There is a 75% chance that the emerging Sino-Russian friendship crashes and burns by 2030. 

Russia and China are forging new ties. Their “No-Limits” partnership announcement left the world wondering, had Xi known about Russia’s plan to invade Ukraine when the agreement was signed? Or did Putin leave China in the dark, hoping to use the agreement to extract support for the invasion? 

Partnership is certainly convenient, as the two authoritarian countries mutually resent the US-led international order. The question currently facing the West is whether this partnership of convenience will become a lasting Russia-China axis. 

Substantial empirical research indicates authoritarian countries make poor allies due to a lack of institutional accountability (Gaubatz 1996; Choi 2003). The history between Russia and China arguably supports this conclusion – the Soviets reneged on their promise to give China a prototype nuclear weapon, which helped to kick off the Sino-Soviet split (Gerson 2010). Furthermore, disagreements over communist ideology during this era caused disagreements to spiral. 

However, in 2024 Russia and China appear less committed than ever to ideological purity – see the Chinese Communist party decrying the trap of “welfarism.” If the autocracies of today have truly forsaken all principles other than self-interest, is a new “Axis of Evil” inevitable?

I argue that there is a foundational crack in the Russia-China partnership that makes meaningful cooperation extremely untenable, if not impossible. That crack – incompatible views on separatism. 

Irreconcilable Irredentism

It’s easy to say that Russia and China are the same – irredentists trying to reshape borders based on historical grievances. But their justifications for upheavals are wildly different. Let’s compare:

China

China’s narrative on Taiwan relies on an appeal to international law. This is the CCP’s argument:

• Premise 1: There is one China and Taiwan is a province of China.

• Premise 2: Everyone, including the government of Taiwan, agrees that the One-China policy is the true description of the borders of the status quo.

• Conclusion: Any party aiding Taiwan’s autonomy is encouraging separatism and instigating warfare. 

To be clear, this argument is nonsense, but it is the structuring nonsense of Chinese decision making. The strategic trick is that this position allows China to reframe aggression towards Taiwan as defensive. In fact, China’s 2005 “Anti-Secession” law explicitly cites territorial integrity to justify unilateral violence against Taiwan (Mainland Affairs Council, 2005). So, by choosing "One China” as the basis of their Taiwan policy, the CCP has painted itself into a corner on the issue of separatism. 

OK, let’s debunk One China for the sake of sanity.

Premise 1, “There is one China and Taiwan is a province of China,” is flawed because Taiwan has never, ever, been under the control of the Chinese Communist Party. Taiwan was loosely incorporated into the Qing dynasty, but that’s irrelevant because:

1. The CCP is not the legal successor of the Qing dynasty. The Qing rulers weren’t even Chinese, they were Manchurians. It makes no sense to say that modern communist China has a claim to Taiwan because both were conquered by the same warlords over a hundred years ago. 

2. To say that the Qing dynasty “governed” Taiwan would be… a stretch. Qing authority was highly decentralized, which is a polite way to say that it was a shitshow. A Qing official stated that there was an “uprising every three years and a rebellion every five.” During these years, Taiwan was a comparatively peaceful, irrelevant backwater fending for itself. It was only formally a province of the Qing state for seven years, from 1887-1895 (Van der Wees 2018).

3. Taiwan was formally ceded to Japan in the 1895 treaty of Shimonoseki. For the next 50 years, Japanese governance was way, way more involved in Taiwan than the Qing dynasty ever was. Japanese colonial rule wasn’t popular, so developing institutions became part of Japan's strategy for combatting local resistance.  They built infrastructure, including roads, ports, hospitals, sanitation systems, banks, and universities. Of course, the Japanese also brutally suppressed local culture, which arguably backfired and instead solidified Taiwanese identity (Ho 2022).

At this point, China defenders point out that the majority of Taiwan’s population is ethnically Han – also irrelevant. China does not claim to be a Han ethnostate, as doing so would imply that Xinjiang and Tibet should rightfully be independent, while Singapore should rightfully be annexed.

