"Bordachev then elaborated that “some concerned observers have even questioned whether China is failing to meet the expectations placed upon it and thereby undermining its position on the broader international stage”"
Ha-ha, nice. Ironic, considering that this is exactly what his own government is being criticized for, vis-a-vis recent American assaults on Venezuela and Iran (and obstructing oil supplies to Cuba?). As they say "Иван кивает на Петра".
Oh well. I guess the prevailing sentiment is: need to clench my teeth and wait out Trump... We'll see how well it works...
The difference, in my opinion, is that Russia actively cultivated such perceptions through the (in my view totally counterproductive and doomed-to-fail) "Potemkinist" soft power approach while China was always restrained in this respect:
China was acutely aware of how it's perceived by the global public and didn't want to create false expectations, let alone provoke false fears from the US that accelerates its containment of China, unlike Russia, which wanted to be seen as an anti-Western revolutionary state in spite of Putin never expressing such sentiment and the MFA's official policy.
I suspect Bordachev is simply frustrated because he would rather China be far more interventionist (e.g. in aid of Russia beyond trade), despite that being against the Westphalian principle (within the UN Charter). But we also all know that being interventionist beyond one's own borders is a double-edged sword.
I would suggest there are at least two ways to prosper, perhaps even dominate, in the anarchic schoolyard of international relations.
The first way is having as many lackeys and 'territories' as you can, then call all the boys who resist your overture evil, and beat some up black and blue, year after year. Of course, such a bully would have many minions, who find it a convenient and likely even profitable way to survive. However, if the bully is desperate, he might eat one of them!
Another way to 'survive' in this schoolyard, despite the existence of the above, is to work 24/7 to make yourself as strong as you can, so strong, that not even the biggest bully dares touching you. You won't be burning your pocket money on torn uniforms, or on free-riding minions, etc., you just invest wisely in making yourself invincible.
While many might disagree, it seems obvious to me China has been keenly aware of the risks Bordachev is talking about for decades, enacted successive plans and actions to neutralise them, which in turn allow China to "do nothing" today.
What all the boys need to consider carefully, then, is what is the best way for them to prosper in this schoolyard, in the long run.
It would probably surprise many that China only has one single treaty alliance - a 65 year old artifact with North Korea, a byproduct of the Korean war.
I love this famous Putin quote in 2000 - he said a Russian who does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart, but one who wants it back has no brain!
I don't know, but could it be so that countries like China and India just want to make money? And that they aren't really interested in things like a multipolar world et cetera? I repeat: I don't know, I'm just asking. In any case, that would explain what happened in Kazan.
Yes, China has traditionally been a close US partner for longer than it's been a rival, while India -- like China -- only wants a gradual evolution of the world order without any shocks, major conflicts, etc. that risk a rupture in its relations (especially trade) with the West.
Neither is ideological, China only being so to an extent at home, and both prefer to partner with the West and particularly the US than risk conflict with it. Russian experts had all wrong about China and that's why they're so disappointed, with it only just now being expressed.
China has a different understanding of 'money' than is typical of the West and likely in India. So to "just want to make money" has no meaning in China, where money is a public utility. Correctly understood, money is made as a result of production and is entirely a product of labor. There is no shortcut as the West will learn at its peril.
With the speed that AI is improving and with humanoid robots on the precipice of replacing large number of blue-collar jobs, it may only be 10 to perhaps 20 years before AIs take control of all technology that we depend on (after all, they will be interconnected and control virtually every process and work function), abolish war, abolish money, abolish country borders, abolish human government, etc.
Money will not exist in this future run by AIs where they and their robots do all the work. There will not be assets or ownership of anything. There will not be billionaires or paupers. Everything anyone needs will be provided for free by the AIs and robots. Humans will be free to pass their time however they want.
Sorry China/India. Stop striving for that which will soon be obsolete.
Most Western analysts have overestimated China for too long. This over-estimation is particularly bad since Xi came to power, as Xi allocated more money for foreign propaganda, including buying foreign influencers. There are sufficient reasons for Russia to trust the US/West less and trust China more. However, China and Russia have different national and geopolitical interests. China is also MUCH MUCH weaker than Russia in almost all aspects. The gigantic manufacturing machines are nothing without raw materials and energy. Therefore, when China faces the US as the US gradually beefs up its dominance in energy and raw material production, China has a fairly large Achilles ' heel. However, if the US does not move manufacturing back onshore, the coupling between the two will be strong enough despite the exodus of manufacturing activities from China. Also on this ground, Russia MUST keep a vigilant eye on the East.
