs which is hardly a viable solution
>>311120
>A superpower is a word used to describe a state with a dominant position in international relations and is characterised by its unparalleled ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale. This is done through the means of both military and economic strength, as well as diplomatic and soft power influence.
>>311272
Superpower =/= hegemon.
China aims to dominate the world financially, a goal to which they're well on their way. Military intervention is a thing of the past and they know it.
Name one intervention that worked to the benefit of the US.
>>311288
>>311272
Not only that, look at their foreign investments in the past 30 years.
Not that they're on the brink of becoming a new superpower.
While its true that their PPP is the highest of all single countries in the world, their academia still lacks and their civil society is not very leveled in terms of education and wealth. Not that that would matter in a country with more than 1.3billion people
>>312025
>311272
China was always quantity over quality.
>>312186
>always
The world existed for more than 100 years, you know that right?
>>310876
China didn't take sides on Syria/Crimea/Ukraine because they never take sides on matters of armed intervention.
Go ask what third worlders think of the PRC. They'll say it is a nation that has protected and helped the third world.
When it comes to squabbles between the West and the post-USSR or the West and Islamists, China simply doesn't take sides. Look at UNSC decisions in the 80's-90's. China simply abstained from voting.
Intervention in Kosovo? China abstained.
Sanctions for Crimea? China abstained.
Syria? China abstained.
Somalia 90's? China abstained.
Georgia 2008? China abstained.
Iraq 2003? China abstained.
They abstain because they hate having blood on their hands. China hasn't gone to war since 1979 for a reason. And the South China Sea is a dispute between 6 nations, not between China and 5 nations.
Of course our media is beating the war drum. Expect a Chinese/America conflict in the 2020's.
>>311272
Is it possible that China and Russia working together has degraded America's position as the superpower? Sure America can stay in place and stay a superpower, but that's assuming no one else is running or running faster.
Welcome to a multipolar world.
>>311199
Power projection is becoming less and less important in international relations.
More nations have nukes. More nations have extensive ties with each other. More nations are stronger relative to the West than they were just a decade ago.
America went from 50% of world GDP to 19% in just 60 years. Military and soft power ties last longer because of the momentum effect, but they already have been degrading relative to other nations.
>>310876
You are close to being correct. It's a relationship out of need and mutual interests. But aren't all national relationships like that? China gives the money and the industry, Russia gives the power projection and raw material, and Central Asia provides the energy.
>>310966
They are on the brink of ending America's hegemonic status.
>>312452
>China didn't take sides on Syria/Crimea/Ukraine because they never take sides on matters of armed intervention.
But thats not exactly correct either. That they didn't outright denounce Putin does say something about their stance and the way they view the Crimean annexation. Neutrality doesn't just mean "we don't care", depending on context, neutrality can say much. And those conflicts you list have all been since China-Western relations started being massively profitable. China absolutely is willing to take sides in armed interventions, just look at Korea.
As for how they feel towards Syria, their veto in the Security Council says everything.
The "we want to keep to ourselves, and we want everyone to keep themselves" narrative only goes so far as it works in their interests.
>>308666
A pretty rocky relationship. During the 19th and earlier Russia was the first country to "shape" the borders of China with treaties according to the Western practice.
Then they supported Communism in the early stages. During WWII it was a bit strange since they sided with CKS.
There was a border dispute in the 1960s.
Today it's a bit ambiguous
pic related, i have this on a tshirt, no homer
>>312485
>More nations have nukes
There's only 7 nations on the planet who can be recognized as nuclear powers and it has remained that way for almost 2 decades
US,UK,Russia,France, China, India and Pakistan.
Israel has never been able to prove it's nuclear capabilities. Force projection has and always will be the primary criteria for a superpower
Having powerful force projection allows you to control trade routes, hold areas of strategic importance like straights, ports and eliminate those who pose threats to your interests ,be it security threats or economic threats
Economic and Military might go hand in hand.one will never be more important than the other.
>>312619
I disagree in part and agree in part.
Their neutrality serves their interests. That makes sense because nations are supposed to do that. But they have been neutral consistently. Not only on issues that support them, but on almost all issues. Even with the recent SCS stuff they've held a stance similar to everyone else.
The answer here is that they are consitently neutral because it serves China's interests.
"Korea" was 1950. I'm not talking about Mao China. I'm talking about China post-Mao.
China could have said no to Kosovo. They could have denied a few votes in the 80's, specifically the one blaming Russia for the Korea airlines or America for the Iranian airlines.
They made an objectively good choice on Syria.
>>312676
I'm arguing that power projection is less important and becoming less so as time goes on.
Sure power projection allows you to be a massive asshole, but all that will do is piss off the other 194 nations in the world who are trading.
Economic might is and has been more important than force projection. Force projection is seen as generally illegal outside of a few situations, while economic force projection can be used at any time and for any situation.
One is a boss, the other is the company culture.
9 nations are known to have nukes. Sorry but it's a lot harder to invade a nation with nukes than one without them.
>>312739
Which 2 did I miss ? I swear if you post North Korea.
>power projection allows you to be an asshole
How so ?
Being able to secure trade routes for your nation is nothing wrong, it benefits everyone. Just more so to the person controlling them.Same goes about controlling strategically important locations.
You are providing a secure environment for trade which small non-military states could never have managed. This will be pleasing to everyone except the few big players and having good force projection is important to keep those players from muscling in on you
And that's just from an economic perspective.
What do you do when some mad radical flies an Airliner into your trade center ?
Force Projection being illegal is not true.
Economic might has never been superior to Military and neither has military might been superior to economic.
For if you leave your economy defenseless people will take you by force and if you leave yourself penniless you can't fight a war.
It's an oversimplification I know but sometimes oversimplification is enough to convey a point.
Besides,nukes can be deterred by nukes themselves.No one will fire a Nuke at somebody who can retaliate with 10 more
>>312708
>But they have been neutral consistently.
Yes, but only after their economic relationship with the West started taking off. I argue that their economic situation is strangely limiting them in terms of their political aims, because while they may be working towards creating a bipolar world, they are still at the present existing in a unipolar one. What we see as consistent neutrality is just them having to work within the confides of that unipolar world.
As for Mao, you're right it is in the past and China is a very different countryntoday, but it is nonetheless not completely different. The same state and party that brought us Mao is still in charge. The Mao example in Korea is important because its the same state, only 60 something years ago, exercising their foreign policy ambitions in a bipolar world that permited them to act more aggressively. They may be more reserved towards acting like that now, but I argue those same ambitions are still there: their veto votes in Syria, their siding with Russia in rebellion towards Western hegemony are evidence of this.
As for Kosovo, lets keep in mind that was also a NATO affair and not just UN. China seems unwilling to take a stance against NATO, probably because of those economic trade deals worth trillions with NATO countries. They protested and blocked UN action in Syria, but they dont have anything to say towards the current coalition bombing campaign.
Luckily for China, Russia gives no fucks about upsetting Nato.
>>312739
Why not both? Thats where real power lies. Thats what the US has, and thats what China wants.
>>312452
>Is it possible that China and Russia working together has degraded America's position as the superpower?
No not at all. Most of the world and nearly all nations that are relevant are still firmly within the US' sphere of influence. They control and IMF and can pull shit like the TPP and they have more power projection than the rest of the world combined.
We are a long way off a multipolar world.
>>312641
The Chinese entirely deserved it for the shit they pulled over the Treaty of Nerchinsk.
>>311288
>name one that benefitted
Literally every war they have ever had, they pay for u.s. made weapons and food so war acts as stimulus. The only thing that would change this would be if they lost air control and got bombed, and their air force is the largest on the planet.
