Dominating the Arctic Ocean North of the Eurasian Continent is a difficult business and a very expensive investment. The reason Russia was and is successful in this act is because they considered this a long-term project and their northern coastal areas are optimal springboards for this activity. The US, possibly in cooperation with Canada, Norway, Sweden and Iceland could use Greenland and Alaska as a staging point to enter maybe a third of the Arctic Ocean. However, this would assume giant investments into nuclear icebreakers but America is not even dreaming about anything like this presently. In other words Russia is light-years ahead, far advanced in Arctic exploitation and research.
As far as China and India is concerned they should be happy to be invited by the Russians to the party and China certainly has the money and can buy or develop the technology they would need. There is a degree of uncertainty around future fossil fuel use. Because of the high price pressure more and more efforts and money is chanelled into alternative possibilities and chances are in the next decade or two some of these systems will become functional. China, India and Russia clearly understand their geopolitical positions on this planet not like the US that is constantly engaging in desperate attempts to become a super-hegemonic structure while slowly loosing global influence. America and Israel are truly handling the rest of the world as America used to handle the Native population up to the early 20th century, alternating between extermination drives and patronization.
That said, point 3 is not a message of this treaty; it’s just a hypothesis about its consequences.
Point 5 isn’t a message either and is quite biased. If Chinese companies pulled out of the Arctic energy project, India had already started to reduce its purchases of Russian oil before coming back to beg for it after the closure of Hormuz—and this under direct orders from the United States. I don’t see why Indian companies should receive more consideration than Chinese ones after the very hypothetical lifting of sanctions. Sanctions that will probably never be lifted
1. Yes, it's a hypothesis but derived from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan's close relations with India, their observation that Russia is showing the world that it's not a Chinese vassal, and the likelihood of India expand its military-economic presence in the Russian Far East, all of which could realistically make them feel much more comfortable about investing there once sanctions are lifted.
2. The Chinese company pulled out around 18 months before India reduced its Russian oil imports. Once the sanctions are lifted, likely through waivers at first and then phases per compliance with whatever deal is agreed to with Ukraine, I can't imagine the US allowing China to regain its previously privileged position in Russia's Arctic energy industry, instead favoring its own companies and then India's, Japan's, South Korea's, Taiwan's.
3. I also do believe that the sanctions will inevitably be eased, at minimum, since the conflict won't drag on forever. I don't know when that'll be or what the terms will be, but with lots of Gulf energy offline for some time due to Iranian (retaliatory) attacks, and Trump still reluctant to destroy the global economy (it's always been his Plan B in this conflict), I'd expect him or whoever succeeds him to allow these investments/imports to stabilize the global market.
Also, just anecdotal, but experts who I talked to about China since the SMO began -- admittedly just a few -- really were disappointed with it. If you look beyond the crude propaganda pushed by NRPRs, honestly, China's informal compliance with US sanctions completely contradicted all expectations pre-SMO from pretty much everyone.
There does seem to be some resentment here since I believe that the Kremlin (mis)calculated that China would back it up if the conflict became protracted, yet while it's served as a valve from Western sanctions pressure to an extent in the sense of not cutting Russia off completely, it's grossly underperformed expectations.
By contrast, India surprisingly exceeded expectations since they were that it, not China, would be the first to informally comply with US sanctions. India held out as long as it did because the US wasn't strictly imposing secondary sanctions till last summer's tariffs to that end, yet China complied even without that "stick" being brandished.
So I really do believe that, all things considered, Russia might very well reward India for holding out much longer than China did in this respect. It's also more realistic to expect such prioritization too since the US is more likely to complicate China's return to Russia's Arctic energy industry than its Indian partner's, which plays to Delhi's advantage.
Thank you, Andrew, for all these clarifications. What you say about China’s behavior confirms my view that this country is the main cause of Putin’s ‘timidity.’
It would seem that China, which led the pushback against Putin in Kazan over de-dollarization—publicly humiliating both Putin and Russia (something no pro-Russian commentators seem to have noticed)—has initiated a phase of increasingly pronounced distancing between the two countries.
I think the centuries-old mistrust between the two nations is far from having disappeared, despite all the displays of closeness between Putin and Xi over the past 15 years.”
Absolutely, I wouldn't have believed it had the SMO not happened and everything unfolded as it has.
Plus, I mentioned this in comments before, but I was personally affected by China's informal compliance with US sanctions.