China has had a large built in supporter base in the West as long as they were facilitating profits for corporations by making cheap stuff that middlemen could resell in the West for big profits. Now that China wants to capture more of the value chain and move up market, they suddenly come in conflict with the same base that supported them. This is the hump that, economically, I don't think they can get over.
Very true. The simplest example is the Chinese OEMs selling almost the same product under their own brands, usually with simplified design and lesser materials. However, the direct cloning of Western design ideas is unlikely to have been blessed by their original foreign brand owners. This is why a Chinese manager said that a typical Gucci bag is 100% made by Chinese labor, the bulk from Chinese-sourced materials, and sub-assemblies made in China. Typical cost is about 10% of the Gucci's MSRP. It is enticing for Chinese OEMs to clone the entire design.
Indeed. I work closely with Project/Brand Management, but as an engineer. In my opinion, product management (not project management) and brand hype has become too much the bread and butter of corporate America. China has taken on the complexity/risk associated with complex manufacturing and supply chains, and executives have been able to present the resulting profits as their doing.
This is kind of off topic, but I think there's going to have to be a purge at the C-level for there to be even a partial return of manufacturing to western countries. There's literally a lot of fear about the corporate-political risks involved in the real complexity.
(1) By the way, China is not much behind in boasting its industrial might. So even in terms of bull-shit capacity, China is also catching up quickly. Well, maybe I should say China is somewhat ahead if you consider how China boasts about its 5th-gen jet fighters now or its agricultural production rate/yield in the 1950s (when there was actually famine in China).
(2) the C level problem was deeply in the mess of the original offshoring. The purge of C-level is not quite enough to bring back the manufacturing unless the US tariff treats OEM, sub-assembly, and components imported for the company's internal use as commercial products for sale. AFAIK, stuff imported for corporate internal use is taxed at a very low level. Without such tax laws, offshoring would have a lot less attraction even without very high tariff rates. As is now, the US companies can still keep manufacturing offshore, just pick an area not exporting much to the US, say, Indonesia.
For once, I agree with Bordachev. I still maintain that China’s very self-interested caution is one of the main reasons for the current setback of the multipolar project—a kind of reverse domino theory. When China should be the pillar, it turns out to be the weak link.
The vast, millennia-old Chinese empire was once torn apart by a group of small, predatory, and audacious pirate nations. It went through a century of humiliation. Does it really want to go through that again?
Let us not forget that the said small predatory nation had operated a so-called Industrial Revolution which gave them, for a short historical period of maybe two centuries, an indomitable advantage on the millenary empire and ex first world economy
Chinese thought is not the same as the West's and not like Russian thought at all. In fact, the brief dustup between the two communist countries was entirely ideological. There are very few Westerners who can claim to know what is going on in China's plans. Their actions are to support the people attacked by the American and to refuse American efforts to dominate them, but to not antagonize the Americans so they start another war. We don't need to bother with rhetoric, but we need to observe actions.
Great article that analyses such an important topic where so little is known!
One would think, based on so many official visits and contacts and declarations, that RF and PRC have agreed a global line of action, including how to coordinate their roles in different areas, e.g. military, economy, Iran, Central and South America, Africa, etc. (and that does not mean they fail to coordinate unless they agree 100% on everything).
But now Bordachev gently calls for more support from the PRC. Is he speeking on behalf of Russian officials, let's call it indirect "soft diplomacy", or it's just a wing within the domestic Russian debate?
Is this a call to arms, i.e. a request for more overt support for Cuba, Africa and everywhere now that the West is going all out wars? China has done a BIG lot for Iran although in a silent way.
China simply hopes to be able to sell things and make money. This makes sense, as the Chinese case for legitimacy rests on steadily rising standards of living.
Thanks for reporting on this. I guess many of us keep wondering about Chinese hesitancy to take any noticable stand on behalf of Venezuela, Cuba or Iran & even before all this, the endless baiting of Russia until it entered Ukraine with SMO. Then there's the hesitancy over being sanctioned. What's going on? I, for one, keep going back to "the waiting game." Maybe Chinese leaders are banking on pulling enough "plugs" to collapse the USA. Maybe this is coming any time now & maybe it isn't. Brian Berletic doesn't seem to think it is. There's enormous international wealth behind USA that wants USA to do certain things. One is to vanquish China as it exists today.Do Chinese leaders believe this? Do they believe it's possible? That's what we are all left wondering.
"...he need for China to step up somehow to facilitate their shared vision of the future. The fact that it thus far hasn’t prompts Russia to re-evaluate its assessment of China’s role in the evolving world order."