Premise 2, “The 1992 Consensus” is also deeply flawed. In theory, the CCP and the Kuomintang Nationalist Party (KMT) agreed to respectfully ignore each other’s claim to be the rightful government of unified China. That “consensus” is illegitimate for two reasons:

1. Today, the KMT is a minority party in Taiwan. They do not represent the people of Taiwan, and arguably they never have. In 1992, they were only in power because they spent decades repressing, murdering, and silencing Taiwanese people under martial law (Chen 2019). The KMT’s founder, Chiang Kai-Shek, was obsessed with the idea of using Taiwan as a base of operations for reconquering the mainland.  Here you can see an ambitious KMT propaganda map that advocates retaking the mainland and dropping an H-bomb on Moscow, courtesy of the National Museum of Taiwan History. That not supported by even the most extreme of the KMT constituency. Pro-unification Taiwanese want to be unified with a democratized China, not subjected to CCP rule.

2. There was never any consensus reached in 1992. Put succinctly by Denny Roy, a senior fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu, in 2023,

There is little if any evidence that the PRC ever acknowledged the part of the agreement that allows for different interpretations of “China.” […] A 2022 editorial in a CCP-run newspaper said […] bluntly: In the ‘1992 Consensus’ there is only ‘One China’ – there are no ‘different interpretations.’”

In reality, the democratically elected ruling party in Taiwan operates completely independently from the CCP government in Beijing. But that is not important for China –  they do not care if the people of Taiwan authentically and democratically desire autonomy. To China, separatism is wrong because it breaks a sacred rule.

So, the CCP crafted this defensive framing and cannot abandon it. Generally, Chinese people do not want to be aggressors due to a long history of subjugation by external powers. Apart from Taiwan, China has spent a great deal of resources battling separatism in Xinjiang and Tibet, and appeals to the sacredness of treaties are the basis of their claims in the South China Sea (Tung 2018, Hoskin 2019).

Thus, the CCP can't abandon “One China” and the corollary anti-separatism stance. However, this directly contradicts Russia’s position on separatism .

Russia

“For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.” - Óscar Benavides

Russia’s narrative on borders is far less principled – “The borders that benefit us are sacred, the ones we don’t like are illegitimate.” Modern Russia delights in supporting the independence of client quasi-states in former Soviet republics, under the pretext that residents of these areas desire independence. Responses to Russian-engineered separatism are then used as justification to intervene formally.

In Ukraine, Russia paid residents of the Donbas to engage in indiscriminate destruction. Once Ukraine sent troops to respond, Russia gave these clients tanks and instructed them to declare independence as the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics (RAND 2017). Until the 2022 invasion, Russia pretended that these were indigenously supported independence movements, with goals that were separate from (if parallel to) those of Russia. 

Of course, this narrative was a sham all along. Not only did Russia forcibly conscript unwilling residents of these supposedly autonomous republics, but Russia abandoned this narrative altogether in 2022 by annexing the entirety of Donetsk and Luhansk, alongside the additional Ukrainian oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. 

Before Ukraine, Russia perfected these techniques in Georgia and Moldova. The story is always the same – Russia engineers, upholds, and encourages separatist movements in order to desecrate the borders of former Soviet republics. Residents who oppose separatism in these regions are slaughtered or forcibly displaced. Russia then imports loyalists to live in newly emptied houses and vote in sham elections. Russian propagandists use the dog-and-pony-show elections to tell domestic audiences that Russia is supporting legitimately popular uprisings (Kuzio and D’anieri 2018). 

The façade of democracy promotion positions Russian military excursions as righteous, and gives plausible deniability that soaks up the resources of fake-news debunking journalists. The amount of payoff Russia has gotten from these separatist client states is substantial – this strategy appears to have indefinitely blocked Georgia’s bid to join NATO (Lanoszka 2020). Thus, Russia’s support for separatism is likely to continue.