One of my state-owned clients there at the time made every excuse possible to avoid depositing funds into my sanctioned Sber account.
After around half a year, I opened up a non-sanctioned account and they paid, to their credit, but it was incredibly frustrating.
It was also surreal that they really feared that they and/or their bank would be sanctioned for paying lil 'ole me a relatively measly sum.
That left an unforgettable impression on me and was the reason why I reached out a Russian financial expert to discuss China's sanctions compliance.
That was summer 2022 and they told me that they too had heard such stories from other experts and so on, which created very serious problems for consulting, trade, etc., except for Russian energy exports (of course!).
It convinced me that Putin didn't inform Xi about it during their meeting shortly before the SMO or Xi thought it would be over in a few weeks and pass over with no lasting sanctions.
There was no way that China expected a protracted conflict with such serious US sanctions on Russia. It immediately panicked, informally complied with most, and hung its "no-limits" partner out to dry.
The whole thing was deeply regrettable to me too since that state-owned Chinese client offered very generous remuneration, was always very polite, and truly made me feel like my work mattered, unlike many of my experiences with various institutions, media, figures, etc., here in Russia.
I’ve always thought that this ‘partnership’ was bullshit. Only formal alliances really mean something. And this constant reluctance to commit formally—which I’m sure was largely on China’s side—was nothing more than goodwill ready to scatter like a flock of sparrows at the first sign of trouble.
Even back when the clowns at AMC still had some credibility in my eyes, their explanations that a partnership was better than an alliance always made me laugh.”
At the BRICS summit in Kazan, in his opening speech, Putin quite logically launched a forceful attack on Western—particularly U.S.—hegemony. He made a vehement case for building a common currency to challenge the dollar, undermine the U.S.’s foundations, and neutralize its power.
Instead of supporting Putin, the host of the summit—or even staying quiet and handling things discreetly—the Chinese, Indians, and Brazilians started shouting like pigs at the slaughterhouse: not only distancing themselves from the remarks, not only criticizing them, not only condemning them, not only making abject declarations of loyalty to the dollar and the U.S., but, worst of all, demanding that a Russian minister publicly deny and denounce Putin’s statements.
Faced with the collapse of all the fantasies about a BRICS alliance, I was stunned to see that all the commentators at AMC portrayed Kazan as a triumph for Putin and a promise of BRICS unity, when we had just witnessed clear—and disheartening—proof of the opposite.
I wondered how Putin would handle such a setback and such a humiliation.
I don’t know how he handled it, but one thing is certain: he has not digested it.
We are seeing today, in Gulf war, that BRICS is a nothing burger.
Yes, Russia is saying to the Chinese what the Indians say to the United States: ‘Hey guys, partnership is fine, but if you plan to treat us like doormats, you’re not the only option. Message received.
Russia alwayss makes the smart moves. We are vassel to no one. The USA needs to make up its mind that Russia is NOT their enemy. The USA & Russia could dominate the world for the good of both countries. China needs Rujssia for its own security. Of the BIG four ,RCIA, Russia lesda.
I think the Indians have shown us that, at the level of shopkeepers, they are very skilled and clever. If the U.S. raises an eyebrow, they will probably reduce their presence in the Arctic by half or even two-thirds—but they will remain.
And they will only allow the Russians to station troops and vessels at half or even a third of what the treaty permits—but they will still allow it.
I am beginning to understand Indian-style navigation. When confronted with force and brutality, they respond with their own means.
It is natural that most comments in this thread are on the Russia-China relationship. I know it is difficult to shake our daily way of thinking (me too!), so, subconsciously, we tend to assume that partnership and morality should be the principal drivers in international relations. But alas, unlike our lived experience, international relations are anarchic - hence realpolitik applies.
I suspect modern China is the purest realpolitik play on the planet. One of the cornerstones of that game was described best by the 3rd Viscount Palmerston in 1848: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
In March, nearly 50% of Russian oil exports went to China. That's business.
Dominating the Arctic Ocean North of the Eurasian Continent is a difficult business and a very expensive investment. The reason Russia was and is successful in this act is because they considered this a long-term project and their northern coastal areas are optimal springboards for this activity. The US, possibly in cooperation with Canada, Norway, Sweden and Iceland could use Greenland and Alaska as a staging point to enter maybe a third of the Arctic Ocean. However, this would assume giant investments into nuclear icebreakers but America is not even dreaming about anything like this presently. In other words Russia is light-years ahead, far advanced in Arctic exploitation and research.
