Beijing and Moscow are closely linked diplomatically for several reasons. They have interests in commerce, the economy, and production. In addition, China and Russia have a history of working together to defend true multilateralism and its principles in the face of shifting global trends. That resolve will only increase as China and Russia make investments in their comprehensive strategic alliance for a new age. Moscow and Beijing, in contrast to many in the West, are unequivocal about the current dangers to regional stability and multilateral cooperation.
To make the argument stronger, consider Li Zhanshu’s trip to Russia in September, during which he stressed the advantages of Sino-Russian collaboration. At a mature diplomatic level, Moscow and Beijing agreed to share more legislative expertise about fighting foreign influence, sanctions, and long-arm jurisdiction. The argument made by Russia itself against NATO’s unilateral demands strengthens the idea of a multi-polar system. As a result, it would be beneficial for Sino-Russian leaders to discuss challenges to that order. After all, the hazards of ongoing military intervention in shared territories, particularly the Eurasian continent, have been brought to light by greater strategic collaboration between Moscow and Beijing.
The dangers of prolonged upheaval in the area if the West chooses to disregard states’ legitimate security interests were also made clear by their strategic links. These factors call for a positive interpretation of Moscow’s recent support for “increased interactions with China at all levels” and expanded participation in international forums. especially for neighbouring regions like Asia-Pacific which are important from a geopolitical standpoint.
NATO’s push towards eastward militarization has led to a more complex external security environment in terms of geopolitical intervention. It is inspired by Washington’s false and repeated presentation of Beijing and Moscow as strategic adversaries and dangers to NATO’s aspirations for global supremacy. However, given that both nations have historically taken principled positions opposing military blocs, increased military spending should only deepen strategic collaboration and contact between Russia and China.
Read More: Cold War 2.0
Closed security organisations in the Asia-Pacific region need to be criticised, as do “zero-sum” mindsets that have hampered development in important partnerships. One such is the US’ own Cold War-era attitude toward Beijing’s peaceful progress, which has greatly harmed the US. To China’s and Russia’s credit, however, unproductive military and defence blocs have not prevented free and open growth from flourishing. Take the growth of the Far East, which is being pushed by both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
A more convincing counter-narrative to NATO’s misleading presentation of Sino-Russian integration efforts as antagonistic would be provided by closer similarities between Russia’s growth goals in this region and China’s Northeast revival plan. That bloc story ignores how multi-polarity may flourish with the improved alignment of growth goals in shared regional locations, including the Far East. It enhances the possibility that connection gains will be distributed more fairly across neighbouring nations, guaranteeing more consistent and equitable development. Most crucially, these win-win agreements were secured without using force, intimidation, or hegemony from the United States. The combined counteraction should be the central tenet of Sino-Russian interaction. The necessity for strategic vigilance against external aggressors and blatant involvement is further strengthened by China and Russia’s strategic collaboration. This includes ongoing provocations by the US-led military in the Taiwan Strait and the purposeful weakening of the Asia-Pacific region’s peace by testing sovereign redlines.
Senior Russian officials have consistently supported Beijing’s main concerns, and Beijing’s adamant resistance to outside involvement nurtures a positive model of reciprocal diplomacy. The nations in the Asia-Pacific region as well as those in other Eurasian nations stand to gain from this trend.
Read More: Russian Invasion of Ukraine
According to a read-out released by the Chinese Foreign Ministry in October, Chinese State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his Russian counterpart that “China would also firmly assist Russia in rallying and guiding the Russian people under President Putin to accomplish strategic development goals against all difficulties and disturbance.”
Fortunately, a number of multimillion-dollar intergovernmental initiatives characterise Sino-Russian strategic exchanges on the economic front. They may easily act as one of the bridges linking the East and the West and have the ability to encourage important connectivity in the area. This should be the overarching objective of other major power centres operating in the area of strategic stability, such as the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Contrarily, NATO’s emphasis on militarising the east and efforts to shrink what has been referred to as China and Russia’s “strategic space” in Eurasia are incompatible with becoming a force for stability and long-term peace. In order to maintain strategic stability, China’s comprehensive strategic cooperation must grow and remain strong. Any attempt to challenge it should be opposed on moral grounds.