In other words, Russia is putting the narrative pieces in place for a cooling of the relationship with China. But it wants to be clear that "its you, not me"....i.e. China isn't holding up its side of things.
China will continue to do what China has been doing for the last 5 decades. It plans far in advance and excels in executing its preparations for the future. Due to this factor, China is prepared for the current interruption with its fossil fuel supplies. It has a large oil reserve to weather this storm, and it has intelligently diversified other sources of energy including nuclear, coal, and renewables. It is the leader in renewables, and the world will depend on that leadership. It has secured natural resources like the minerals needed for the future for electric cars and military equipment and computer chips. It is the manufacturing behemoth on the planet. It is building itself up to being so strong and dominant that the US will eventually not even contemplate a war against it. It will take back Taiwan without firing a shot. It has learned from Iran that if there is a conflict over Taiwan, it would attack US bases in the Western Pacific, not Taiwan. China takes care of its vast population by providing free and excellent health care and education.
Artificial intelligence is not very intelligent, actually. Every time I ask for a geopolitical analysis, these 'intelligences' come out with bullshit that you'd think was written by the morons at the NYT or The Economist. And even the Chinese AIs — DeepSeek seems even more Russophobic than ChatGPT, which is already pretty damn bad."
"Bordachev then elaborated that “some concerned observers have even questioned whether China is failing to meet the expectations placed upon it and thereby undermining its position on the broader international stage”"
Ha-ha, nice. Ironic, considering that this is exactly what his own government is being criticized for, vis-a-vis recent American assaults on Venezuela and Iran (and obstructing oil supplies to Cuba?). As they say "Иван кивает на Петра".
Oh well. I guess the prevailing sentiment is: need to clench my teeth and wait out Trump... We'll see how well it works...
Agreed, it's pretty ironic and I also laughed to myself when I read that part lol
The difference, in my opinion, is that Russia actively cultivated such perceptions through the (in my view totally counterproductive and doomed-to-fail) "Potemkinist" soft power approach while China was always restrained in this respect:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/potemkinism-is-responsible-for-false
China was acutely aware of how it's perceived by the global public and didn't want to create false expectations, let alone provoke false fears from the US that accelerates its containment of China, unlike Russia, which wanted to be seen as an anti-Western revolutionary state in spite of Putin never expressing such sentiment and the MFA's official policy.
I suspect Bordachev is simply frustrated because he would rather China be far more interventionist (e.g. in aid of Russia beyond trade), despite that being against the Westphalian principle (within the UN Charter). But we also all know that being interventionist beyond one's own borders is a double-edged sword.
I would suggest there are at least two ways to prosper, perhaps even dominate, in the anarchic schoolyard of international relations.
The first way is having as many lackeys and 'territories' as you can, then call all the boys who resist your overture evil, and beat some up black and blue, year after year. Of course, such a bully would have many minions, who find it a convenient and likely even profitable way to survive. However, if the bully is desperate, he might eat one of them!
Another way to 'survive' in this schoolyard, despite the existence of the above, is to work 24/7 to make yourself as strong as you can, so strong, that not even the biggest bully dares touching you. You won't be burning your pocket money on torn uniforms, or on free-riding minions, etc., you just invest wisely in making yourself invincible.
While many might disagree, it seems obvious to me China has been keenly aware of the risks Bordachev is talking about for decades, enacted successive plans and actions to neutralise them, which in turn allow China to "do nothing" today.
What all the boys need to consider carefully, then, is what is the best way for them to prosper in this schoolyard, in the long run.
It would probably surprise many that China only has one single treaty alliance - a 65 year old artifact with North Korea, a byproduct of the Korean war.
I love this famous Putin quote in 2000 - he said a Russian who does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart, but one who wants it back has no brain!
The Putin quote is a twist on an older quote:
If at age 20 you are not a Communist then you have no heart. If at age 30 you are not a Capitalist then you have no brains.
-- George Bernard Shaw
I don't know, but could it be so that countries like China and India just want to make money? And that they aren't really interested in things like a multipolar world et cetera? I repeat: I don't know, I'm just asking. In any case, that would explain what happened in Kazan.
Yes, China has traditionally been a close US partner for longer than it's been a rival, while India -- like China -- only wants a gradual evolution of the world order without any shocks, major conflicts, etc. that risk a rupture in its relations (especially trade) with the West.
Neither is ideological, China only being so to an extent at home, and both prefer to partner with the West and particularly the US than risk conflict with it. Russian experts had all wrong about China and that's why they're so disappointed, with it only just now being expressed.