As far as China and India is concerned they should be happy to be invited by the Russians to the party and China certainly has the money and can buy or develop the technology they would need. There is a degree of uncertainty around future fossil fuel use. Because of the high price pressure more and more efforts and money is chanelled into alternative possibilities and chances are in the next decade or two some of these systems will become functional. China, India and Russia clearly understand their geopolitical positions on this planet not like the US that is constantly engaging in desperate attempts to become a super-hegemonic structure while slowly loosing global influence. America and Israel are truly handling the rest of the world as America used to handle the Native population up to the early 20th century, alternating between extermination drives and patronization.
Interesting. As always.
That said, point 3 is not a message of this treaty; it’s just a hypothesis about its consequences.
Point 5 isn’t a message either and is quite biased. If Chinese companies pulled out of the Arctic energy project, India had already started to reduce its purchases of Russian oil before coming back to beg for it after the closure of Hormuz—and this under direct orders from the United States. I don’t see why Indian companies should receive more consideration than Chinese ones after the very hypothetical lifting of sanctions. Sanctions that will probably never be lifted
Fair points, Darras, here's my response to them:
1. Yes, it's a hypothesis but derived from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan's close relations with India, their observation that Russia is showing the world that it's not a Chinese vassal, and the likelihood of India expand its military-economic presence in the Russian Far East, all of which could realistically make them feel much more comfortable about investing there once sanctions are lifted.
2. The Chinese company pulled out around 18 months before India reduced its Russian oil imports. Once the sanctions are lifted, likely through waivers at first and then phases per compliance with whatever deal is agreed to with Ukraine, I can't imagine the US allowing China to regain its previously privileged position in Russia's Arctic energy industry, instead favoring its own companies and then India's, Japan's, South Korea's, Taiwan's.
3. I also do believe that the sanctions will inevitably be eased, at minimum, since the conflict won't drag on forever. I don't know when that'll be or what the terms will be, but with lots of Gulf energy offline for some time due to Iranian (retaliatory) attacks, and Trump still reluctant to destroy the global economy (it's always been his Plan B in this conflict), I'd expect him or whoever succeeds him to allow these investments/imports to stabilize the global market.
Also, just anecdotal, but experts who I talked to about China since the SMO began -- admittedly just a few -- really were disappointed with it. If you look beyond the crude propaganda pushed by NRPRs, honestly, China's informal compliance with US sanctions completely contradicted all expectations pre-SMO from pretty much everyone.
There does seem to be some resentment here since I believe that the Kremlin (mis)calculated that China would back it up if the conflict became protracted, yet while it's served as a valve from Western sanctions pressure to an extent in the sense of not cutting Russia off completely, it's grossly underperformed expectations.
By contrast, India surprisingly exceeded expectations since they were that it, not China, would be the first to informally comply with US sanctions. India held out as long as it did because the US wasn't strictly imposing secondary sanctions till last summer's tariffs to that end, yet China complied even without that "stick" being brandished.
So I really do believe that, all things considered, Russia might very well reward India for holding out much longer than China did in this respect. It's also more realistic to expect such prioritization too since the US is more likely to complicate China's return to Russia's Arctic energy industry than its Indian partner's, which plays to Delhi's advantage.
Thank you, Andrew, for all these clarifications. What you say about China’s behavior confirms my view that this country is the main cause of Putin’s ‘timidity.’
It would seem that China, which led the pushback against Putin in Kazan over de-dollarization—publicly humiliating both Putin and Russia (something no pro-Russian commentators seem to have noticed)—has initiated a phase of increasingly pronounced distancing between the two countries.
I think the centuries-old mistrust between the two nations is far from having disappeared, despite all the displays of closeness between Putin and Xi over the past 15 years.”
Absolutely, I wouldn't have believed it had the SMO not happened and everything unfolded as it has.
Plus, I mentioned this in comments before, but I was personally affected by China's informal compliance with US sanctions.
One of my state-owned clients there at the time made every excuse possible to avoid depositing funds into my sanctioned Sber account.
After around half a year, I opened up a non-sanctioned account and they paid, to their credit, but it was incredibly frustrating.
