The Watcher’s Council Forum question this week was about our relationship with Russia and China: “China And Russia – Enemies or Potential Partners?”. There’s an interesting diversity of opinion among the Council members on this question.
As I think I’ve made clear I think that we’ve bungled our relations with Russia for the least three administrations. Those in Washington who are committed to ensuring that Russia is the enemy of the United States certainly seem to have gotten their way.
The situation with China is quite different. I think it’s people in Beijing who are committed to the two countries being enemies.
The question lacks symmetry. I would say that Russia and China are situational partners, probably Russia moreso, even though their disputes tend to take a higher profile. So long as these are illiberal states of some importance, one should not expect the U.S. to be a partner on the level of say France or Great Britain.
They are not enemies, but these states are opponents of the status quo which compels the U.S. towards containment. For Russia, territorial aggrandizement (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Crimea) and for China, maritime territorial claims in the South China Sea. I don’t believe the future of Transnistria or the Jackson atoll will push these countries into direct conflict, but I do think it will compel many states near Russia or China to align closer to the U.S. as a potential “offshore” balancer.
I think that Russia and China are natural adversaries of each other but not natural adversaries of the United States. Both are regional powers. Russia is only a global power by reason of its nuclear arsenal and China by virtue of its economic power.
With better handling on our part, Russia at least would not be our adversary.
China’s nuclear arsenal doesn’t count?
Steve
Steve, not yet, the Chinese can’t credibly menace the Bowash corridor.
Walt–I thought the DF-41 tests were good for them. Not true?
Steve
The Chinese nuclear arsenal is probably 1% of the Russian arsenal.
China has 250 warheads, Russia 7700, but that puts China at about the same level as France or the UK. Way more that India, Pakistan or Israel. Latest models show that detonating 100 is enough to make the entire world a tough place to live.
Steve
Hmm. According to the Department of Defense (“Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China,”U.S. Department of Defense, 2013, p. 31 http://www.defense.gov; “Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China,†U.S. Department of Defense, 2014, p. 9 http://www.defense.gov; U.S. Department of Defense, “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2015,” April 2015, p. 31, http://www.defense.gov.) China has fewer than 100 nuclear-capable ICBMs.
And most are medium range capable of hitting the West Coast and maybe as far as St. Louis and appear pointed mainly at India and Pakistan. When they deploy their boomers to the Atlantic, important people might be perturbed.