Game theory and audience objections

Let’s categorize China's options for dealing with Russia. Note that the table below is not really a payoff matrix, because it only considers payoffs for China. The reason for this is that Putin’s conception of a “win” is governed by personalistic factors that we largely cannot know. The double down in Ukraine demonstrates that lives lost matter little; a decade of stagnant real-incomes demonstrates that economic wellbeing is no object (Gould-Davies, 2023). So, what matters to Putin is some combination of national prestige, personal grievances, and commitments to inner-circle oligarchs. The relative importance of these factors is for all intents and purposes, a black box. China’s strategic decision making is aware that Russia is self-interested and unprincipled, and I predict they will try to make a decision that prices-in potential erratic behavior from Russia.

Okay with that disclaimer in mind, China has six strategic options. Here’s the rundown: 

Consistent principles, passive 

• No meaningful increase in coop.

• China waits, hoping to capitalize on Russian-induced chaos in the future.

• Unstable equilibrium, Russia pressures China to aid adventurism and demonstrate loyalty, while Xi bears reputational costs from passivity.

Consistent principles, active 

• China bets that they can leverage their economic prowess in negotiations, and conditions cooperation on Russian support for Taiwan/SCS goals.

• China might attempt to “mediate” Russia's territorial disputes, possibly pressuring them to compromise on border changes (imagine China’s “peace plan for Ukraine,” except this time China asks Russia to withdraw troops from South Ossetia).

• Russia refuses, reducing the alliance to nothing more than an occasional flashy press conference.

Hypocrisy, passive

• China cooperates with Russia and ignores contradictions.

• Censor criticisms of Russia on Chinese social media.

• Purge or flip inner-circle Russia skeptics. Purging means losing Russia experts. Flipping puts pressure on Xi to demonstrate rapid, substantial gains from deals with Russia. Both weaken Xi's negotiating position with Putin.

• Trends towards reneging on commitments or abandoning principles.

Hypocrisy, active

• China cooperates with Russia and manipulates contradictions to maximize gains.

• Condition coop on support for Chinese claims to territory disputed with Japan, India, Vietnam, etc.

• If Russia refuses (e.g. to avoid alienating India), post maps of China that include Russian territory, up to and including Vladivostok. Probe Russian willingness to acquiesce.

• Hope that reputational gains from defacing Russia outweigh reputational costs among principled Taiwan believers.

• Dedicate resources to creating propaganda attempting to rectify contradiction with Taiwan stance.

• Russia refuses coop and abandons alliance, or acquiesces and quietly plots revenge.

Abandon principles, passive 

• Subsidize Russian conquest of Europe, including recognizing Russian annexations and offering diplomatic support for breakaway Russian client states. 

• Wait to reap serendipitous long-term effects of Russian chaos (war-fatigue and depleted weapon stockpiles in Western democracies; opportunities to probe for intelligence) 

• Reshape information ecosystem to undermine inviolability of borders. Reframe Taiwan as nationalist conquest. 

• Gain diplomatic capital (foreign policy IOUs) with Russia to be cashed in for support of future goals.

• Risk domestic loss of face from kowtowing to Putin. 

• Risk domestic humiliation in the event that Russia refuses to acknowledge diplomatic capital accrued by China.

• Risk displeasing domestic audience by forsaking the borders-based moral high ground of the previous Taiwan position. Risk potentially collapsing domestic willingness to fight a war over Taiwan.

• Risk energizing domestic separatism (e.g. Xinjiang) by abandoning respect for territorial integrity. 

• Above risks make this position an unstable equilibrium.

Abandon principles, active
(Axis of Evil)

• Embrace new vision of the international order centered around confrontation with the West.

• Subsidize Russian conquest of Europe in the short term

• Eschew diplomatic capital, and instead extract maximal concessions from Russia as dependence on China increases.

• Discipline Russian disobedience by posting maps of China that claim Russian territory, up to and including Vladivostok. Bet that Russia will fold when threatened.

• Coordinate confrontation with the West, beginning with joint hybrid warfare and culminating in a two-front great power war. China invades Taiwan as Russia simultaneously attempts a high-intensity wildcard offensive in Europe.

• Swiftly crush domestic separatism that emerges from abandoning the façade of territorial integrity. 

To address some questions you might be asking:

1. “But Lydia, hypocrisy is a stable equilibrium! China can just ignore contradictions and censor anyone who hints at their existence. Chinese people are too politically disenfranchised to care, right?” 