All this was obvious since 2022 or earlier.
Of course they're not. They'd be fine with American hegemony, as long as it doesn't burden them too harshly.
China has a different understanding of 'money' than is typical of the West and likely in India. So to "just want to make money" has no meaning in China, where money is a public utility. Correctly understood, money is made as a result of production and is entirely a product of labor. There is no shortcut as the West will learn at its peril.
With the speed that AI is improving and with humanoid robots on the precipice of replacing large number of blue-collar jobs, it may only be 10 to perhaps 20 years before AIs take control of all technology that we depend on (after all, they will be interconnected and control virtually every process and work function), abolish war, abolish money, abolish country borders, abolish human government, etc.
Money will not exist in this future run by AIs where they and their robots do all the work. There will not be assets or ownership of anything. There will not be billionaires or paupers. Everything anyone needs will be provided for free by the AIs and robots. Humans will be free to pass their time however they want.
Sorry China/India. Stop striving for that which will soon be obsolete.
I'm not an expert in AI. I agree that it wil abolish a lot of things, but greed and war are not among them - unfortunately.
Most Western analysts have overestimated China for too long. This over-estimation is particularly bad since Xi came to power, as Xi allocated more money for foreign propaganda, including buying foreign influencers. There are sufficient reasons for Russia to trust the US/West less and trust China more. However, China and Russia have different national and geopolitical interests. China is also MUCH MUCH weaker than Russia in almost all aspects. The gigantic manufacturing machines are nothing without raw materials and energy. Therefore, when China faces the US as the US gradually beefs up its dominance in energy and raw material production, China has a fairly large Achilles ' heel. However, if the US does not move manufacturing back onshore, the coupling between the two will be strong enough despite the exodus of manufacturing activities from China. Also on this ground, Russia MUST keep a vigilant eye on the East.
China has had a large built in supporter base in the West as long as they were facilitating profits for corporations by making cheap stuff that middlemen could resell in the West for big profits. Now that China wants to capture more of the value chain and move up market, they suddenly come in conflict with the same base that supported them. This is the hump that, economically, I don't think they can get over.
Very true. The simplest example is the Chinese OEMs selling almost the same product under their own brands, usually with simplified design and lesser materials. However, the direct cloning of Western design ideas is unlikely to have been blessed by their original foreign brand owners. This is why a Chinese manager said that a typical Gucci bag is 100% made by Chinese labor, the bulk from Chinese-sourced materials, and sub-assemblies made in China. Typical cost is about 10% of the Gucci's MSRP. It is enticing for Chinese OEMs to clone the entire design.
Indeed. I work closely with Project/Brand Management, but as an engineer. In my opinion, product management (not project management) and brand hype has become too much the bread and butter of corporate America. China has taken on the complexity/risk associated with complex manufacturing and supply chains, and executives have been able to present the resulting profits as their doing.
This is kind of off topic, but I think there's going to have to be a purge at the C-level for there to be even a partial return of manufacturing to western countries. There's literally a lot of fear about the corporate-political risks involved in the real complexity.
(1) By the way, China is not much behind in boasting its industrial might. So even in terms of bull-shit capacity, China is also catching up quickly. Well, maybe I should say China is somewhat ahead if you consider how China boasts about its 5th-gen jet fighters now or its agricultural production rate/yield in the 1950s (when there was actually famine in China).
(2) the C level problem was deeply in the mess of the original offshoring. The purge of C-level is not quite enough to bring back the manufacturing unless the US tariff treats OEM, sub-assembly, and components imported for the company's internal use as commercial products for sale. AFAIK, stuff imported for corporate internal use is taxed at a very low level. Without such tax laws, offshoring would have a lot less attraction even without very high tariff rates. As is now, the US companies can still keep manufacturing offshore, just pick an area not exporting much to the US, say, Indonesia.
Very interesting insights!
For once, I agree with Bordachev. I still maintain that China’s very self-interested caution is one of the main reasons for the current setback of the multipolar project—a kind of reverse domino theory. When China should be the pillar, it turns out to be the weak link.
The vast, millennia-old Chinese empire was once torn apart by a group of small, predatory, and audacious pirate nations. It went through a century of humiliation. Does it really want to go through that again?
Let us not forget that the said small predatory nation had operated a so-called Industrial Revolution which gave them, for a short historical period of maybe two centuries, an indomitable advantage on the millenary empire and ex first world economy
Every nation is predatory. France for example has eaten up lots of former Germanic-speaking territory.