It was also surreal that they really feared that they and/or their bank would be sanctioned for paying lil 'ole me a relatively measly sum.
That left an unforgettable impression on me and was the reason why I reached out a Russian financial expert to discuss China's sanctions compliance.
That was summer 2022 and they told me that they too had heard such stories from other experts and so on, which created very serious problems for consulting, trade, etc., except for Russian energy exports (of course!).
It convinced me that Putin didn't inform Xi about it during their meeting shortly before the SMO or Xi thought it would be over in a few weeks and pass over with no lasting sanctions.
There was no way that China expected a protracted conflict with such serious US sanctions on Russia. It immediately panicked, informally complied with most, and hung its "no-limits" partner out to dry.
The whole thing was deeply regrettable to me too since that state-owned Chinese client offered very generous remuneration, was always very polite, and truly made me feel like my work mattered, unlike many of my experiences with various institutions, media, figures, etc., here in Russia.
I’ve always thought that this ‘partnership’ was bullshit. Only formal alliances really mean something. And this constant reluctance to commit formally—which I’m sure was largely on China’s side—was nothing more than goodwill ready to scatter like a flock of sparrows at the first sign of trouble.
Even back when the clowns at AMC still had some credibility in my eyes, their explanations that a partnership was better than an alliance always made me laugh.”
"It would seem that China, which led the pushback against Putin in Kazan over de-dollarization—publicly humiliating both Putin and Russia ..."
???
Can you please explain this? I'm not in the picture. Thank you in advance!
At the BRICS summit in Kazan, in his opening speech, Putin quite logically launched a forceful attack on Western—particularly U.S.—hegemony. He made a vehement case for building a common currency to challenge the dollar, undermine the U.S.’s foundations, and neutralize its power.
Instead of supporting Putin, the host of the summit—or even staying quiet and handling things discreetly—the Chinese, Indians, and Brazilians started shouting like pigs at the slaughterhouse: not only distancing themselves from the remarks, not only criticizing them, not only condemning them, not only making abject declarations of loyalty to the dollar and the U.S., but, worst of all, demanding that a Russian minister publicly deny and denounce Putin’s statements.
Faced with the collapse of all the fantasies about a BRICS alliance, I was stunned to see that all the commentators at AMC portrayed Kazan as a triumph for Putin and a promise of BRICS unity, when we had just witnessed clear—and disheartening—proof of the opposite.
I wondered how Putin would handle such a setback and such a humiliation.
I don’t know how he handled it, but one thing is certain: he has not digested it.
We are seeing today, in Gulf war, that BRICS is a nothing burger.
Thank you very much! I knew absolutely nothing about this. I'm stunned.
This pact must come as a surprise to some people.
Yes, Russia is saying to the Chinese what the Indians say to the United States: ‘Hey guys, partnership is fine, but if you plan to treat us like doormats, you’re not the only option. Message received.
Russia alwayss makes the smart moves. We are vassel to no one. The USA needs to make up its mind that Russia is NOT their enemy. The USA & Russia could dominate the world for the good of both countries. China needs Rujssia for its own security. Of the BIG four ,RCIA, Russia lesda.
"The USA & Russia could dominate the world for the good of both countries."
And how about the countries dominated by you and the USA? They don't matter? Or what? What a mentality... At your age you should have become wiser.
Until some American snaps his fingers.
I think the Indians have shown us that, at the level of shopkeepers, they are very skilled and clever. If the U.S. raises an eyebrow, they will probably reduce their presence in the Arctic by half or even two-thirds—but they will remain.
And they will only allow the Russians to station troops and vessels at half or even a third of what the treaty permits—but they will still allow it.
I am beginning to understand Indian-style navigation. When confronted with force and brutality, they respond with their own means.
Something like out of Kipling?
EDIT: sorry wrong poem.
EDIT AGAIN:."Now It Is Not Good". Stupid cat!
https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_christian.htm
It is natural that most comments in this thread are on the Russia-China relationship. I know it is difficult to shake our daily way of thinking (me too!), so, subconsciously, we tend to assume that partnership and morality should be the principal drivers in international relations. But alas, unlike our lived experience, international relations are anarchic - hence realpolitik applies.
I suspect modern China is the purest realpolitik play on the planet. One of the cornerstones of that game was described best by the 3rd Viscount Palmerston in 1848: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
In March, nearly 50% of Russian oil exports went to China. That's business.