This option seems easy and desirable. It would require crackdowns on netizens criticizing Russia, but the CCP’s dystopian censorship apparatus makes that a small barrier.

“If we’re all cheering on Russia and supporting them now, what’s the difference between us and the people who supported Japan’s invasion of our country by Japan in the past?” Rest in peace to this brave Weibo post (Koetse, 2022).

However, crackdowns within the inner circle are more difficult and resource-intense. Foreign policy strategists might just be willing to take a stand – private interviews inside China revealed brewing sentiment that “the growing Sino-Russian relationship is against China’s national interests,” (Sun 2022). If tangible cooperation between the two countries increases, the costs of purging, censoring, and consolidating dissent on the Russia issue will increase as well. Xi will be pressured to show gains from partnering with Russia, which paradoxically reduces his leverage when negotiating with Putin. Which brings me to a second potential question:

2. “But Lydia, Russia is completely reliant on China, so Putin cannot afford to manipulate or betray Xi. Russian submission is a stable equilibrium!” 

Astute observation, dear reader. This would be the outcome if Russia were willing to capitulate, but 500 years of Russian cultural chauvinism makes me bet that this is a non-starter. For relevant background, Professor Viktor Dyatlov writes the following on the topic of Russian racism at the turn of the twentieth century:

An important part of Russian tradition was the attitude towards the Chinese as an undifferentiated mass into which individuality dissolved. Epithets such as “crowd”, “ants”, “locusts” or “midges” were used to describe the Chinese.

Dyatlov continues, describing that racist legacy in the modern era:

The image of Chinese immigrants formed anew [...] the Chinese are hardworking, simple and adaptable, with a sense of entrepreneurship. However, these qualities, positive ones in principle, are often painted negatively: hardworking (but at the expense of us patriots); self-reliant (but clannish and, again, detrimental to us).

Despite the massive presence of Chinese migrants in Russia, locals have not yet formed daily routine relationships with them. There is no familiar neighbourly and professional interaction, and no common work activity. […] There is no interest in the individual person, his life or his destiny. 

This chapter goes on to describe the “widespread notion” in Russian society that China has a plan to weaponize Chinese migrants to annex of the Russian far east (Dyatlov, 2012).

Ok, so Russia does not want to capitulate, but can they be forced to submit due to their position of weakness?

Remember, Russia is not powerless when negotiating with Xi, because of domestic pressure on Xi to justify the decision to align with Russia. Putin can exploit this, and Xi knows it. Yun Sun argues that Xi Jinping has a deep-seated admiration of Russian culture, which she terms a “Russia Complex.” 

“In the Chinese popular culture, Putin is nicknamed, “the Great Emperor” (大帝), who is intelligent, decisive, manipulative, and powerful. This is a status that Xi deeply desires.”

This fanboy status is a liability in negotiations. Like a dog with a bone, Putin pathologically exploits weakness and appears incapable of quitting while he is ahead.   

3. “But Lydia, you said that China can punish Russian misbehavior by advancing territorial claims in Siberia! If China can force compliance, doesn’t that constitute a stable alliance environment?”

Good point. One could argue that tit-for-tat nose-thumbing might constitute a “checks and balances system” that keeps the autocrats aligned. The first problem with this is that, instead of trending to equilibrium, this would likely trend towards alliance breakdown as grievances accumulate. A relationship structured by disrespect cannot easily be transformed into trust-based alignment. So even if Xi and Putin find some kind of equilibrium of mutual understanding, the cost will be a payoff cap on both countries, because lack of trust likely precludes the possibility of the Axis of Evil scenario. 

The second problem is that this equilibrium is still probably unstable. Increasing the level of disrespect yields a juicy payoff. Russia extracted one million square kilometers of Chinese territory via an unequal treaty at the end of the Second Opium War (Sun 2022). This territory includes modern-day Vladivostok, and a huge swathe of strategic coastline along the Sea of Japan. If China adopts Russia’s “separatism for thee but not for me” stance and using it against Russia, all of that territory is potentially up for grabs.