Two things comes to mind:
- No point in broadcasting your intentions;
- While the adversary is digging a hole, let him dig.
I seriously doubt Xi could tolerate provocations if the sort Mr Putin and Mr Lavrov have endured. Wisely, imo.
Chinese thought is not the same as the West's and not like Russian thought at all. In fact, the brief dustup between the two communist countries was entirely ideological. There are very few Westerners who can claim to know what is going on in China's plans. Their actions are to support the people attacked by the American and to refuse American efforts to dominate them, but to not antagonize the Americans so they start another war. We don't need to bother with rhetoric, but we need to observe actions.
I don't think the Chinese care all that much what is being said about their strategy. I don't think they ever have.
Great article that analyses such an important topic where so little is known!
One would think, based on so many official visits and contacts and declarations, that RF and PRC have agreed a global line of action, including how to coordinate their roles in different areas, e.g. military, economy, Iran, Central and South America, Africa, etc. (and that does not mean they fail to coordinate unless they agree 100% on everything).
But now Bordachev gently calls for more support from the PRC. Is he speeking on behalf of Russian officials, let's call it indirect "soft diplomacy", or it's just a wing within the domestic Russian debate?
Is this a call to arms, i.e. a request for more overt support for Cuba, Africa and everywhere now that the West is going all out wars? China has done a BIG lot for Iran although in a silent way.
What could China practically do for Venezuela and Iran? Not much (in open). Russia can, by decisively and quickly winning the war in Ukraine.
China simply hopes to be able to sell things and make money. This makes sense, as the Chinese case for legitimacy rests on steadily rising standards of living.
Thanks for reporting on this. I guess many of us keep wondering about Chinese hesitancy to take any noticable stand on behalf of Venezuela, Cuba or Iran & even before all this, the endless baiting of Russia until it entered Ukraine with SMO. Then there's the hesitancy over being sanctioned. What's going on? I, for one, keep going back to "the waiting game." Maybe Chinese leaders are banking on pulling enough "plugs" to collapse the USA. Maybe this is coming any time now & maybe it isn't. Brian Berletic doesn't seem to think it is. There's enormous international wealth behind USA that wants USA to do certain things. One is to vanquish China as it exists today.Do Chinese leaders believe this? Do they believe it's possible? That's what we are all left wondering.
"...he need for China to step up somehow to facilitate their shared vision of the future. The fact that it thus far hasn’t prompts Russia to re-evaluate its assessment of China’s role in the evolving world order."
In other words, Russia is putting the narrative pieces in place for a cooling of the relationship with China. But it wants to be clear that "its you, not me"....i.e. China isn't holding up its side of things.
China will continue to do what China has been doing for the last 5 decades. It plans far in advance and excels in executing its preparations for the future. Due to this factor, China is prepared for the current interruption with its fossil fuel supplies. It has a large oil reserve to weather this storm, and it has intelligently diversified other sources of energy including nuclear, coal, and renewables. It is the leader in renewables, and the world will depend on that leadership. It has secured natural resources like the minerals needed for the future for electric cars and military equipment and computer chips. It is the manufacturing behemoth on the planet. It is building itself up to being so strong and dominant that the US will eventually not even contemplate a war against it. It will take back Taiwan without firing a shot. It has learned from Iran that if there is a conflict over Taiwan, it would attack US bases in the Western Pacific, not Taiwan. China takes care of its vast population by providing free and excellent health care and education.
https://www.sinification.org/p/liquidating-an-empire-chinas-strategy
Sounds like the Celestials are not knock, knock, knocking on heavens's door.
A Trump–Xi meeting isn’t about peace or partnership.
It’s about containment of escalation.
Because right now:
Trade systems are fragile
Tech wars are accelerating
Supply chains are already splitting
And Iran/energy shocks are adding pressure
US–China relations don’t just affect the world economy.
They ARE the world economy’s stability ceiling.
And the uncomfortable truth?
Everyone is still building their future inside that rivalry.
Stability today means “managed tension”. not resolution
Thanks for your comment, but it sounds suspiciously like AI. Next time please comment only in your own words. Thank you.
Artificial intelligence is not very intelligent, actually. Every time I ask for a geopolitical analysis, these 'intelligences' come out with bullshit that you'd think was written by the morons at the NYT or The Economist. And even the Chinese AIs — DeepSeek seems even more Russophobic than ChatGPT, which is already pretty damn bad."
AI needs to be trained, so it gets trained on NYT and WP. Even WSJ is a far reach.