Unsurprisingly, China is already probing this strategy of disrespect, releasing a “Standard map of China” that claims an island that was ceded to Russia in 2004 (Ma 2023). That island is ultimately pretty inconsequential, but it could kick of a cycle of irredentism that is difficult to stop.

Mental Gymnastics

Thus far, it seems the Chinese press has been instructed to dance around this issue and refrain from reporting on Russian annexations. In a rare article acknowledging the tension, the dean of a Chinese college interviews infamous Russian ultranationalist Alexander Dugin. The conversation implies that the issue of territorial integrity is easily resolved because Chinese society is more comfortable with evil than Russian society, which is good, because, uhh, yin and yang? Just to demonstrate that I am not making this up:

Dugin: […] China is very particular about prioritizing things. China will not intensify conflicts, but moderate and resolve conflicts through the experience of building civilization. This culture is not entirely from Confucianism, but also from Daoism. Western political culture, including Russia, is too radical, too obsessed with absolute black and white, good, and evil. For us, evil is evil, and we will never give in to evil.

Wang Wen: Yes, the theory of Yin and Yang in Chinese culture does originate from another school of philosophy. We hope to be able to transform between negative and positive, good and evil, good and bad. In the eyes of the Chinese, good things are not entirely good, and bad things are not entirely bad. There is a relationship of attachment and transformation between the two. It's complicated.

Reader, it is not complicated. The fact remains that these two autocracies hold incontrovertible positions on borders. Georgia denies entry to Taiwanese citizens out of a desire to be consistent, while Russia gladly welcomes tourists wielding Taiwanese passports (IATA). If Chinese people begin to view Crimea, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria as European Taiwan-analogues, excitement about cooperating with Russia will evaporate. Parsing details of which irredentist claims are legitimate and illegitimate is moot point, because changing any border by force is a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN charter. 

75% chance of alliance failure

The title of this article claims that there is a 75% chance of the partnership collapsing. That is probably enraging to any statisticians reading this article, and for that I apologize. I’m not going to try and justify the percentage concretely – It’s impossible to calculate the probability of any outcome in the table above. The real conclusion I would like to forward is twofold:

1. The appearance of cooperation between Russia and China does not necessarily translate to meaningful alignment. The phrase “crash and burn” in the title is also arguably misleading, because their friendship could just as well end not with a bang but a whimper (Thanks, T.S Eliot!). 

2. Democracies can reduce the likelihood of the Axis of Evil outcome. Ideological cracks in the Sino-Russian partnership can be probed and eventually split open by smart political maneuvering. This kind of diplomacy can constrain China’s ability to sustain hypocrisy. 

China and Russia love to play the whataboutism game to discredit US commitment to democracy, pointing out foreign policy contradictions to divide the US and potential partners. If China truly believed their citizens had forsaken all ideological consistency, they would see no reason to shell out cash to white influencers that are willing to trash-talk American ethics. 

Just to reiterate — acknowledging that Taiwan is already independent in no way constitutes separatism. The history explained above makes that obvious. But as long as China uses separatism to delegitimize Taiwan's democracy, support for separatism can be used against the CCP.

Works Cited

1. Chang-Liao, Nien-Chung, and Yu-Jie Chen. "Transitional Justice in Taiwan: Changes and Challenges." Washington International Law Journal, vol. 28, no. 3, 2019, pp. 619-650. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol28/iss3/5.

2. Choi, Ajin. "The Power of Democratic Cooperation." International Security, vol. 28, no. 1, 2003, pp. 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1162/016228803322428009.

3. Dyatlov, Viktor. "Chinese Migrants and Anti-Chinese Sentiments in Russian Society." 2012, Frontier Encounters p. 71-87. https://books.openedition.org/obp/1531.

4. Gaubatz, Kurt. “Democratic States and Commitment in International Relations.” International Organization, vol. 50, no. 1, Winter 1996, pp. 109–139.

5. Gerson, Michael S. "The Sino-Soviet Border Conflict: Deterrence, Escalation, and the Threat of Nuclear War in 1969." Center for Naval Analyses, Nov. 2010, https://www.cna.org/reports/2010/d0022974.a2.pdf, page 8.

6. Gould-Davies, Nigel. "From Authoritarianism to Totalitarianism: How the War Has Changed Russia." Moscow Times, 14 Mar. 2023, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/03/14/from-authoritarianism-to-totalitarianism-how-the-war-has-changed-russia-a80413.

7. Hancock, Tom. "Why China Is Avoiding Using 'Bazooka' to Spur Economy." The Washington Post, 4 Sep. 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/04/why-china-hasn-t-used-bazooka-stimulus-to-rescue-economy/45e0b2d4-4b71-11ee-bfca-04e0ac43f9e4_story.html.

8. Hawkins, Amy. "Year of war in Ukraine tests China’s ‘no limits’ relationship with Russia." The Guardian, 24 Feb. 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/24/ukraine-war-china-russia-no-limits-relationship.

9. Hoskin, Mark. "Historical Support for China's South China Sea Territorial Stance." Maritime Executive, 10 Aug. 2019, https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/historical-support-for-china-s-south-china-sea-territorial-stance-1.

10. Koetse, Manya. 25 Feb. 2022, https://twitter.com/manyapan/status/1496944561515552772.

11. Kofman, Michael, et al. Lessons from Russia's Operations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. RAND Corporation, 2017, pp. 43–44. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1400/RR1498/RAND_RR1498.pdf.

12. Kuzio, Taras, and Paul D'anieri. The Sources of Russia’s Great Power Politics, Ukraine and the Challenge to the European Order. E-International Relations Publishing, 2018, pgs 37-38.

13. Lanoszka, Alexander. "Thank Goodness for NATO Enlargement." International Politics, vol. 57, no. 3, Apr. 2020, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340491297_Thank_goodness_for_NATO_enlargement.

14. Ma, Zhenhuan. "2023 edition of national map released." China Daily, 28 Aug. 2023, https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202308/28/WS64ec91c2a31035260b81ea5b.html.

15. Marantzidis, Nikos. 2021, ‘For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law’ https://www.ekathimerini.com/opinion/1156932/for-my-friends-everything-for-my-enemies-the-law/.

16. Mainland Affairs Council, Republic of China (Taiwan). 29 Mar. 2005, https://www.mac.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=8A319E37A32E01EA&sms=2413CFE1BCE87E0E&s=D1B0D66D5788F2DE.

17. Roy, Denny. "Fateful Demise of the Taiwan-China '92 Consensus." Asia Times, 22 Jul. 2023, https://asiatimes.com/2023/07/fateful-demise-of-the-taiwan-china-92-consensus/.

18. National Museum of Taiwan History. "國軍反攻大陸之行軍路線圖." https://collections.nmth.gov.tw/CollectionContent.aspx?a=132&rno=2019.011.0015&sal=Y.

19. Sun, Yun. "China’s Strategic Assessment of Russia: More Complicated Than You Think." War on the Rocks, 4 Mar. 2022, https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/chinas-strategic-assessment-of-russia-more-complicated-than-you-think/.

20. Tung Chee Hwa. "China's Claims in the South China Sea." China-US Focus, 29 Jun. 2018, https://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/chinas-claims-in-the-south-china-sea.

21. Van der Wees, Gerrit. "When Taiwan was China’s (for seven years)." Taipei Times, 27 Feb. 2018, https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2018/02/27/2003688328.

22. Wang, Wen. "In Dialogue With Dugin: If Russia Seeks To Solve Issues, It Should Take China As An Example To Be Studied." Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, 4 Nov. 2022, http://rdcy.ruc.edu.cn/yw/LATEST_INSIGHTS/2e9246201ab648c3a434da692e3dd134.htm.

23. Wong, Edward, and Julian E. Barnes. "China Asked Russia to Delay Ukraine War Until After Olympics, U.S. Officials Say (Published 2022)." The New York Times, 2 Mar. 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/us/politics/russia-ukraine-china.html.

24. International Air Transport Association (IATA). Travel Information Manual. https://www.iata.org/en/publications/manuals-standards-regulations/travel-tourism/.